Christology of Hebrews

It is so important to analyze – even be critical – of what we hear and read, especially when it comes to matters of faith and bible interpretation. I don’t mean we should be critical to such a degree that it fosters unbelief; but critical thinking can be healthy in so far as it encourages deeper thought and further study. In fact, I believe it is essential in coming to a knowledge of the truth! (1 Tim 2:3-5) In other words, don’t just accept everything written or spoken by well-meaning scholars and/or teachers as gospel truth. (2 Tim 2:15)
Since discovering the reality that the trinity doctrine is a contrivance of man, rather than a revelation of God, I have come to appreciate the necessity of critical thinking when using reference tools in my personal Bible study! All the books and reference tools in my Bible study library are fundamentally orthodox and traditional in their content. The fact is, a significant majority of the Bible reference works written, both past and present, were authored by Trinitarian scholars.
Our traditions have taught us that the orthodox view is THE correct view of the nature of God and Christ and therefore the ONLY acceptable view. All other views must therefore be false, even demonic. This tends to keep people from taking any other view seriously, much less actually reading literature which introduces an opposing view to their own. Yet, I know of no orthodox Christian who can satisfactorily answer for themselves, let alone those outside the household of faith, basic and reasonable questions regarding the conflict of the supposed “dual nature” of Christ. The patent answer to this obvious disparity is simply that “it’s a mystery”.
But the Bible makes no such conflicting statements. And if we allow ourselves to read with “new eyes” (that is, read without the filter of centuries of traditional teaching – as difficult as it may be) and do proper exegesis of the texts of Scripture, the Bible becomes a much more understandable, even believable book.
One of the Bible reference tools I use is the Nelson Study Bible. I haven’t thrown it away, nor will I. In fact, I still use all my reference works. But instead of taking their conclusions as the final authority, I’ve learned to be critical, and think for myself. Below is a reproduction of a table found in the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) which I came across recently while reading in the book of Hebrews. The first column of the table gives the Scripture reference to Christ in Hebrews and the second column conveys the authors’ interpretation of it’s meaning. I have added a third column for my own commentary on each point.
//////////////////////////
The Majesty of Christ
Hebrews is perhaps the greatest
Christological book in the Bible, giving
us a detailed description of the at-
tributes and accomplishments of
Jesus Christ. The following chart is a
summary.

