Did Jesus Come from Heaven?

The Scriptures speak of Jesus as being "sent" by God; i.e., John 3:17; 3:34; 5:23; 5:36; 6:38; 7:28-29. When one is "sent" he goes by command of one with higher authority to fulfill a specific task. This is what it means to be sent! In the case of Jesus, he was sent from heaven. One of the Scriptures that has contributed significantly to a literal understanding of this is John 6:33 where we find the words "he who comes down from heaven", and again in John 6:38 where Jesus says "I have come down from heaven." Also in John 7:29 which says "... I come from him, and he sent me." Even Paul seems to agree in 1 Cor 15:47 which says, "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man [Jesus] from heaven." That seems to settle the issue doesn't it? Jesus was sent to earth by God - he came down from heaven! But is it proper and reasonable to interpret these verses in such a literal fashion?

Actually, the phrase "come down from heaven" can be understood in two ways. Of course, the traditional view is that Jesus is himself God - the second person in a trinity - who descended to earth and became a man. But the problem with this view is that, although popular, the Scriptures do not actually teach it. In spite of it's lack of Biblical support either in the Old Testament, the Synoptic gospels, or the Church Epistles, the majority of Christians still accept the incarnation (enfleshment) as 'gospel truth'. I did! I held to the traditional view of Jesus as God for well over 30 years. But after allowing myself to consider the possibility that I could be wrong, and after much study, prayer, and discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the incarnation doctrine is just a fabrication. By combining the virgin birth passages in Matthew and Luke, and the Scriptures mentioned above from the gospel of John, inferences are then drawn that Jesus literally "came" from heaven. But in order to make those inferences, one must totally ignore other powerful Scriptures which clearly teach the opposite!

The virgin birth is a miracle to be sure, but tradition has made entirely too much of it. The virgin birth is exactly what it says it is - a birth! There is no need to convolute the truth! Jesus was conceived when God implanted perfectly created human seed into Mary. The result was a birth! The Scripture reads in plain language that Jesus was "born". Study the following (Mat_1:16, 18, 25, 2:1; 11:11; 26:24; Luk_1:14, 35, 57; 2:6-7, 11; 7:28) and read my blog post "Jesus: Son of God". Being born, even though the conception is miraculous, does NOT presume preexistence; if Jesus preexisted his earthly birth in heaven, then Mary would have been no more than a conduit, not a mother! To be born means to be produced, brought forth, brought into life.

There is another way to interpret the phrase "come down from heaven". When Jesus referred to himself as "coming down from heaven" it was John's way of attesting the fact that Jesus' power and authority came directly from God. We must remember that the authors of each gospel wrote from a particular point of view, and to a particular audience in order to tell the story of Jesus from their own perspective. John wrote to Hellenistic Jews. His perspective was that Jesus was indeed the promised and long awaited Messiah whose life, even before the resurrection and ascension, was so in sync with God the Father that he could speak of himself as being "one" with Him (John 10:10), and could say "whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). John's gospel has long been known as 'the spiritual gospel', and for good reason. Unfortunately, traditionalists have selectively interpreted it literally rather than spiritually which has caused much confusion.

The phrase "from heaven" is a Hebraism which was not confusing to Jesus' listener's. They readily understood it's meaning. The same term is used in Luke 20:1-8 where Jesus confronts the Pharisees regarding their understanding of John's baptism, whether it was "from heaven or from man". The contrast Jesus drew (heaven/man) clearly explains the meaning of the phrase 'from heaven'. Jesus was asking whether the origin of John's authority and his commission to baptize had it's source from God or from mere human design.

Think about this: Jesus was charged with blasphemy for saying 'My Father is working until now, and I am working' (John 5:17) because he spoke of God as his Father. If the Pharisees had understood his claim to be 'from heaven' as meaning that he existed in heaven prior to his life on earth, wouldn't that have given them even weightier grounds on which to accuse him? The only explanation for their failure to make that accusation must be that his claims were understood by his Hebrew audience as an assertion of the origin of his authority- not a prior life in heaven!

