restoring the biblical christ (vol.1)

Restoringthe Biblical

Christ

Restoringthe Biblical

Christ

Is Jesus God?Volume One

Jason Kerrigan

Outskirts Press, Inc. Denver, Colorado

“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”

––Jesus Christ ( John 7:16-17)

The opinions expressed in this manuscript are solely the opinions of the author and do not represent the opinions or thoughts of the publisher. The author represents and warrants that s/he either owns or has the

legal right to publish all material in this book. If you believe this to be incorrect, contact the publisher through its website at www.outskirtspress.com.

Restoring the Biblical Christ Is Jesus God? Volume One

All Rights Reserved Copyright © 2007 Jason Wayne Kerrigan

Formerly published as The Father and The Son – 1-59800-183-3

This book may not be reproduced, transmitted, or stored in whole or in part by any means, including graphic, electronic, or mechanical without the express written consent of the publisher except in the case

of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Outskirts Press http://www.outskirtspress.com

ISBN-10: 1-4327-0369-2 ISBN-13: 978-1-4327-0369-1

Author’s Acknowledgment:I would formally like to thank Beverly Lynn Parks for her assistance in getting this volume ready for

print. She did a wonderfully prompt, yet painstakingly thorough job of editing the manuscript prior to its publication. Any grammatical anomalies that remain reflect my own preference rather than her oversight. Thanks, Bev! You are a Godsend.

Unless otherwise noted, the scriptures quoted herein are generally from the King James Version of the Bible.

Unless otherwise noted, the Greek New Testament text is quoted from Nestle’s Greek New Testa-ment.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked "NKJV™" are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright © The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission.

Scriptures quotations marked RSV are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Copyright © 1952 [2nd edition, 1971] by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scriptures quotations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright © 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, Copyright © 1996. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. All rights re-served.

All permissions not already provided under US copyright laws have been obtained from the appro-priate sources for the use of copyrighted materials herein.

When quoting scripture all bold emphasis is my own unless otherwise indicated. Brackets and Pa-rentheses within a quote are used for clarification.

Outskirts Press and the “OP” logo are trademarks belonging to Outskirts Press, Inc.

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

1. THE WORD..........................................................................................................7

THE WORD WAS THE WORD ..........................................................................7 THE WORD IS THE SPIRIT ..............................................................................8 THE WORD IS CHRIST..................................................................................13 CHRIST CALLED “THE WORD” BEFORE JOHN 1:1........................................15 REVELATION 19:13 – CHRIST IS “THE WORD OF GOD”...............................16 JOHN 1:1 – THE WORD WAS “WITH” GOD?.................................................17 JOHN 1:1 – THE WORD IS GOD BY EXPRESSION ..........................................19

2. ORIGIN OF CHRIST ........................................................................................23

COLOSSIANS 1:15 – FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION ....................................23 PROVERBS 8:22 – “THE LORD CREATED ME” ............................................27 REVELATION 3:14 – THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD...............30 COLOSSIANS 1:18 – WHY CHRIST IS CALLED “THE BEGINNING” ................34 COLOSSIANS 3:10 – CREATED BY GOD........................................................34 HEBREWS 3:2 – FAITHFUL TO THE ONE WHO MADE HIM...........................35 JOHN 1:1A – IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD........................................36 MICAH 5:2 – CHRIST’S ORIGIN IS NOT FROM “EVERLASTING” ...................38 HEBREWS 7:3 – CHRIST AND MELCHISEDEC ...............................................40 HEBREWS 13:8 – “THE SAME YESTERDAY” = ETERNITY PAST? ....................42

3. BEGOTTEN OF GOD ......................................................................................45

“BEGOTTEN” – SAME SUBSTANCE/SAME GOD? ..........................................45 “BORN OF” SHOULD BE TRANSLATED AS “BEGOTTEN” .............................46 “BEGOTTEN” EXPLAINED ............................................................................48 JOHN 16:27-28 – DID JESUS COME “OUT OF” GOD’S SUBSTANCE?.............51 HOW ARE WE BEGOTTEN IF CHRIST IS THE “ONLY” BEGOTTEN? ..............52

4. CREATOR? .........................................................................................................55

WERE ALL THINGS CREATED “BY” CHRIST? ..............................................55 “ALL THINGS” CREATED THROUGH CHRIST................................................56 UNDERSTANDING CREATION IN JOHN 1:3....................................................58

– ALL THINGS WERE CREATED “FOR” CHRIST? ...................................60 – ALL THINGS WERE CREATED “THROUGH” GOD? ..............................61

UNDERSTANDING CREATION IN HEBREWS 1:2 ............................................62 UNDERSTANDING CREATION IN 1CORINTHIANS 8:6 ....................................62

i

DOES ISAIAH 44:24 EXCLUDE CHRIST FROM INVOLVEMENT?.....................63 ISAIAH 45:12 (ETC.) – GOD’S OWN “HANDS” CREATED? ............................65 GENESIS 1:26 – GOD SAID “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE” ...............66 UNDERSTANDING CREATION IN COLOSSIANS 1:16 ......................................67

5. INCARNATION .................................................................................................71

LUKE 1:35 – WAS CHRIST GOD’S SON BEFORE THE INCARNATION? ...........71 JESUS’ BODY WAS FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF MARY’S BODY ...................73 THE OUTWARD PHYSICAL MAN AND THE INWARD SPIRITUAL MAN ..........76 JOHN 6 – CHRIST’S FLESH FROM HEAVEN? .................................................78 JOHN 3:13-21 – WHO IS SPEAKING? ............................................................79 JOHN 3:13 & 6:62 – THE SON OF MAN DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN ...........82 JOHN 1:14 – THE WORD BECAME FLESH .....................................................83 CHRIST TOOK ON THE NEEDS OF THE FLESH .............................................83