Christ is…	This means…	My commentary…
heir of all things (Heb 1:2)	As God’s “firstborn” Son, Christ will inherit infinite glory and honor.	Amen! In fact, he has already been “highly exalted” and given a “name above every name” (Phil 2:9-11)
the One through whom God made the worlds (Heb 1:2)	Christ was the Agent who created the universe.	Not so! The idea that Christ created the world comes from two false assumptions. The First false assumption is, that Christ is part of a triune God. If this is so, then the Father God was apparently not capable of creating the world on His own. The fact is, God alone created the world (Isa 44:24, ) and even Jesus agrees (Mat 19:4; Mk 10:6; Luke 11:40). The Second false assumption is, that the correct translation of the Greek word aion is world, or universe! Actually, an aion is an age. It was “through” Christ that God made the ages. He is the focal point of every age, past, present, and future. It makes no sense, within the following context of chapter one (esp. v9), to speak of Jesus as being the creator of the physical world.
the brightness of God’s glory (Heb 1:3)	Christ reflects the majesty of God.	Amen to that!
the express image of His person (Heb 1:3)	Christ is God made visible, in the flesh.	Now that is quite a leap from what the text says! Although Christ is the “exact” representation of God, he is still a “representation”! He IS the image of God we were meant to be had it not been for the fall of Adam. Jesus was the perfect man because he represented/reflected God’s glory, perfectly!
upholding all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3)	Christ holds the universe together (Col 1:17)	Most Bible versions say “all things” rather than universe in both Hebrews and Colossians. The “all things” being held together is a reference to the new creation, not the physical universe.
seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3)	Christ is reigning and ruling with God the Father as Lord over all.	According to Acts 2:36, Jesus Christ has been “made” lord and Christ by God the Father. His lordship is now over the church – his body (Eph 1:22) – but will one day be over all the earth! (Rev 19:15) Then, when all his enemies are subdued, he will hand over the kingdom to God, that “God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:25-28)
better than the angels (Heb 1:4)	Christ is to be exalted more than the angels, no matter how glorious and awe-inspiring they are.	Duh! The Jews were not angel worshippers and didn’t need an exhortation to worship Christ above angels. The whole point of Hebrews is to show that God did a better thing in speaking through a son! Christ, although man, re-presented God better than any angel.
Captain of our salvation (Heb 2:10)	Christ is the founder of the effort to “bring many sons to glory” (Heb 5:9)	The word “founder” is translated from archegos, and is rendered in various versions as prince, leader, author, pioneer, and captain. The “founder” of our salvation is God the Father. God alone is the designer, the originator, of the plan of salvation. Jesus fulfilled God’s will in making His plan of salvation a reality. In bringing “many sons to glory”, it must be understood that Jesus is the “firstfruits” of those that sleep. (1 Cor 15:20) As archegos of salvation, he is the first to fully experience that salvation because God raised him from the dead. He is now leader of all who follow after him by faith. When he appears again (his second coming), “we will be like him” for we will “see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2). This phrase “see him as he is” must be a reference to the fact that he is a glorified human being, otherwise John would be saying that we will become God when we see him. Even Trinitarians do not believe that!
the destroyer … of … the devil (Heb 2:14)	In dying for our sins, Christ overcame our greatest enemies – death and the devil.	How true! He is victor over sin and death, and in him, we are also overcomers in every way. (1 Jn 5:4, Rom 8:37)
a merciful and faithful high priest (Heb 2:17)	Christ brought the ultimate sacrifice before God – his own blood – so that we might have fellowship with God.	Praise God, the sacrifice of his life’s blood did indeed make it possible for us to have fellowship with God! However, it should be noted that the bible doesn’t really say that Jesus presented his blood before the Father. This is conjecture based on the pre-sumption that he is the God-Man of the trinity. It is true that the role of high priest was to take the blood into the holy of holies once a year, on the day of atonement, and this is where the symbolism comes from; however, the point the writer wants to make here is that as high priest, Jesus had to be human in order to atone for humanity.(Heb 10:4-5)
worthy of more glory than Moses (Heb 3:3)	Unlike Moses, who was merely a servant in the house of God, Christ is the “Son over His own house” (Heb 3:6).	That’s right, Jesus is worthy of more honor than Moses, and that is because he is more than a servant or great prophet, but a unique son! The better translation of v6 is “faithful over God’s house as a son” This is in line with v4 which reads “the builder of all things is God.” Otherwise, it sounds as if the house is the son’s, when in fact, it is God’s! Notice also that in v2, Jesus was “faithful to him who appointed him” just as Moses was also appointed and faithful. And who appointed Moses? The same God, the only true God (Jn 17:3), that appointed Jesus. (Acts 10:42, 17:31; Heb 1:2)
a high priest who can sympathize with our weak-nesses (Heb 4:15)	While on this earth, Jesus experienced the temptations and trials of living in a fallen world. He understands the struggles we face and has com-passion for us.	He understands us perfectly because he is one of us! (Heb 2:17) Yes… Jesus is no longer on the earth, he is in heaven. But prefacing the statement with “While on this earth”, and the use of the word “experienced” leads one to think that Jesus pre-existed his life on earth and merely experienced humanity. This kind of manipulation robs this text, and others, of it’s full impact
always alive to make intercession (Heb 7:25)	Christ’s priesthood is eternal. We will always have a perfect represent-ative for us before the throne of God.	He’s always alive now, but he is not eternal in the sense that he always lived before! The first part of this verse says he is able to fully save those who come to God “through” him.
Mediator of a better covenant (Heb 8:6)	The old covenant with its earthly tabernacle and imperfect priests has been super-seded by the sinless Christ. He is our high priest who is interceding for us before God in heaven.	It is true! But Christ mediates a better covenant because it is founded upon better promises, not because he is sinless and the priests of the old covenant were not. Notice also that the verse declares that Christ’s ministry as high priest has been "given” him, or “obtained” by him. How did he obtain it unless it was given to him? And who gave it? It was God who gave him the better ministry! (1 Tim 2:5)
our model for enduring hostility from sinners (Heb 12:2-3)	When we are discouraged, we can find strength and inspiration in Christ’s willingness to persevere.	Amen to that! But as soon as we consider Christ to be more than a man – to be God as well as man – the inspiration is lost! We cannot fully relate to a person who, although touted to be human like us, is at the same time, God! It is here that the similarity ends and the analogy breaks down. Notice that in the referenced Scripture, it was because of the “joy that was set before him” that he endured the cross and the hostility of sinners. What was that joy? Was it not the in-heritance of God’s kingdom on earth, where it was promised that he would reign supreme? Was it not the promise of the highest exaltation, that he should sit at the right hand of God? Similarly, our motivation, our inspiration, to endure hostility is that, we also will be exalted (James 4:6,10) and will reign with him, (Rev 5:10, 20:5)
that great shepherd of the sheep (Heb 13:20)	Christ will care for us and lead us to our eternal home.	Amen! He is indeed the great shepherd of the sheep. It seems, however, to be far too easy to overlook the part of this Scripture that says of God that He “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus.” As shepherd, he knows the way, because he has been there; and he has both the power and authority to lead us, because it has been given to him!

Virtually every verse in this table which shows the majesty of Christ, also demonstrates the fact that Christ is not equal to God. Rather, Jesus is portrayed as a chosen vessel, exalted servant, and unique son. He is worthy of our praise, absolutely, but certainly not God himself!

The Kingdom of God: Is it "within" you?