To "come down from heaven" and to be "sent" by God, are synonymous terms. The word "sent" in the New Testament is apostello from which the word apostle derives (see Mark 3:14). Essentially the word apostello means "to set apart... send out". The point is, to be sent (apostello) is to be commissioned, or charged with a task. According to John 6:38, Jesus came down from heaven (the source of his authority was from God), not to do his own will (not to promote his own agenda) but to do the will of the one who sent him (the will of the One by whose authority he was commissioned). Jesus was not literally sent down from heaven, he was commissioned by God with a specific task! What was that task? To do the will of the One who sent him! According to Luke 4:43 the will of God was for Jesus to preach the good news about the kingdom of God!

"but he said to them, 'I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.'"

The writer of the book of Hebrews acknowledges this in 3:1 which refers to Jesus as "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." In other words, as the apostle of our confession, Jesus was commissioned with the divine task of preaching the good news The force of the truth that Jesus was sent in the sense of being authorized by God for a specific purpose is even clearer when we realize that John the Baptist was himself "sent" in the very same sense!

"Now there was man sent (apostello) by God whose name was John. ( John 1:6)

And even greater clarity is given when we read the following...

"As you sent me into the world, so I have sent (apostello) them into the world". (John 17:8)
"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent (apostello) me, even so I am sending (apostello) you." (John 20:21)

Does anyone believe that John the Baptist or the apostles came down out of heaven? Of course not! But we do believe that they exercised a heavenly derived authority in their work and doctrine.

Likewise, Paul, in 1Corinthians 15:47, was not comparing Adam's humanity with Jesus' divinity! If you follow the analogy through, in context (1Co_15:45-49), Paul is using the word "heavenly" as meaning 'from God'.

The purpose of this article is not to demean the lord Jesus in any way. But to make him into God, when the Scriptures clearly distinguish him from God, severely detracts from his humanity. How could Jesus have been "...in all things ... made like unto his brethren..." (Hebrews 2:17) if he preexisted as God and was literally sent down from heaven? Or even more confounding, to be both God and man at the same time? Who can understand such a thing.... who can relate to such a being?

"But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me". (John 5:36)

Jesus is "a man whom he [God] appointed" (Acts 17:31) His work and his message had it's origin and authority from God, and he was empowered by God to fulfill that commission. The fact that he accomplished this God-given work as a genuine man, NOT as God or God-Man, makes it all the more powerful and meaningful to those who claim to be his followers.

Will You Go to Heaven When You Die?

From childhood, it has been my understanding that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell when they die. Of course, as I got older, I learned that it wasn't just being a good person that got you into heaven, but being born again! (John 3:3) In fact, I learned that it is impossible for any person to be good enough to earn a place in heaven, that's why Jesus had to die on the cross. He became our substitute, We were the ones who deserved death, because we are sinners. But Christ never sinned, yet He died in our place, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that we could live forever – with Him – in heaven.

I think that pretty well sums up the basic concept of modern-day Christianity. Now, I have since come to a much deeper understanding of what the Bible teaches about our salvation. But for this article, I want to focus on the orthodox Christian view of "going to heaven" when we die because I think we have been misguided on this subject.

As I reflect on my past, it's difficult for me to pinpoint any one sermon, Bible class, book, recording, or article that actually supported, with solid Scriptural evidence, the common Christian teaching that we go to a place called heaven when we die. Yet, it was taught as matter of fact and the concept is so pervasive in our culture that it is accepted without question as Bible truth.

Reading through my Bible, however, I find that Jesus teaches often about the kingdom of God ; the first Christians, as recorded in the book of Acts, preached and taught about the kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus; and we find the kingdom mentioned often in Paul's epistles as well. However, "going to heaven" seems to be curiously missing! Is it possible that heaven is synonymous with the kingdom of God, or kingdom of heaven?

In my recent studies on the subject I have discovered that, in fact, the Bible nowhere promises a place called heaven as the final home of the Christian believer! The idea that souls go to heaven at the time of death is apparently more of an inference resulting from the misinterpretation of certain scriptures, rather than a true Biblical teaching.