6. LAMB OF GOD ..................................................................................................87

JESUS’ BLOOD WAS NOT DIVINE.................................................................87 ACTS 20:28 IS NOT SPEAKING OF GOD’S BLOOD BUT OF CHRIST’S ...........88 THE EFFECTS OF ADAM’S SIN .....................................................................91 CHRIST’S OBEDIENCE MADE HIM ACCEPTABLE TO GOD ............................93 WHAT GAVE CHRIST THE ABILITY TO LIVE A SINLESS LIFE? ....................94

7. THE RESURRECTION....................................................................................97

GOD RAISED OTHERS FROM THE DEAD THROUGH CHRIST .........................97 THE SCRIPTURES CALL JESUS A PROPHET...................................................98 JOHN 2:19 – JESUS DID NOT RAISE HIMSELF FROM THE DEAD.................100 GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD......................................................103 JOHN 10:17-18 – CHRIST LAID DOWN HIS LIFE DAILY .............................104 COULD JESUS HAVE CALLED FOR THE TWELVE LEGIONS OF ANGELS?....109 ROMANS 1:4 – DECLARED THE SON OF GOD BY THE RESURRECTION ......110 CHRIST BEGOTTEN COMPLETELY AT THE RESURRECTION........................111 DID THE RESURRECTION PROVE THAT CHRIST WAS DIVINE?...................118

8. OUR LORD.......................................................................................................119

THE WORD “LORD” DOES NOT MEAN “GOD”...........................................119 1CORINTHIANS 8:6 – CHRIST IS OUR ONE LORD .......................................122 WHY GOD WILL JUDGE MANKIND THROUGH CHRIST...............................125 JESUS’ EVERLASTING KINGDOM / THE KINGDOM RETURNED TO GOD......127 IS GOD CALLED “OUR” LORD AT THIS TIME?...........................................129 THE BIBLE SAYS THAT SOME MEN ALSO HAD MASTERS ON EARTH........135 1TIMOTHY 6:15 – DESCRIBING THE FATHER, NOT JESUS ..........................136 UNDERSTANDING THE TITLE “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” ....138

9. IMAGE OF GOD..............................................................................................143

CHRIST REFLECTS GOD AND SPOKE GOD’S WORDS .................................143

ii

JOHN 14:9 – DID JESUS CLAIM TO BE THE FATHER?.................................145 THE IMAGE IS CALLED BY THE NAME OF THE ARCHETYPE......................147 MOSES, ISAIAH, EZEKIEL, DANIEL, AND JOHN ALL SAW GOD ..................151 JOHN 12:37-41 – IS CHRIST THE LORD WHOM ISAIAH SAW?...................154 2CORINTHIANS 4:4 – SATAN IS NOT THE GOD OF THIS WORLD ...............159 1CORINTHIANS 8:4-6 – THERE ARE NOT MANY REAL GODS ....................161

10. FIFTH CHAPTER OF ST.JOHN...................................................................163

JOHN 5:23 – HONOR THE SON EVEN AS THE FATHER ...............................163 JESUS WOULD NOT LET THE MAN CALL HIM “GOOD MASTER”...............165 NONE “GOOD” BUT GOD – CHRIST THE “GOOD” SHEPHERD ....................166 JOHN 5:18 – EQUAL WITH GOD .................................................................167 JOHN 5:19 – EVERY ACTION OF CHRIST AN ACTION OF GOD? .................169

11. CHRIST AND WORSHIP ...............................................................................173

THE GREEK WORD FOR “WORSHIP”..........................................................173 WHY THE ANGEL WOULD NOT LET JOHN WORSHIP HIM .........................175 WHY PETER WOULD NOT LET CORNELIUS WORSHIP HIM ........................176 MATTHEW 4:10 – WORSHIP {ONLY} GOD?...............................................177 THE HEBREW WORD FOR “WORSHIP”.......................................................178 THOU SHALT NOT WORSHIP ANY OTHER GOD .........................................179 REFUTING MORE ERRONEOUS ARGUMENTS..............................................180

12. HEBREWS CHAPTER ONE..........................................................................183

HEBREWS 1:3 IS NOT REFERRING TO GOD’S SUBSTANCE .........................183 HEBREWS 1:8 – THY THRONE O GOD? ......................................................184 PSALMS 45:6 – THE HEBREW NOUNS ARE AMBIGUOUS ............................188 PSALMS 45 – THE CONTEXT DOES NOT SUPPORT “O GOD” ......................189 “THY THRONE IS GOD” – AN ODD TRANSLATION? ...................................192 WHAT ABOUT THE CONTEXT IN HEBREWS CHAPTER ONE?......................194 HEBREWS 1:10-12 IS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE SON .................................196 WHY IS PSALMS 102:24-27 QUOTED IN HEBREWS 1:10-12? .....................199

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................203

APPENDIX B........................................................................................................215

APPENDIX C........................................................................................................223

APPENDIX D .......................................................................................................225

APPENDIX E........................................................................................................233

NOTES ..................................................................................................................237

SCRIPTURE INDEX ...........................................................................................253

iii

Introduction

Restoring the Biblical Christ is a two-volume set that, by the grace of God in Christ, has been written in order to show who Jesus Christ is and how he re-lates to the one true God––the Father (John 17:3). The goal set before me was to produce a conclusive Christology founded upon honest and thorough scriptural exegesis. In order to meet this criterion, this two-volume series takes on both an offensive and defensive format. Volume one lays out a sys-tematic Christology while refuting contrary arguments along the way. Vol-ume two simply picks up where volume one leaves off, addressing the remainder of the contrary arguments not already discussed in volume one.

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Several times throughout these two volumes, references will be made to the original languages of the Bible that our English translations have come from. This is for various reasons, but mainly because the original languages often reveal more details as to how a scripture is to be understood.