Many Bible versions, most notably the KJV, translate Luke 17:21 with Jesus telling the Pharisees that the kingdom of God is "within" them [you]. There seems to be no shortage of books and other media regarding the Kingdom of God "in you" but is that good Bible exegesis? I have heard this teaching all my adult life, and still hear it quite often. Failure to properly understand Jesus words in Luke 17:21 has led to an abundance of erroneous teaching on the subject. Unfortunately, it is even used by new age groups whose false teaching says you can prosper and have everything you want, now, because "the Kingdom of God is within you."

Is it any wonder that modern Christianity perceives the Kingdom of God as something primarily spiritual? The reign of God in ones heart? Certainly God wants to rule our lives and that is characteristic of what the Kingdom of God is to be like... the will of God being done in earth as it is in heaven. But newer scholarship seems to recognize that Jesus was not teaching a purely spiritual concept here. Many modern translations such as NASB, RSV, NET, NIV, and others, render the verse in question as "among you", "in your midst" or something similar. This makes a huge difference in understanding, and makes much more sense of Jesus response in context.

The “Dictionary of Biblical Imagery” gives a fair treatment of the subject as indicated by the following:

“Although the kingdom of God is not a political term in the usual sense, from the Jewish perspective—where religion and politics are not neatly divided—it bears political implications. If God is king, then Caesar is not (cf. Acts 17:7), nor is his client—king Herod. Jesus points out that the kingdom “is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ ” (Lk 17:20 NRSV). Instead, he says, “the kingdom of God is entos hymin” (Lk 17:21), that is “in your midst” or “within your grasp” (not “within you,” as if to say “in your heart”).” -- Ryken, L., Wilhoit, J., Longman, T., Duriez, C., Penney, D., & Reid, D. G. (2000, c1998). Dictionary of biblical imagery (electronic ed.) (479). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

  Also, the NET Bible renders the phrase "in your midst" and explains the choice of translation in the footnote as follows:

"This is a far better translation than "in you." Jesus would never tell the hostile Pharisees that the kingdom was inside them. The reference is to Jesus present in their midst. He brings the kingdom. Another possible translation would be "in your grasp." For further discussion and options, see D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1414-19." The NET Bible: Compact Edition - Premium Bonded Leather, Amazona Black  

How true! How easy it is to neglect the most basic rules of Bible interpretation - context - especially when we want to preserve a tradition.

For a Biblically sound treatment on the subject of the Kingdom of God, I suggest you read Anthony Buzzards book, The Coming Kingdom of the Messiah: A Solution to the Riddle of the New Testament. In fact, I would not hesitate to recommend any of Mr Buzzard's books.

 It was not Jesus intention to teach a spiritual Kingdom within. The Jews of Jesus day were expecting a Messiah to establish God's reign on the earth and Jesus never taught otherwise (See Matthew 5:5). However, Jesus did say that the Messiah must first suffer, die, and be raised from the dead, before the Kingdom would come. (Mark 8:31)

In Acts 1:6, the disciples asked Jesus, just prior to his ascension into heaven, if this was the time he would restore the Kingdom to Israel. Many commentators have assumed that the apostles were still spiritually inept and just didn't get it. They were still looking for an earthly, political, kingdom, when Jesus had spent the previous three years teaching them that His kingdom was a spiritual one. I don't think it is fair to assume that Jesus' "hand-picked" men just didn't get it. And, after all, Jesus did not correct or rebuke them for their ignorance here, he simply said "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." --Acts 1:7 (ESV)

Some have thought that the disciples couldn't clearly understand Jesus teaching until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit, but that baptism was for "power" to be witnesses, not sudden enlightenment from spiritual ignorance (Acts 1:8)

Bottom line... the Kingdom of God is not "in" you, but it is coming and it is within your grasp. Further, we should not confuse the Kingdom of God and the Church, they are not the same thing. The Church, as the "body of Christ" is to complete Jesus' mission, which was to preach the gospel of the kingdom (Luke 4:43; John 17:18). Where the word is being preached and the people respond in faith, we should expect "signs" to follow as confirmation that the Kingdom of God has come near! (Mark 16:20; Luke 10:8-9)

As the redeemed ones, the Church, we now have citizenship in that heavenly Kingdom, but it isn't here yet. We are however, representatives of that Kingdom! (Eph 2:19; Philippians 3:20; 2Cor 5:20)

Some Thoughts About Incarnation and Resurrection

Christmas is the time of year when Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. Never mind all the tradition and commercial baggage that the holiday has acquired over the years, or the fact that Jesus was probably not even born in December; it is still recognized as one of the holiest days on the Christian calendar. We talk about the Christmas “spirit” which is a spirit of peace and love, and we give gifts to one another in remembrance of the greatest gift ever given, the gift that God gave to the world – His Son. Now I’m all for peace and love and the giving of gifts… that’s a good thing; but at the same time, I’m concerned that the real meaning and impact of the Christmas story is lost in all the hype of the Christmas holiday.