Recently I had to attend the funeral of my father-in-law. He was a good man and will be greatly missed. But as a believer, the family is comforted in knowing that his eternal home is fixed and secure in Christ. However, my family, like many other typical Christian families, believe that he was ushered directly into the presence of Jesus, in heaven. Now, don't misunderstand me... I don't have a problem with the idea of going to heaven to be with Jesus when I die. The issue for me is: is that what the Bible teaches? If it is, I gladly accept it; but if not, I want to know the truth!

Shortly after my father-in-laws death, while the family was still at the hospital, one of the family members, in an effort to say something comforting to the others, began to relate something she had read recently in a book. I will not mention the book or the author, since I have not read it for myself, but as she told it, the author was writing about death from the perspective of those who are already in heaven. This author imagined that when the death of a saint was announced, all of heaven gathered together to welcome the new soul into heaven as though they were witnessing a birth, and as the new soul poked itself through heaven's portal, the angels announced, "It's a boy!!"

Well, that may be an amusing and lighthearted way of looking at death, and perhaps even helps to bring comfort to some at a time when the reality of death can be so heavy. But is it really advisable for Christians to be comforted by something other than truth? Should we not rather comfort ourselves with what God says? I think we should... I think it's what God expects of us!

The following quote from the Zondervan Study Bible regarding the topics of heaven and hell is quite telling.

"Most Christians have definite, though hazy, notions about heaven and hell. We are confident of our resurrection. We are sure that just and unjust alike are ever-living persons. Saved and unsaved will exist forever as self-conscious, aware individuals. Usually we speak of "heaven" as the place where believers go at death, and "hell" as the place where unbelievers go. But when we explore the use of these words in the OT and NT, we discover how little is said about heaven and hell as we usually understand them!"

Notice that is says: “we are confident of our resurrection” and “we are sure that just and unjust alike are ever-living persons.” These two statements are in direct opposition to each other! If we are ever-living persons, of what value is a resurrection? Yet, there can be no doubt about this mindset among most Christians today. Even more surprising though, is the last sentence in the quote above which states that an exploration of the Bible on the subject reveals “how little is said about heaven and hell as we usually understand them!”

Many dictionaries, such as Easton's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary include the phrase “home of the children of God” in their descriptions of heaven; however, there does not seem to be any basis for this idea from Scripture. It is simply recorded as a “given” without citing reasonable, specific, Scripture references! Consider the following...

Nelson's New Christian Dictionary reads:

heaven 1. Eternal abode of God, the uncreated spiritual realm inhabited by God as well as his angels. 2. Source of everything that is good and changeless and proceeds from God. Thus, in Matthew the question is asked, “Whence was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matt. 21:25). Jesus and his work are from “heaven” and from “above” (John 3:13, 31, 35). Accordingly, “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above” (James 1:7), and the Lord’s Prayer is that God’s will be done “on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). 3. Believer’s hope and eternal home which “eye has not seen, nor ear heard” (1 Cor. 2:9). It is a place of love (1 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 3:19), rest (Heb. 4:9), joy (Luke 15:7), knowledge (1 Cor. 13:12), and perfect harmony (Rom. 8:17; Rev. 22:3).
Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

The above source does very well until it comes to point #3. Notice that heaven is given as the “Believer’s hope and eternal home...” But even a brief look at the Scripture references cited on that point, leaves much to be desired in actual support of the statement!

The following is copied exactly from Nelson's Bible Dictionary. I have chosen to use this information in it's entirety because it seems to be quite accurate. The only problem lies in the fact that what the articles below describe is thought to be experienced upon the believers death, when his soul departs the body and goes to heaven. I do not believe this happens. I believe we sleep in death until the return of Christ at which time we will be resurrected. But, read and judge for yourself.

HEAVEN — a word that expresses several distinct concepts in the Bible:
1. As used in a physical sense, heaven is the expanse over the earth (Gen. 1:8). The tower of Babel reached upward to heaven (Gen. 11:4). God is the possessor of heaven (Gen. 14:19). Heaven is the location of the stars (Gen. 1:14; 26:4) as well as the source of dew (Gen. 27:28).
2. Heaven is also the dwelling place of God (Gen. 28:17; Rev. 12:7–8). It is the source of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 10). Because of the work of Christ on the Cross, heaven is, in part, present with believers on earth as they obey God’s commands (John 14:2, 23).
3. The word “heaven” is also used as a substitute for the name of God (Luke 15:18, 21; John 3:27). The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are often spoken of interchangeably (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). At the end of time a new heaven will be created to surround the new earth. This new heaven will be the place of God’s perfect presence (Is. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1). Then there will be a literal fulfillment of heaven on earth.