Some of the English translations of the Bible do not accurately express the original thought that was presented in the canonical autographs (the originalBible manuscripts). These inaccuracies are either derived from man’s error in translation of the original languages of the Bible into English; or they are due to a translator beginning with manuscripts that have already been inac-curately copied or translated, which consequently results in the inaccuracy being repeated in each subsequent translation.

Inaccuracies in the translation process have even caused some versions of the Bible to present a statement in one scripture that clearly contradicts a state-ment in another scripture.

Example: In 2Samuel 24:13 the King James Version says that God offered David seven years of famine for numbering the people, but 1Chroicles 21:12 says God offered David three years of famine when speaking of the exact same event. This shows two contradictory statements.

In this particular example (taken from the King James Version) the inaccu-

1

Restoring the Biblical Christ

racy presented represents a pre-existing contradictory statement within the Hebrew manuscript being translated.

Many Christians may not know it, but some of the manuscripts from which our English Bible is translated do not always agree with one another. These discrepancies are generally due to the fact that those extant manuscripts are all hand-written copies. Ancient scribes did not have the luxury of printing presses that exist within our present day. Whenever they wanted to repro-duce a manuscript they had to copy every single “jot and tittle” by hand. During those very tedious copying processes the original text of biblical manuscripts were often times unintentionally altered (though sometimes the changes were intentional). Consequently, the manuscripts produced at a later date tend to have more scribal errors in them (since they are the result of more numerous copying processes). It is because of this fact that it is usually best to go back to the most ancient manuscripts available when seeking to determine the original wording present at the time when the Bible was first written. By doing this, later manuscript and English version contradictions are usually resolved; thereby proving that such contradictions are a recent occurrence, and not something that has been in the scriptures from the begin-ning.

In the above example of a contradiction (which said in one place that God of-fered David seven years, and in another place three years) we see the result of a scribal error. By going back to the earliest Old Testament that we have, the Septuagint, we see that the number of years offered to David were origi-nally the same––the Septuagint says three years in both places. Thus, origi-nally, the numbers of years were not different and the contradiction was non-existent.

The original Old Testament was written (mostly) in Hebrew. Those original Hebrew manuscripts no longer exist, and so now all that we have are copies(or rather copies of copies) of the original Old Testament. The earliest rela-tively complete Old Testament copies in the Hebrew language that still exist are the Ben Asher Masoretic Manuscripts, which only date back to around 950 – 1000 AD. There are other copies of the Old Testament that predate these manuscripts, but they are not written in Hebrew.

The Septuagint (also know as the LXX) is a Greek copy of the Old Testa-ment that far outdates the Hebrew Old Testament copies still in existence. This Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) first originated around 350 BC. While the original Septuagint manuscript is no longer ex-tant, some very ancient copies of the Septuagint are. The most ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint still extant include fragments of Leviticus and

2

Introduction

Deuteronomy that date back to the 2nd century BC, 1st century BC fragments of the entire Torah (Gen.–Deut.), and 1st century AD fragments of the Minor Prophets. The oldest manuscripts that contain almost the entire Old Testa-ment text are the 4th century AD Codex Sinaiticus, the 4th century AD Codex Vaticanus, and the 5th century AD Codex Alexandrinus. These three Septua-gint manuscripts are the most ancient relatively complete Old Testaments in existence.

Since the Septuagint is the oldest Old Testament in existence then it is plau-sibly not as likely to have the copying errors that exist in the less ancient He-brew manuscripts. This conclusion is clearly supported by the fact that the Hebrew Old Testament copies contain several contradictions that are non-existent within the text of the Septuagint.

The King James Version (which is translated from Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts) says that David took seven hundred horsemen from the king of Zobah when he slew him in 2Samuel 8:4, but 1Chronicles 18:4 says that David took seven thousand from him when speaking of the exact same event. These two statements obviously contradict each other. However, the Sep-tuagint (which predates the Hebrew manuscript from which the KJV was translated) says “seven thousand” in both passages, thus eliminating the con-tradiction.

And it is not only in the KJV that contradictions occur…

In the New International Version, 2Samuel 6:6 says that Uzzah was killed for touching the ark “when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon,” but 1Chronicles 13:9 says that this same event took place “when they came to the threshing floor of Kidon.” Again, the Septuagint, which existed long be-fore the NIV, does not contain this contradiction, because 1Chronicles 13:9 in the Septuagint simply says, “the threshing floor,” and makes no reference to “Kidon.”

Please do not assume that the English versions we have are simply filled with contradictions, because that would be very, very far from the truth. Never-theless, the reason that I have referred to these particular inaccuracies is to set the foundation for the legitimacy of referring to the most ancient manu-scripts available in order to correct those errors that do exist therein.

There are also many Old Testament scriptures that read differently in the Septuagint than they do within the extant Hebrew Old Testament. Whenever one of those dissimilar Old Testament scriptures is quoted within the New Testament it is the Septuagint reading (rather than the Hebrew reading) that is almost unanimously quoted as the accepted text. An obvious example of

3


this is found in Hebrews 10:5, where the writer quotes Psalms 40:6.

In the authorized English version (the King James Version) Hebrews 10:5 says:

“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” (Hebrews 10:5)

However, if you turn to Psalms 40:6 (the Old Testament passage that is being quoted in Hebrews 10:5) then the King James Version says something almost entirely different:

“Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened.” (Psalms 40:6 KJV)

Do you see the difference? One speaks of preparing a body and the other speaks of opening ears… Was the writer of Hebrews misquoting Psalms 40:6? Not at all! He was instead quoting this passage as it reads in the Sep-tuagint, which says:

“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.” (Psalms 39(40):6 LXX)

This shows us plainly that the Septuagint, rather than the more recent He-brew manuscripts, contains the reading that was accepted by the writer of the book of Hebrews (probably Paul).