It seems to me that religious tradition and retail business have joined forces to mask the real story of Christmas – the one the Bible actually teaches. When one carefully reads the accounts of Jesus birth in the Scripture it becomes obvious that many liberties have been taken to embellish the story. Commercialism hasn’t embellished it, but religious tradition has certainly done so.
It is an interesting fact that, aside from Matthew and Luke and a few Old Testament prophecies, neither the birth of Christ nor any details of his birth are mentioned anywhere else in Scripture. The birth event is a given. In fact, there is no clear record of any Christian group celebrating the birth of Christ before around the 4th century CE. Interesting, to say the least. Of course his birth is an important fact of history, but the central tenet of the Christian faith is that God raised Jesus from the dead! The resurrection of Christ is the foundation of Christianity. Paul said,

“For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received — that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures ..."  -- 1 Cor 15:3 (NET)

The 4th – 5th centuries were a turning point for Christianity. At that time the creeds were formulated, demanding belief in the deity of Christ as a requirement for salvation. Today, the Christian Church celebrates the Christmas story, telling about how Christ was born, but beneath the plain words of Scripture lies the teaching that his birth was not really a birth at all, but an “incarnation”. I question whether most ordinary Christians even understand what “incarnation” means! Literally, it is “enfleshment” – the taking on of human flesh. The whole idea of pre-existence comes into play here. Now, rather than a savior being “born” we have a being who always existed as God, entered the womb of a young girl and became a human, literally wrapping himself in human flesh. It's interesting that Paul did not include this in his list of things of "first importance." Certainly, if the incarnation were a true Biblical fact, it would be of great importance!


I don’t mean to be crude in the use of this artwork, but when I finally got my head out of the sand I didn’t like what I saw! I realize that I had been misled. How foolish I felt, not to have discovered the simple truth before! I pray that somehow, God will use me, use this blog, to help others get their heads out of the sand as well. I like what the the authors of “One God and One Lord” write in a footnote on page 369 of their book.

"The reader can decide for himself which of the following sounds more logical and scriptural:
a) God Himself became a man, coming down to earth from heaven to do a job. He is treated poorly while trying to do the job, and is killed. He then raises Himself from the dead and goes back to where He came from, declaring Himself victorious.
b) God created a human being, whom God prepared and commissioned to do a job. The man comes from a humble, earthly origin, is treated poorly and killed. Because he did such a good job, however, God raised him from the dead and promoted him to an exalted position in heaven."

The incarnation has led us away from the resurrection, in so far as vital Christian doctrine is concerned. Even John Knox, one of the reformers, warned:

“the more fully the logic of pre-existence is allowed to work itself out in the story [of Jesus], the less important the [his] resurrection is bound to become.”

There is no better, no more beautiful, way to tell the story of Jesus’ birth than is given in the pages of holy Scripture. There is no need to embellish the truth as God gave it. I don't wish to stop celebrating Christmas, I simply think it should be understood accurately! And when I hear from Christian leaders that the incarnation is of primary importance to the Christian faith, I cringe.

The central point of the Christian faith is NOT that God became a man! But God commissioned a man who died and was buried for the remission of sins; whom also God raised from the dead as the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep", by whom we might obtain immortality through faith in him. (1 Cor 15:20-21)

This is the Christian hope! Jesus lived a sinless life remaining obedient to death, and God raised him from the dead and exalted him to the highest place of honor, making him both Lord and Christ. (Phil 2:8-11; Acts 2:36) Through his death, atonement for our sin has been made, and by faith, we will also live as he now lives. He truly is, as James Moffatt puts it, our “divine hero”!

“For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title that he bears – A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince!” – Isaiah 9:6 (Moffatt)

How Good Is He?

"And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?
No one is good except God alone.'” --Mark 10:18 (ESV)

This account of the Rich Young Ruler is also recorded in Matthew and Luke, but with some variations which we will discuss further on. The full context goes from verse 13 through 31 and is all about eternal life and the coming Kingdom of God. Although the main point of the passage has to do with obtaining eternal life, many have stumbled over Jesus' response to being called "good teacher", which has led to serious questions.

I recently listened to a debate on the doctrine of the Trinity between a unitarian christian and a trinitarian christian. During their discourse, the unitarian debater cited Mark 10:18 and pointed out that Jesus clearly distinguished himself from God by not accepting the man's well-meaning address to him as “good”. In other words, the fact that Jesus refused the title "good" for himself demonstrates that he did not perceive himself as being God nor make himself equal with God in any way. Now, that makes perfectly good sense to me! However, the trinitarian debater responded (in what I thought was a rather condescending tone) by asking “well then, how good is Jesus? Was he good enough to go to the cross as the perfect lamb of God? Was he good enough to be the only human never to have sinned? Just how good is He?” This response was apparently meant to downplay the argument that Jesus denied any goodness of his own, and attempted to suggest that the unitarian position made Jesus “not good”. Of course, this was not the intent of the unitarian debater at all.

Unfortunately, many have misunderstood this verse. Some commentaries suggest that Jesus was using the moment to severely reprove the young man for a foolish habit of compliment and flattery. But certainly Jesus response carried much weightier intent than a simple rebuff. Most commentaries I've read, however, suggest that Jesus response meant to persuade the young man to recognize that He was God. In essence, Jesus was saying 'You call me good, are you willing to go all the way and recognize that I am, in fact, God?' It seems to me that this is a weak attempt to support the position that Jesus is God.