HEAVENLY CITY, THE — the city prepared and built by God for those who are faithful to Him (Heb. 11:10, 16). Known as the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22), this is the city that is to come (Heb. 13:14). These references in Hebrews find their fulfillment in Revelation 21–22. The New Jerusalem is illuminated by the glory of God. It serves as the dwelling place of God among His redeemed forever.

HEAVENS, NEW — a term that, when used with “new earth,” refers to the perfected state of the created universe and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The phrase is found in Isaiah 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, and in a slightly modified form in Revelation 21:1.
Rooted deep in Jewish thought was the dream of a new heaven and a new earth, a re-creation of the universe that would occur following the Day of the Lord (Is. 13:10–13; Joel 2:1–2, 30–31). The concept of a re-created universe is closely related to the biblical account of the Creation and the Fall and the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1–3). Because of their sin, “the creation was subjected to futility . . . [and] the bondage of corruption” (Rom. 8:19, 21). The need for a new heaven and a new earth arises from human sin and God’s judgment, not from some deficiency or evil in the universe (Gen. 3:17).

The apostle Paul referred to the Old Testament doctrine of the Day of the Lord and applied it to the events that will occur at the Second Coming of Christ (2 Pet. 3:10, 13). When Christ returns, this present evil age will give way to the age to come. The universe will be purified and cleansed by the power of God. This will be reminiscent of the purging of the earth in the days of Noah, but on a universal scale.
Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index. Nashville: T. Nelson.

I believe the above article faithfully describes the Biblical teaching about heaven; but as you can see for yourself, heaven is not depicted as as a place, apart from this earth, where souls go after death to pass await bodily resurrection. Rather, the heavens that have anything to do with people are “new heavens” and are associated with the “new earth”. And the heavenly city, where the righteous will also dwell, will come down from heaven and rest over the earth! But what must be understood here is that the new heavens and the heavenly city do not currently exist as destinations for the righteous dead. Instead, they are promised as part of the age to come - the coming kingdom of God, which will be established at the second coming of Christ!

So then, if the information above faithfully represents what the Bible says about heaven, where did the idea come from that righteous souls go to heaven when they die? I will reserve the answer for another article. But if this topic is intriguing to you, I highly recommend that you read some of Anthony Buzzard's writings on the subject. Click here to go to his website articles page..

Keith

Jesus: The Perfect Man; Our Perfect Example!

"And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'" --Acts 1:9-11 (ESV)

Here's a good question to ponder...
If Jesus is God, the 2nd Person in the Trinity, and He existed as God before coming as a man, did He cease being a man when He left this earth? Did He go back to His prior state of Godhood that He enjoyed prior to the incarnation, as suggested by Trinitarian doctrine?

Several years ago I was teaching a lesson on how Jesus' perfectly modeled for us walking in the power of the Spirit. The premise of the teaching was that Jesus did what He did and said what He said, not because He was God, but because He was full of the Holy Spirit! In other words, everything He did on this earth, He did as a man, anointed, filled, and led by the Spirit of God. The lesson I was attempting to draw was that since Jesus gave us the example of his own life, as a man, we should be encouraged to do as He did. We also are anointed, filled and can be led by the Spirit of God. And he said "...whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:12 (ESV))

One of the Scriptures I used to support my teaching was Philippians 2:7 where it says that He (Jesus) "emptied Himself" and became a servant. This phrase, "emptied himself", has been interpreted various ways. But for me, at the time, I understood it as meaning that Jesus set aside - or laid down - His Diety. This is known as the "kenotic theory" (kenosi being the Greek word meaning emptied). Given this "emptying" or temporary giving up his Divine nature, He could then be filled with the Spirit and be our perfect example of a Spirit-filled man! The idea that, being God, yet willingly coming to earth to live a totally human life - not as God in any way - was very appealing to me because His example for us was real and believable.