Whenever a scribal error correction is made herein that is based on informa-tion contained in older manuscripts, the more ancient manuscript will be ref-erenced and documented. Most of the Old Testament corrections will come from the Septuagint, while the New Testament corrections will come from various extant Greek manuscripts that existed before the manuscripts from which our contemporary English versions were translated. These corrections can usually be found in the following books:

The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, published by Hen-drickson Publishers. This particular version contains the Greek text of the Septuagint along with a corresponding English translation by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton.1

The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, published by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. As its name signifies, it contains the transcribed texts of the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts (all of which predate 300 AD). Whenever one of these New Testament papyriis referenced herein, I will document it as P followed by its assigned

4

Introduction

numerical title (i.e., Papyrus 46 will be abbreviated as P46, Papyrus 75 will be abbreviated as P75, etc.).

Another approach used to correct inaccuracies within our English transla-tions is based upon the observance of original biblical linguistic denotations. Sometimes words within our English translations do not always accurately express the meanings of the words that they are translated from:

In the King James Version, Luke 14:10 says:

“But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” (Luke 14:10 KJV)

The Greek word, (doxa), which is translated here as worship, actually means glory. The Greek word that denotes worship is (pro-skuneo). Thus, a more accurate translation of Luke 14:10 would say:

“…then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat with thee.” (Luke 14:10 ASV)

Several passages within our English versions that fail to retain the correct Hebrew or Greek word meanings will be discussed throughout this two-volume set.

I do not take this work lightly. All the information will be presented in hon-esty and tempered with the fear of the Lord, knowing that “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.” (Revelation 21:8) It is my hope that all who read this will seek understanding and will patiently examine the truths presented herein. If I am wrong on any point, I sincerely hope to be corrected. I have sought, in Christ and in the fear of God, to believe what is taught in all of the scriptures, without ignoring or contradicting any scripture whatsoever. I have often changed what I be-lieved whenever I found my prior beliefs to be contrary to the scriptures, and by the grace of God (rather than my own sufficiency) I hope that I will con-tinue to do so no matter the cost.

This is no ordinary series. The information herein provides in-depth and conclusive study materials regarding our most excellent God and his beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

5

I

THE WORD

e will begin our study by addressing one of the most controversial scriptures in the entire Bible––John 1:1. There have been many de-

bates regarding the meaning of this particular passage, which identifies theWord as God, saying:

W“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1 KJV)

First, let’s examine what or who “the Word” is, and afterwards we will dis-cuss in what way it/he is God according to the scriptures.

The Word Was The Word

Let’s begin by asking the following question: “Why is it that the Word is even called the Word?” What does the Word mean in the Bible?

There are typically two Greek words that are translated as Word in the New Testament: (logos) and (rhema). The Strong’s Concordancedefines these two words as follows:

logos – something said (including the thought); by implication a topic(subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation. (– Strong’s #3056)

rhema – an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically); by im-plication a matter or topic (especially of narration, command or dispute) saying, word. (– Strong’s #4487)

7


Both of these Greek words refer to something that is said or stated. The word logos can also denote reasoning or motive, but it does not have to do so every time that it is used.

In our English language we could refer to something said as a saying or we could refer to that same thing as a statement. Even though saying and state-ment can be used in slightly different denotations, in their basic import they both share a common meaning. In a similar way, although logos and rhemaare different Greek words, they both express a common meaning––something that is said.

It is because of this common meaning that logos and rhema are often used synonymously in the scriptures:

“And Peter remembered the word ( ) of Jesus, which said unto him, ‘Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.’ And he went out, and wept bitterly.” (Matthew 26:75)

“And Peter remembered the word ( ) of the Lord, how he said unto him, ‘Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.’ And Peter went out and wept bitterly.” (Luke 22:61)

This comparison demonstrates the fact that both rhema and logos share a common meaning. And due to that commonality, both of these words are translated as “word” throughout the New Testament.

In our English language, whenever we see the word word we think of the means by which a thought or topic is articulated and expressed. Simply stated, a word is an expression. Our words are expressions of our thoughts. Likewise, the Word of God is the expression of God, and this expression is how God reveals himself.

So, in summary, Word signifies an expression of something. Therefore, the Word of God is the expression of God. Word = Expression

The Word Is The Spirit

In Ephesians 6:17, Paul says that it is “the Spirit, which is the Word of God.”

“Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the

8

The Word

Spirit, which is the word of God.” (Ephesians 6:14-17)

Many people think that when Paul wrote this he was stating that the sword belongs to the Spirit and that the Spirit’s sword is itself the Word of God. However, that is not the case, as we shall show forthwith.

Greek nouns are always gender specific. In both the Greek language and the English language the gender for a noun can either be masculine (sir, boy, man, etc.), feminine (girl, lady, woman, etc.), or neuter (thing, etc.). The gender of Greek pronouns always corresponds with the gender of the antece-dent (i.e., the preceding noun that the pronoun refers back to). Therefore, by looking at the gender of the pronoun (he, she, it) we can simultaneously dis-cover the gender of the pronoun’s antecedent as well (man, woman, thing).

Example: “Sue and Jim went to the store, and he ran all the way.”

In this example you know that the one who ran all the way to the store is Jim,because the masculine pronoun he shows that the one running was a male. Sue cannot be the antecedent of the pronoun he because the masculine gen-der of the pronoun he does not match the feminine gender of the noun Sue.

How is this significant to our topic? It is very significant, because when Paul says, “The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,” the Greek pro-noun translated as “which” is neuter in gender and it does not match the feminine gender of the Greek noun translated as “sword.”

Unlike our English language, the Greek language sometimes applies the masculine or feminine gender to nouns that are neither male nor female. The gender of Greek nouns can be determined by the way that they are written (their endings), etc.