So, how good is Jesus? And what was the true intent of his response to being called “good”? I humbly suggest the following:

First of all, the rich man was not attributing divinity to Jesus by calling him good. As I mentioned earlier, most traditional commentaries say that Jesus response was an invitation for the rich young man to acknowledge that he (Jesus) was God. This idea projects modern Christology into an ancient Monotheistic setting and is not at all realistic, in my view. My opinion is that the young man was merely using a common address of respect towards a teacher of the law of Moses. Jesus' response was not a disclaimer to divinity since he did not have to disclaim something that was not being attributed to him in the first place. In Hebrew thought, God alone is worthy of the title good because only He is good in the absolute sense; ie., He is not dependent on any outside force or influence. Rather, His goodness is intrinsic! Certainly men are capable of doing good things and may have good character, but only in a 'derived'sense. Whatever goodness may be demonstrated in our lives comes only from the image of God in which we were created. By calling Jesus “good master” the man recognized that Jesus was a man of exceptional character, and that if anyone would have the answer to his question about eternal life, it would be Jesus.

Second, the account in Matthew's gospel sheds additional light on the subject. The accounts in Mark 10 and Luke 18:18 are essentially the same, but in Matthew 19:16-17 the man does not address Jesus as good, but asks “what good thing” can be done to inherit eternal life. To this, Jesus responds, “Why do you ask me about what is good?” and then follows up with "no one is good but God." In all three accounts, the emphasis is on what the man can do to get what he wants, and the fact that God alone is good. With this understanding, Jesus most certainly distinguished himself from God by not accepting the title “good”! The impact of Jesus response "why do you call me good" or "why do you ask me about what is good" was meant to correct the man's false assumption that one could either be or do something good enough to warrant favor from God. Although Jesus points the man to the commandments (the Good God's Good Word), Jesus had just finished teaching that the kingdom of God could not be earned, but must be received as a little child! Even Jesus recognized that his goodness was not innate or absolute, but derived from his relationship of complete trust and obedience with his heavenly father!

Third, to further understand this passage, we must recognize that our 20th century American view of eternal life does not really line up with that of Jesus and first century Judaism. I cannot treat the subject fully here, but in short, we should understand the concept of eternal life in terms of life in the age to come. The phrase in Greek is aionios zoe, but the translation of aionios as 'eternal' is not quite right. Rather than no beginning or ending, aionios has more to do with a period of time. Our word eon is a transliteration of the Greek aion which is the root of ainios. Since we cannot know when this present age will come to an end and the new age begin, and because each successive age (eon) is likewise beyond our ability to know, we call it eternity. But in reality, only God is immortal and therefore, eternal; time does not come to an end... we only enter a new age of time! In the Hebrew mindset, God would send a messiah - a king - an anointed leader - who would inaugurate the new age by establishing God's righteous kingdom on earth! Jews expected God to resurrect the righteous dead at that time, and this is what was meant by 'eternal life'. The young man was asking Jesus what he should do in order to insure that he would be resurrected to life in the age to come - the coming Kingdom of God.

Jesus response highlighted the futility of looking to good works for eternal life by pointing out that he lacked something even though (in his own estimation) he kept all the commandments. By telling him to "sell his stuff”, Jesus forced the man to hold himself up to the light of God's commandments. Could he really say he loved "his neighbor as himself" if he was unwilling to give what he had to to poor? And by inviting the man to 'follow' him, Jesus made available an opportunity to enter into a personal relationship wherein he could come to truly know God. This is in agreement with what Jesus said in John 17:3... "And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only True God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

If one would have life in the age to come, it cannot be purchased or earned in any way; rather, it will be the outcome of knowing God through Jesus Christ whom God sent! Certainly Jesus was good, no man was ever as good as him. But God alone is good in the absolute sense. And because of God's goodness we are assured of everlasting life in His coming kingdom by placing our faith in, and following the example of, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, the Fulcrum of History

I've been reading/studying the book "One God & One Lord; Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith" in which the authors make the case for the Biblical teaching that God the Father alone is God and Jesus is His fully human son, our Savior and Lord. In closing out Chapter 14, they write a section entitled "Jesus Christ, the Fulcrum of History" which I thoroughly enjoyed and have reproduced below. A fulcrum is "the point or support on which a lever pivots", but can also mean "an agent through which vital powers are exercised." The latter is, I believe, what the authors mean when they refer to Jesus as the fulcrum of history. Enjoy!

We have now come to the end of our Genesis to Revelation survey of the biblical evidence that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the man Jesus Christ, His Son. We have repeatedly made the point that the vivid and compelling view of Jesus thus portrayed greatly facilitates our ability to identify with him and to appreciate the majestic plan of God who sent him. Our minds reel at the immense love of both God and Christ to bring to pass our redemtpion. Our words fail, but the following passage says it best:

Romans 11:33-36

(33) Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out! (34) Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? (35) Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? (36) For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

In concluding this section of this book, we ask you to consider, from the perspective of Jesus, what his life must have been like, and how that life brought such glory to his Father.