At the time, of course, I didn't realize that the kenotic theory, or kenosis, was actually rejected by modern, up-to-date, scholarship. The reason it is rejected, even by Trinitarian scholars, is because emptying himself of Deity would mean that Jesus was temporarily NOT God. According the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus never ceased being God at any time and was always conscious of his Deity. He merely "took on" human flesh, so He was always conscious both of His humanity and His Deity.

The reason I bring all this up is because I realize now that even some years prior to my current understanding of Jesus complete humanity (not God), I had found, in the kenosis, a way to reconcile his Deity with his humanity. I knew that Jesus had to be a man in order for his temptations to be real, and he had to be human for his example to be meaningful for us, but I thought he also had to be God! The kenotic theory solved the problem.

Jesus, being led and empowered by the Spirit, made great sense to me; but I also saw, even then, that while laying down His Deity while here on earth (although a mistaken idea), He DID NOT lay down His humanity when He ascended into heaven! I remember my elation at this discovery from Acts 1:9-10 which says

"as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight."

Then it goes on to say that he will come again

"in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

You see, this means that Jesus did not drop his body off and spiritually ascend into heaven thus returning to His previous state of glory with the Father. Clearly, when Jesus rose from the dead, his body changed because he was apparently able to appear and disappear at will, yet his body was solid and he could eat and be touched (Luke 24:39-42) . It was this body that the disciples physically "saw" being taken up into heaven, and according to the text, he will come again in the same way; i.e. physically, in the body he had then!

Now I understand that the kenosis of Phil 2:7 has to do with his willingness to humble himself and be obedient even to the point of death on a cross. The fact of his humanity - being anointed by God and empowered by the Spirit - does not have to be confused by any idea of a dual nature. This only causes problems when trying to make sense of his life, his words, and his work!

Consider this...

• As a man, he was born and thus had a beginning. (Luke 1:35)
• As a man, he developed an intimate relationship with his Father God, from an early age. (Luke 2:40,45)
• As a man, he continued growing and finding favor with God and man.(Luke 2:52)
• As a man, he had complete dependence on God. (John 8:28; 12:49-50)
• As a man, he learned obedience through the things he suffered. (Heb 5:8)
• As a man, he succeeded where Adam failed. (Rom 5:14ff)
• As man, he lived a complely sinless life. (Heb 4:15)
• As a man, he was the perfect image of God, that we were meant to be. (Gen 1:27; Heb 1:3)
• As a man, he was the first to be raised from the dead and the only one to ever ascend into heaven. (1 Cor 15:20-23; Acts 1:11; 3:21; 2:34)
• As a man, he has been made both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
• As a man, God highly exalted him and gave him a name above every name. (Phil 2:9)
• As a man, he now sits at the right hand of God as our mediator and intercessor! (Rom 8:34; 1 Tim 2:5)
• As a man, he will come again to be king over all the earth. (Acts 1:11; Luke 1:33; Rev 11:15; 20:4)
• And as a man, he will finally hand over the kingdom to The Father, so that "God may be all in all." (1 Cor 15:28)
  

Jesus is truly the perfect man, our champion, and our perfect example!

It's almost surreal that I could be writing about Jesus being human and not God when only a little over a year ago I would have fiercely defended the Deity of Christ. I had always been taught that all of the cults had this one thing in common - every cult denied the Deity of Christ. This is a huge problem for evangelical Christians because it is taught that Jesus must be God in order to have paid for our sin!

Now, you may call me a cultist if you like, but the way I see it, I have come to the simple understanding of the plain teaching of Scripture, and have adopted a much more exalted view of Jesus than I ever had before! People seem to think that denying the Deity of Christ is taking something away from him, but this is not true. I take nothing away; rather, I ascribe to him all the glory given to him by God! (1 Pet 1:20) Taking this view of Jesus preserves the veracity of Scripture and the uniqueness of Christ, giving him greater status as the perfect man and our perfect example! And to me, it makes much more sense of the Biblical message.

God Bless,
Keith

God: Who or What?