Examples: The Greek word for helmet ( ) is in the femininegender even though a helmet is neither male nor female. The Greek word for cross ( ) is in the masculine gender, but a cross is neither male nor female.

The gender of the Greek word for sword ( ) is feminine, but the gender of the Greek word for Spirit ( ) is neuter.

Paul says:

“The sword (feminine gender) of the Spirit (neuter gender), which(neuter gender) is the Word of God.” (Ephesians 6:17)

9


The gender of a Greek pronoun always reflects the gender of the antecedent that it refers back to. If Paul was referring to the feminine gender noun sword as being the Word of God then he would have unquestionably used a feminine gender pronoun in order to indicate this within the text, but he did not. Instead, the neuter pronoun that Paul used refers back to the neuter an-tecedent Spirit. Hence, the text identifies the Word, not the sword, as the Spirit. The sword is the Spirit, which [Spirit] is the Word of God.

Furthermore, even apart from the rules of Greek grammar, the context of Ephesians 6 shows that the Spirit is the Word of God as well:

In Ephesians 6:13-17 Paul is speaking of the armor of God. He describes the components of the armor as, “breastplate of righteousness, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, and sword of the Spirit.”

Notice, however, that when he speaks of the armor which covers the waist he does not say, “belt of truth.” What then does he say?

“Having your loins girt about with truth.” (Ephesians 6:14)

He shows that the truth itself was the object of focus, and not an imaginary belt that belonged to truth. Paul doesn’t even mention a belt, but instead simply says that we are to be “girt about with truth.” Just as he was saying that the truth itself is part of the armor, so also he is saying the same thing of faith, righteousness, etc. When he refers to the shield of faith” he is not say-ing that faith has a shield, but rather that faith is our shield.

Example: If I said that I have a “shield of solid gold” that would mean that the shield itself was solid gold, not that the shield belonged to solid gold.

Just as “shield of gold” refers to a shield that is gold, so also when Paul re-fers to the “sword of the Spirit” he means that the sword is the Spirit, not that the Spirit has a sword. The sword is the Spirit, which [Spirit] is the Word of God. So then, the Spirit is the Word of God, and because a word is an ex-pression then the fact that the Spirit is called “the Word of God” shows us that God is somehow expressed via his Spirit.

How then is God expressed via his Spirit?

The Bible says:

“The things which God hath prepared for them that love him… Godhath revealed unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? Even so

10

The Word

the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received … the Spirit which is of God.” (1Corinthians 2:9-12)

So the Spirit of God searches the deep things of God and reveals or expresses those things to us.

Did you notice how Paul made a parallel between the function of the Spirit of God and the function of the spirit of man?

“The things which God hath prepared for them that love him… God hath revealed unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have re-ceived … the Spirit which is of God.” (1Corinthians 2:9-12)

Paul makes a comparison between the operation of the Spirit of God and the operation of the spirit of a man. Now, this is very interesting, because by looking at the operation of our own spirits we can get some idea of how God’s Spirit operates as well. So, what is the operation of our spirits? Paul says that it is our spirit in us that knows what is going on in us, likewise, he says that it is the Spirit of God that knows what is going on in God as well.

“...for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” (1Corinthians 2:10-11)

Man consists of soul, spirit, and body (1Thessalonians 5:23). Man is a soul, he has a spirit, and he lives in a body. The soul is man’s foundational exis-tence, but a man’s spirit is that which searches a man’s soul and reveals the things of a man. Our spirits search out the inward things that pertain to us so that those things may be brought forth, made intelligible, and applied to vari-ous situations in an orderly way. This may sound a bit confusing, but it is actually pretty simple.

Think of this: There are countless memories and so much knowledge that exist within you, yet all of those things that exist within you are not present in your thoughts at the same time. Why is this? If all of those things are in you then why is it that only some memory, or some knowledge, is present in your thoughts at one time rather than all of those things at once? The reason for this is that your spirit searches you and brings those memories out of you in an orderly way.

Our spirits search the things in us (our soul) to present them in an intelligible

11


way. By way of analogy, it is like each of us is a big library, and in this li-brary there are books that contain all our memories, books that contain all our emotions, and books that contain all our knowledge. When we learn something new it is our spirit that records those things in one of the library books (so to speak) and then places the book containing that knowledge within the shelves of our soul until that knowledge is needed again. Our spirit is also what goes back to those books and retrieves the information stored in us so as to present that information to our thoughts (or as our thoughts) in an orderly way. Hence, a man’s spirit is not a personality that is distinct from the man, but it is rather the man’s own personality revealed.

A man’s spirit is within him, searching those things that pertain to him, as Paul said:

“For what man knoweth the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him?” (1Corinthians 2:11)

This is speaking of a man’s spirit searching the things that pertain to the spiritual aspect of a man (the soul), not the natural aspect of man (because the natural man, apart from the spiritual man, is simply a body [Genesis 2:7, 3:19]). It is the spiritual man (the soul) residing within a man’s physical body that is the source of that man’s personality (2Corinthians 5:1-8, 2Peter 1:13-14). In a similar way that our spirits search us, so also the Spirit of God searches the things of God and brings those things forth. This is how God is expressed via his Spirit––the Spirit searches the things of God and reveals those things outwardly.

“But God hath revealed [spiritual things] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” (1Corinthians 2:10)

The Spirit of God does not reveal all of God at once, but it rather reveals God’s thoughts, words, desires, or motives (etc.) in an orderly and intelligi-ble manner. As God’s Spirit abides in us, we are made to share in the things that the Spirit reveals from God. There are general motives of God that are revealed by the Spirit in us, and there are also direct thoughts, or words of God that are revealed to us by the same Spirit; both express the person of God. The inward reflections or motives can be said to be the logos and the explicit thoughts or words can be called the rhema; but logos and rhema are not exclusively confined to these definitions. Concisely stated, both logosand rhema denote some form of an expression, and God’s expression (his Word) is his Spirit.