Born in a manger in Bethlehem, he grew up in Nazareth much like thousands of other Jewish boys. In the synagogue, the Temple and at home, Jesus heard the Old Testament Scriptures. What must it have been like for him in the moment that he first understood that he was the "promised seed" of genesis 3:15, the Messiah to Israel and the Redeemer of mankind? Apparently, this realization dawned on him before he was twelve years old, because, in answer to his parents' urgent questioning when they realized they had left him behind at the Temple in Jerusalem, he stated, "Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?" Jesus understanding of his identity led to a corresponding understanding of his purpose in the fulfillment of God's original dream. Jesus came to realize that he, and he alone, could do what was necessary to bring to pass an everlasting family of God in Paradise.

Think of the focus he must have had in his heart through his teenage years when, no doubt, many of his peers were frittering away their time with trivial teenage pursuits. Think of how goal-oriented he must have been throughout his twenties, when many other Jewish young men were consumed in establishing their secular careers. Think of how he steeled his heart throughout his earthly ministry, beginning with the time when he was face to face with the Devil in the wilderness.

Think of his agony in the garden of Gethsemane when he was tempted to the limits of his endurance and asked his heavenly Father if there were any other way than the Cross to redeem mankind. Unlike the first man tempted in a garden (the first Adam), Jesus chose to obey his God. Think of his resolve when, after hearing from his Father that there was no other way than the Cross, he arose and walked forth to meet his executioners.

Think how God must have felt as he watched his only-begotten Son suffer at the hands of evil men. Think about God's fathomless love in sacrificing His Son for you. If you are a parent you know how you hurt when your child hurts. If it were possible, most parents would gladly take upon themselves the suffering of their children. It took far more love for God, whose love for His Son is beyond our comprehension, to watch Jesus suffer and die than it ever would have taken for God to somehow become a man, if that were even possible, and go through the suffering Himself.

Think of the pressure on Jesus as he was beaten and tortured beyond description and then nailed to the tree, realizing that the destiny of all maknkind was riding on his "going the distance" for his Father. Throughout his life, Jesus had built an unwavering trust in the Word of his heavenly Father. In entrusting the mission of the ages to His Son, God had "put all of His eggs in one basket." In essence, all the Old Testament prophecies of Christ's life, death, resurrection and exaltation comprised the "good reputation" God gave His Son to live up to. Because Jesus had genuine freedom of will, he could have made one big lie out of all the prophecies about him from Genesis 3:15 through Malachi. In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus could have turned his back on his Father, just like the first Adam did when he was tempted.

No doubt the angels watched in horror and with bated breath as Jesus hung on the tree. Surely God was doing all He could to help His Son, yet at that point it was up to Jesus alone to be faithful unto death. The entire destiny of mankind was riding on the flesh-and-blood shoulders of the Man from Galilee. At exactly the right moment, when he had fulfilled all of the Word of God that he had hidden in his heart, Jesus breathed his last breath with the words, "It is finished," and gave up his most precious possession - his life, entrusting himself to God's promise of resurrection.

What a bittersweet moment that must have been for God and the heavenly host. How horrifying to see the Son of God die, and yet how scintillating to realize that the destiny of mankind was now in the hands of the Creator. There was no question that God Almigty would keep His Word and raise His Son from the dead. There was no question that God would then highly exalt him as Lord, upon whom those who so chose could believe and receive everlasting life. Because, by his free-will obedience, he died and was "planted" in the ground, the Promised Seed would one day bear much fruit after his kind.

The Church Epistles are the apex of God's revelation to mankind, setting forth the "all truth" of God's curriculum for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Each and every epistle begins with a greeting from "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," and they illustrate the oneness of God and His Son. As with the gift of holy spirit, which Jesus Christ received from his Father and first poured out to mankind on the Day of Pentecost, so Jesus received the revelatoin of the Church Epistles and gave it to the Apostle Paul (Gal 1:11 and 12). The Church Epistles are "the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17), as he received it from his heavenly Father.

In the Church Epistles, God describes Himself as "the Father of Jesus Christ." What an incredible illustration of God's humility, and also of how highly He reveres His Son and what he acomplished. How God beams with pride as He says, in essence, "I'm Jesus dad." How touched the Lord's heart must have been when he received from his Father this revelation now recorded in the Epistles. This must be the epitome of recognition for the Lord Jesus.

By making Jesus the genetic equal to the first Adam, God equipped His Son to be the Redeemer of mankind. It was Jesus, however, who had to choose to obey the written revelation of his Father, and he did. God then kept His Word and raised His Son from the grave. How can we ever adequately thank God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ for what they have done for us? Certainly, one way we can thank them is to pour out our lives in service to them day by day.