"But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles— to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'" -- Acts 26:16-18 (ESV)

Isn't it interesting? As Paul retells the story of his conversion experience he notes that when Jesus appeared to him, he appeared with instructions regarding Paul's life mission; i.e. to open the eyes of the spiritually blinded and turn them from "the power of Satan to God." He also said that in their turning to God, they would "receive forgiveness of sins ... by faith in me [Jesus]." So, we have Jesus appearing to Paul and speaking to him about pointing people to God through faith in Himself!

Clearly, God is referenced as a distinctly separate being from Jesus. Note that Jesus did not say that Paul would turn them from the power of Satan to Me! It is, of course, by faith in Jesus that men come to God. This is in complete agreement with what Jesus said himself in the gospels (which we noted in the last blog post (John 14:1-6).

It is very curious to me that people don't seem to pay much attention to the word "God" as it is used in the English language. For example, in today's Christian culture if someone is heard uttering the phrase "God damn", it is considered taking the Lord's name in vain. Now, let's think about that for a moment. It may be crude and improper to say such a thing, especially when it is directed toward another human being. We do not wish for God to damn anyone and it is vulgar to say it. However, we must ask ourselves, "in what way is using this term taking God's Name in vain?"

It seems to me many people have a serious misunderstanding of the definition of God! God, as it applies to OUR God, the Father of the lord Jesus Christ, is a designation for the Supreme Being - the Creator and Originator of Life. God's Name however, is Yahweh, or Jehovah! So sacred is that Name, that ancient Jews would not dare to speak it or even write it; hence the letters YHWH (known as the tetragrammaton), to avoid actually using the proper Name. In the King James Bible, where the tetragrammaton appeared, the translators supplied the term "LORD." The word God is descriptive of "what" He is, just as "man" describes what we are. Yahweh, on the other hand, is descriptive of "who" He is - it is His Name!

Now, here is where it gets confusing. If, as orthodoxy suggests, God is a tri-unity, then when we use the word God, it is understood that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is meant. In speaking, or writing the term God, we must already have in our minds a being who is three persons, yet only one (a concept that, of course, makes no logical sense at all). But if "God" describes the divine Trinity, what sense would it make for any New Testament writer to use it in the same sentence with the terms Father, Jesus, or Holy Spirit?

For example: In Rom 1:8 Paul says "I thank my God through Jesus Christ." Why would it be necessary for Paul to thank God "through" Jesus Christ, if Jesus is already God. If thanks was intended for one person of the Godhead, it would make better sense to simply say "I thank the Father", or "I thank Jesus", or "the Spirit." Or, if thanks were meant for two it might be said "I thank the Father, with Jesus", etc. Otherwise, it would be just as accurate to say "I thank God" without qualifying it further, knowing that the term "God" includes the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Now then, if when God and Jesus appear together the word God is taken as meaning "the Father" it would make sense to use the words together, i.e. "I thank the Father through Jesus Christ", but that raises another big problem! Using the word God to mean "Father" would not work because in Rom 1:7 and many other places in the NT, Paul greets Christians with the familiar greeting "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." In this case, if God already means "Father" it would not only be unnecessary to qualify God as "our Father", it would make the sentence extremely awkward. One would simply expect Paul to say Grace to you and peace from God.

Needless to say, this whole argument is rather silly! Just as silly, I would suggest, as the idea that the Bible actually instructs us in the idea that God is three persons in one, and that Jesus is both fully human AND fully God at the same time! Why must we complicate the relationship between God and Jesus when that relationship is plainly stated in Scripture (with the exception of a couple of verses) as Father and Son? The only reason that can be given is that the tradition of the Trinity has become so firmly seated that it is difficult to think outside the box that has been created for us. As we have seen, both here and in the last post from the book of Acts, neither Paul nor Luke seem to have had any concept of Jesus being God, or of God being a Trinity.

I hope this point about "God" makes sense to somebody. If not, please show me where I am wrong.

Gob bless,

Keith

"Innocent of blood"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Soul" of the Matter

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

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

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

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

God said to Adam and Eve...

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

But Satan deceived the woman.

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

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

The best place to start is in the beginning.

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

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

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

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

Isaac Newton Was A Heretic!

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

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

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

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

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

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

submitted by
Keith