As we have seen, there are similarities in the function of a man’s spirit and

12

The Word

the function of God’s Spirit. However, there are also differences. When the Spirit of God reveals God it is not constrained by the boundaries that limit our own spirits. Apart from God, we do not have any spiritual power. Con-sequently, our spirits cannot reveal such power outwardly (Romans 5:6). Yet, God is almighty, and when the Spirit of God reveals God, it reveals not only his personality (as ours do) but it also reveals his indwelling and inher-ent power. A Christian functions in spiritual power only as the Spirit of God reveals the power of God within him (Acts 1:8).

The Word Is Christ

The Spirit of God is entirely necessary for all who would serve God, because it is only by God’s Spirit that God’s will is made known to us, and it is also only by the Spirit of God that we are enabled to carry out that will. How-ever, we cannot partake of the Spirit of God apart from Christ. God is ex-pressed in his Spirit, but we cannot perceive nor access that expression unless we look to Christ, through whom that expression of God is revealed.

“Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” (Matthew 11:27)

God, via his Spirit, is revealed to Christ, and Christ in turn reveals those things of God to us. It cannot be otherwise. God does not go around Christ to reveal himself to us, but rather through Christ:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1Timothy 2:5)

A good example of this principle in action can be found in Revelation 1:1, which says:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants.” (Revelation 1:1)

The Spirit is God’s principle expression, but we perceive that expression only as it is revealed through the person of Christ. Therefore, Christ is that expression of God unto us (but only in an intermediary sense). And this is why both Christ and the Spirit are called “the Word of God.” The Spirit is God’s Word inherently, but Christ is God’s Word mediated unto us.

This same logic applies to other titles common to Christ and the Spirit as well. Christ is called the truth (John 14:6) and so is the Spirit (1John 5:6). The Spirit is the principle truth of God revealed, but Jesus is the one throughwhom that principle truth is revealed unto us.

13


Jesus shows this when he says:

“But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God.” (John 8:40)

And again he says:

“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” (John 18:37)

The truth of God was and is revealed to Christ by God’s Spirit. Christ in turn reveals that truth unto us. Christ is the mediator through whom we receive the revealed truth of God. So, to us, Christ is the truth of God.

This same principle is also expressed concerning Christ being the light of the world (John 8:12):

A. “God is light” (1John 1:5)

B. The Spirit reveals the light of God to Christ

C. Christ reveals that light of God to the world

D. Hence Christ says, “I am the light of the world.” (John 8:12)

Since the disciples also manifested the light of God into the world, by shar-ing the light of Christ, then Jesus referred to them as “the light of the world” as well, saying:

“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.” (Matthew 5:14)

Christ and the disciples are both referred to as “the light of the world,” but this sharing of a common epithet in no way demands that the disciples werethemselves Christ. In the same way, Christ and the Holy Spirit share the common epithet, Word of God, but this does not demand that Christ is the Holy Spirit.

Jesus clearly shows that he is distinct from the Holy Spirit, saying:

“Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man (Jesus), it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matthew 12:32)

Hence, Jesus (the Son of man) and the Holy Spirit cannot be the same. Nev-ertheless, those things that pertain to the Spirit are revealed to us through

14

The Word

Christ. Therefore, while Christ and the Spirit are distinct, they also share a commonality and unity of expression. God’s Spirit is the principle Word of God, and Christ is the Word of God mediated unto us.2

Christ Called “The Word” Before John 1:1

Initially, when looking to understand John 1:1, I wondered how such an ab-stract appellation, the Word, could truly represent a conscious individual be-ing. Without any qualifying explanation wouldn’t it seem that the Wordsimply referred to an expression rather than an individual? Then I realized that the Word actually was referred to many times as a distinct and conscious individual prior to John’s gospel.

The book of Zechariah shows that the Word was a distinct and conscious be-ing, saying:

“In the second year of Darius, came the Word of the LORD untoZechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet, saying,“I saw by night…” (Zechariah 1:7-8)

Who is it that is speaking? It is the one called “the Word.” And the one speaking says, “I (the Word) saw.” Now, look at how the one called “the Word” is shown to be a messenger, for without any qualifications or intro-duction Zechariah then goes on to say:

“And the messenger3 that talked with me said…” (Zechariah 1:9)

What messenger was it that was talking with him? There was no messenger mentioned, nor any that spoke with him before this, except one––the Word. Hence, I believe that the Word is therefore identified as a distinct and con-scious being within the first chapter of the book of Zechariah.

In 228 AD, Origen (an early Christian writer) wrote the following:

“The Word of the LORD that came to Hosea, the son of Beeri” (Ho-sea 1:1)… The crowd simply looks at what the prophets said, as if what they said was the “Word of the LORD,” or “the Word” that came to the prophets. However, could it not be, that as we say that this person comes to that person, so the Son (the Word)… came to Hosea, being sent to him by the Father?4

I believe that Christ is also called “the Voice of the LORD God” in Genesis 3:8, which says:

15


“And they heard the Voice of the LORD God walking in the gar-den.” (Genesis 3:8)

Whom can this be speaking of other than Christ?

There was also a Jewish theologian named Philo who lived from about 20 BC to about 50 AD whose writings speak of “the Word” as an individually conscious being who was distinct from God. The writings of Philo that men-tion the Word are very significant to our discussion, because they were writ-ten almost immediately prior to the gospel of John (which was written between 50 and 70 AD). Since Philo was alive around the same time that John wrote John 1:1 then his writings may give us a general idea of the then current thought of Jewish theology.

Philo wrote the following:

And the Father who created the universe has given to his ar-changelic5 and most ancient Word a preeminent gift … And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the ruler of all, to the subject race.6

Philo clearly refers to the Word as a distinct spiritual being prior to the time of John’s writings. Thus, in light of the contemporary Jewish theology of John’s day, one should expect for John to speak of the Word as a distinct spiritual being in his writings as well, without feeling the need for any quali-fying appendages.