If you are a Christian, God and His Son have equipped you to walk the path of righeousness that Jesus Christ blazed. Via the gift of holy spirit, you have the divine nature of God. You can do the works that Jesus did, and greater works. As you do, know that you will be richly rewarded for these works at his appearing, after which you will live forever with him and all God's people in Paradise. All of this, and its unfathomable yet-to-be-made-known blessings, was made possible by one man, The Man who "became obedient to death, even death on a cross."

Philippians 2:9-11

(9) Therefore God highly exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, (10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

When the testimony of Scripture is so profoundly clear about the identity of Jesus Christ, we must now examine how it became so radically altered in the historical development of orthodox Christian doctrine. How is it that the vast majority of Christians have believed something fundamentally unbiblical and unintelligible, and which effectively diminishes the accomplishments of the one they sincerely meant to exalt?

-- Excerpt from "One God & One Lord;
Reconsidering the Cornerstone
of the Christian Faith", pp 312-314

submitted by
Keith Dyer

How God Relates to Humanity

Can A Holy God Relate to Sinful Man? It's a valid question. It has been asked for centuries and has been explained in various ways. The most popular answer however, seems to be the traditional orthodox view of the Incarnation - God became a man - the Word became flesh!

Many years ago I came across a reprint of a story told by the great Paul Harvey. You've heard of him, right? "And now... the rest of the story!" What a great line! He had a wonderful way of telling the simplest thing. This particular story was called "The man and the birds" which he told at Christmas time. It's been many years since I first read it and I no longer have the paper copy. Since I must rely strictly on memory, I'm certain I won't get all the details right, but It went something like this...

"A man was at home on Christmas Eve with his wife and children. The Church was having a special service that evening so the wife was busy getting herself and the children ready to go. The man was not a Christian, but she hoped he would go with them, just this once. After all, it was Christmas Eve! But as always, he said, 'no, I don't believe in that stuff... you go ahead.'

He watched from the window as they drove down the long drive from their house to the highway. It was just beginning to snow, and much more was expected before the night was over. When the car disappeared from view he sat down in his favorite chair by the big picture window, intending to settle into a good book. After a short while he heard a noise like something had hit the window, but he just shrugged it off. Then he heard it again... thud. This time he got up and looked outside. To his amazement, he saw a flock of birds in the snow. By now it was snowing much harder, in fact it appeared to be a blizzard, and the birds had apparently been caught in the storm and grounded. They must have seen the light from the window and attempted to fly to safety.

He thought to himself, I must do something to help. So, he bundled up and went outside to the barn. Once there, he flung the doors open wide and turned on the lights. 'There, he thought, that should do it, they will see the light from the barn and make their way into safety!' But alas, they just kept flopping around in the snow. He approached them now from the other side and tried to shoo them towards the barn, but this just seemed to scare them all the more!

At the end of his wits, he thought to himself... if only I could become a bird, if I were one of them I could show them the way to the barn, the way to safety! If only... and just then the Church bells began to ring. Ding! Dong! Ding! Dong! At that moment, the man understood - it all became clear - and as he sunk to his knees in the snow, he said to himself, 'that is exactly what God did - God became a man!"

After reading that story for the first time I remember being extremely impressed with it's simplicity and thinking that nobody would have trouble getting the concept of the Incarnation after hearing it. And this is what has always been taught, right? God became a man in order to communicate His love for His creation. He became a man to show us the way to safety; the way to heaven. This is how a holy God could relate to sinful humanity; by becoming one of us!

However, as good as it may sound, there is one big problem with this story! The idea of God becoming a man is nowhere taught in the Bible. The doctrine of the incarnation is as fanciful as the story of "The Man and the Birds" told by Mr. Harvey! Although entertaining and emotionally charged (at least when Mr. Harvey told it) it's only a story. Likewise the doctrine of the incarnation is little more than a religious fairy tale conceived by men who were driven by Greek philosophy more than Hebrew Scripture!

I lost my faith! Not in God, just in the idea that God became a man! But, if God did not become a man as tradition demands, "how does a holy God relate to sinful humanity?" After all, what better way to communicate to us than to become one of us, right?

Actually, I think there is a very simple answer to this question without resorting to the mysticism of an incarnation. The concept of Jesus literally existing prior to His human birth, leaving the glory of his heavenly home to enter the womb of a young virgin girl and "take on" human flesh, is really more of a Gnostic idea than a Biblical one. And the argument that God had to become one of us in order to relate to us, is entirely without Scriptural evidence.

Consider this scenario. Anyone who has ever created or invented anything went through a certain process in order to bring it into being. Lets take something simple like a desk, for instance. Without belaboring the point, the one who conceived of, and made the desk, made it according to the image he saw in his mind. Once the image was fixed there had to be a plan, a blueprint, to bring it into being. When the desk finally took physical shape, there would be nothing about it that the creator/inventor did not fully know and understand! After all, he made it!! If anyone could relate to the desk, if anyone could completely understand the desk - what it was made of, what it was designed for, it's purpose, how it could best be utilized, how long it was meant to last, etc. - it would be the one who invented it; the creator. I think you see my point. And in this example we're talking merely of an inanimate object. How much more a human being made in the very image of his Creator?