Revelation 19:13 – Christ Is “The Word Of God”

The same John who wrote John 1:1 also refers to Christ as “the Word of God” in Revelation 19:13 as well, saying:

“And he (Christ) was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13)

This is an accurate rendering of the Greek text. And since the context clearly shows that this is a reference to Christ (which I have never heard anyone deny) then Christ is clearly called “the Word” in this passage.

I believe that this, along with all of the other aforementioned evidence, gives us reason enough to believe that John was referring to the Word as a distinct and conscious being (Christ) when he penned John 1:1.

16

The Word

John 1:1 – The Word Was “With” God?

Now that we have shown that Christ is called the Word, let’s look closer at John 1:1, which the King James Version renders as:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1 KJV)

The KJV says that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” but how is this possible? How can a person be with someone and at the same time also be that individual?

First of all, the Greek word that is translated as “with” in John 1:1 does not actually mean with. There are other words that mean with in the Greek, (sun) and (meta), but the word that is translated as “with” in John 1:1 is

(pros), which actually means unto.

The Greek text of John 1:1b reads as follows:

the Word was unto the God (John 1:1b)

Here we see the Greek phrase , which is so often incorrectly translated as “with God” in most of our English versions. When we look at the other places in the New Testament where is used, we see that this phrase always carries the meaning of unto God.

The following list shows every passage in the New Testament in which the phrase is used:

John 1:1 “the Word was with ( ) God ( )”

John 1:2 “was in the beginning with ( ) God ( )”

John 13:3 “he was come from God and went to ( ) God ( )”

Acts 4:24 “they lifted up their voice to ( ) God ( )”

Acts 12:5 “prayer was made...unto ( ) God ( ) for him”

Acts 24:16 “a conscience void of offense toward ( ) God ( )”

Romans 5: 1 “we have peace with ( ) God ( )”

Romans 10:1 “my heart’s desire and prayer to ( ) God ( )”

Romans 15:17 “those things which pertain to ( ) God ( )”

17


Romans 15:30 “your prayers to ( ) God ( )”

2Corinthians 3:4 “such trust have we...to ( ) Godward ( )”

2Corinthians 13:7 “now I pray to ( ) God ( )”

Philippians 4:6 “your requests be made known unto ( ) God ( )”

1Thessalonians 1:8 “your faith to ( ) Godward ( )”

1Thessalonians 1:9 “you turned to ( ) God ( ) from idols”

Hebrews 2:17 “a high priest in things pertaining to ( ) God ( )”

Hebrews 5:1 “high priest…in things pertaining to ( ) God ( )”

1John 3:21 “then have we confidence toward ( ) God ( )”

Revelation 12:5 “her child was caught up unto ( ) God ( )”

Revelation 13:6 “blasphemy against ( ) God ( )”

Adolph E. Knoch (1874–1965), producer of the Concordant Literal New Testament, translates John 1:1b accurately as, “And the Word was towardGod.” He also made the following comments regarding why it should be translated thus:

To tell us that the Expression (i.e., Word) was with God does not seem suited to the thought which the word [ ] conveys. But if we read that the Expression was toward God in the sense that it pointed to him, it helps us to see that the real thought is not the near-ness of the Expression to God but the directing of others toward God. And is not this just what an expression is intended to accom-plish?7

By the grace of God, I agree with that statement. So then, contrary to tradi-tion, John 1:1 should not be translated as “with God,” but rather as “untoGod” or “toward God,” thereby signifying that the Word (which itself de-notes expression) represents God and points us back to the one who is being expressed. The common translation of John 1:1b which says that the Word was with God does represent a biblical truth, but it is simply not an accurate translation of the corresponding Greek text.

The correct translation of John 1:1 actually reads as follows:

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

18

The Word

John 1:1 – The Word Is God By Expression

Getting back to our former question, how is it that the Word (the expression)can be distinct from God and yet at the same time be God as well? It is quite simple, yet often times God must reveal even the simple things to us.

Think of this: Christ (the Word and Expression of God) is also called theimage of God throughout the New Testament:

“The glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2Corinthians 4:4)

“[Christ] who is the image of the invisible God.” (Colossians 1:15)

“[Christ] the express image of his (God’s) person.” (Hebrews 1:3)

Remember that Christ is the image of God as you consider the following analogy:

If we were to look at a photograph (an image) of Abraham Lincoln, and I was to ask you, “Who is that?” You would probably say, “That is Abraham Lincoln.” Yes! The photograph of Abraham Lincoln is Abraham Lincoln indeed. The image of Abraham Lincoln can be called Abraham Lincoln.The picture of Abraham Lincoln is Abraham Lincoln, but not in an absolute sense. It is Abraham Lincoln by expression, but not directly. So even though it is Abraham Lincoln, it is not the one true Abraham Lincoln in an absolute and unqualified sense.

I could hold up a picture of myself and proclaim truthfully, “This is me.” And in this way, I could also say:

“In my hand is the picture, and the picture is unto me (or even withme) and the picture is me.”

The picture is not another me, nor is it a part of me, nor is it of the same substance as me; but it is still me. Nevertheless, it is only me by expression. Now, let’s see how this principle applies to John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was unto God (or even with God), and the Word was God.” (John 1:1 KJV)

The Word is not another God, nor is he a part of God, nor is he of the same substance as God, and yet he is still God; but he is God only by expression.

The Word, which is Christ, is the image of God according to the scriptures, and thus he is God. Yet he is not God in an absolute sense, but rather by ex-

19


pression, because God is revealed in him (via the Spirit of God). Such an understanding of John 1:1 is not only true to logic, but it is also true to the grammatical structure of John 1:1 as well.