Now consider the other side of it as well. Man was made in God's own image and likeness (Gen 1:26-27). Not only can God totally relate to His creation without becoming one of them, but His creation can also relate to Him! How? Because He put something of Himself in each and every one of us! His image! Men have long debated what, exactly, the image and likeness of God is, but whatever it is, we are like Him in some way so that we can know and understand Him. Until he sinned, Adam, the first man, walked with God in the garden without fear, and in perfect relationship. And even though the "image of God" in us has been tarnished by sin, yet in every man is something of the image of God that draws us toward Him! Abraham was the 'friend' of God, and Moses talked to God! The very fact that we have the capacity of thinking about these ideas is, in a sense, proof that we can know and relate to our creator, is it not?

Paul is helpful on this point in the epistle to the Romans. Beginning in Romans 1:19 we see that men have an innate knowledge that there is a God, along with a need to worship. Of course, because of sin, the need to worship and the object of that worship get twisted and perverted. But anyone willing to be honest with him/herself can discern that God reveals Himself through His creation. Further, through our own sense of morality, of right and wrong, of justice and mercy, and our ability to love, we can relate to our creator because these traits are all extensions of His own.

I remember reading somewhere, and I believe it's true, that in ancient Eastern cultures like that of the Hebrews, the essential question asked about God was basically, "what does He expect from me?" In other words, they related to God in a very practical way because they understood that they were made in His image. To the Greek mind, however, the question was quite different. Greeks, whose philosophical foundations tended to be a bit more complex asked, "what is God?" They related to God on a more philosophical and metaphysical level. Therefore, they could not perceive how God could relate to them at all.

This fundamental idea seems to be a contributing factor to the gnostic system in which God Himself could not possibly have created this world. To the gnostic, the world and the flesh is inherently evil. Only spirit is good. Therefore, through a series of emanations from God, each emanation becoming more detached from God, the world and man was finally created. This kind of thinking was already making "in-roads" into the Christian church of Paul's day. Many of the church epistles issue warnings which address Christ's essential nature as a real, flesh, human being, but exalted and given supremacy. (Col 1:18; 2;18-23; Phil 2:9; 1John 4:2)

Some scholars believe that John's writings were designed, in part, to combat gnostic thought. Particularly John 1:1, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and word was God." In traditional orthodox thought, this verse is positive proof that Jesus is God, making the Word equal to Jesus (which is why trinitarian translators use the capital "W"). If Jesus and God are of the same essence then it tears down any gnostic assertion that God is so detached from creation that He could not have created it Himself.

"All things were made through him (the Word), and without him (the Word) was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3 - ESV)

But this purpose of combating gnosticism can be easily accomplished without resorting to making the word (logos) a pre-incarnate being. Logos is a common word throughout the Greek New Testament and is most often translated as "word". But it really goes beyond the meaning of a single word to define "the idea, the complete thought." It denotes both reason and speech. As such, it is the expression of God's mind. This logos which was in the beginning with God, and in fact, was God, became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us! (John 1:14) However, it is illogical to change the meaning of logos in John 1:1-3 and force it as a synonym for Jesus when it is never employed as such anywhere else in the Bible. The word that became flesh in John 1:14 was most certainly Jesus, but in John 1:1 the word was not yet a person. The verse does not say "in the beginning was the 'Son', and the Son was with God and the Son was God.'

Think about it. God reasoned; He had a plan (logos); He spoke and the world came into being. ("And God said, let there be..." - Gen 1:3,6,14). This is logos. His word was with Him and not with another. (Isa 44:24; Isa 37:16 - ASV) Likewise, God reasoned; He had a plan; and "when the fulness of time had come" (Gal 4:4) His plan became a reality, a real flesh human being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ! This expression of God's mind was fully God's own and not another's (with Him), and the word was God in the sense that it totally expressed His thoughts and His person. The NEB translation renders this phrase in John 1:1 as "what God was, the word was." This is not difficult to understand. It is still an effective refutation of the gnostic idea of creation, but even more, it refutes any notion that Jesus was an angel or had any physical pre-existence.

In spite of all this, however, the early Church, after the death of the apostles, fell into the very errors the apostles warned them about. One can readily see how the early Church fathers fell into the trap of gnostic thought, given their extensive backgrounds in Greek philosophy. I'm not suggesting they purposely changed the message of Christianity to suit their needs. But without Hebrew roots to guide them in their interpretation of Scripture, and their desire to make Christianity palatable to the world, making Jesus into a "God-Man" based on a few misunderstood passages from New Testament writings, was likely a very natural progression for them.

In conclusion, God relates to His creation perfectly. There is no need for Him to be one of us. Jesus, the unique Son of God, is the perfect example of what the image of God is suppose to look like in a man (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). This is demonstrated to us in His life. In His death, the sin barrier is removed so we can come to God without fear or condemnation. And through His resurrection and ascension, God has made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), highly exalting him and bestowing upon him the name that is above every name (Phil 2:9). In following Jesus example of faith and obedience, we are promised a glorious entrance into the kingdom of God when He returns.

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.