The Greek text of John 1:1b contains a direct article, , which modifies the noun (God), saying:

the Word was unto the God (John 1:1b)

However, John did not place a direct article before (God) within John 1:1c, which says:

and God was the word (John 1:1c)

Within Greek grammar, the direct article is typically used with personal nouns (such as God) in order to emphasize identity. What this means is not complicated: When John 1:1b says that “the Word was unto God ( ),” John uses the direct article before the noun in order to emphasize the identity of the God whom the Word represented. The addition of the direct article pinpoints and solidifies the identity of the God being referred to. The phrase does not refer to an image of God, but to God himself.

When John 1:1c says that “the Word was God ( ),” John omits the direct article before the word . This omission of the direct article when the Word is called God shows that the Word, which was unto the God, is God in a less individualized and less emphatic denotation.8

One ancient Christian theologian named Origen wrote the following in 228 AD:

We next notice John’s usage of the [direct] article in these sentences [John 1:1a–c]. He does not write without care in this respect. Nor is he unfamiliar with the subtleties of the Greek language. In some cases, he uses the article; and in some cases, he omits it. He adds the article before the word Logos (Word). But to the name God he adds it only sometimes. That is, he uses the article when the word Godrefers to the uncreated cause of all things (the Father). But he omits it when the Logos is called God.9

John was not saying that the God is one God, and the Word is another God. Not at all! Such a statement of two Gods would contradict numerous scrip-tures that confirm the existence of only one God (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 8, John

20

The Word

17:3, 1Corinthians 8:6). There cannot be two Gods, and this is not what John is asserting. The Word that is distinct from God is the only God, but only by expression, not absolutely.

A person could see the picture (an image) of Abraham Lincoln, and by doing so they could truly say that they have seen Abraham Lincoln. So also by seeing Christ (the Word of God) a person could see God as well, because God was always revealing himself through Christ.

Thus Jesus could say:

“He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

And it could still be said:

“No man hath seen God at any time.” (John 1:18, 1John 4:12)

God is invisible (Hebrews 11:27, 1Timothy 1:17) and so no man can see God (1Timothy 6:16). Nevertheless, men did see the invisible God as his per-sonal traits were revealed through the visible Christ. God is expressed through Christ, which is why Christ is called “the image of the invisible God.” (Colossians 1:15)

Just as the picture of Abraham Lincoln was Abraham Lincoln, but was at the same time distinct from the only true Abraham Lincoln, so also Christ (the Word and image of God) is God by expression, but he is also distinct from his Father (the only absolute God). Hence, the only true God, the Father, is revealed through another who is not inherently God himself––namely Christ, the Word and the image of God.

21

II

ORIGINOF CHRIST

he Bible is very clear as to how Christ came into existence––he was created. In this chapter we will examine some passages of scripture

that unambiguously prove this point. We will also answer the unwarranted Trinitarian objections that are commonly cast against the literal meaning of those creation texts.

TColossians 1:15 – Firstborn Of All Creation

In Colossians 1:15 we see a clear affirmation of the created origin of Christ:

“[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” (Colossians 1:15)

The phrase translated here as “the firstborn of every creature” literally reads like this in the Greek:

firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15)

The best translation of this text into English reads as follows:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”(NASB, ASV, Darby)

This clearly states that Christ was the firstborn of things created.

Ronald Day (of reslight.net) wrote:

The scriptures are quite plain on the fact that Jesus came into exis-tence through a creative act of God. This can be clearly seen from Colossians 1:15, in speaking of Jesus: “who is the image of the in-visible God, the firstborn of all creation.” [This scripture’s] structure

23


implies that he came into existence by a creative act. ... The rule of Greek grammar on the partitive genitive proves this ... The expres-sion, “the firstborn of every creature,” being in the Greek a partitive genitive, includes as a part of itself the thing implied in the noun that governs it, that being “firstborn.” Therefore, it implies that the first-born one is a part of creation and, accordingly, was created.10

Ronald Day refers to the partitive genitive construction present in Colossians 1:15. This particular type of construction always includes a noun among (as a member of) the group stated within the text.

Here is an example of a partitive genitive construction:

“Cain is the firstborn of all humanity.”

This is similar to the structure of Colossians 1:15:

“[Christ] is the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15)

Just as Cain is included among the category of humanity, so also Christ is in-cluded among the category of creation.11

Again, the Greek passage describing Christ in Colossians 1:15 literally reads as follows:

firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15)

This little three-word phrase is both simple and conclusive––so much so that Trinitarians have completely fabricated an alternative, non-literal12 definition of the word firstborn in a desperate attempt to avoid the literal conclusion demanded therein.

Notwithstanding the fact that even seeking a non-literal definition for the word prototokos ( ) is unjustifiable, Trinitarians persistently propose alternate meanings and translations of firstborn in Colossians 1:15. They say that the Bible sometimes uses the term firstborn in such a way that actually requires a non-literal definition. And therefore (by claiming that there are other non-literal examples of firstborn within the Bible) they assert that firstborn does not necessarily have to be understood literally in Colos-sians 1:15 either.

Out of the one hundred and sixteen times that the word “firstborn” appears in the Bible (KJV), Trinitarians have only come up with five proposed exam-ples from the Old Testament, and only one example from the New Testament where (according to them) firstborn cannot be used in a literal sense. The

24

The Origin of Christ

five Old Testament passages that they cite as containing a non-literal usage of firstborn are Exodus 4:22, Job 18:13, Psalms 89:27, Isaiah 14:30, and Jeremiah 31:9 (See “Appendix A” for a detailed discussion proving that firstborn actually is used literally in all of these OT texts). The only NewTestament text that Trinitarians refer to as contextually requiring a non-literal definition of firstborn is Colossians 1:18, which says:

“And [Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the begin-ning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:18)

Trinitarians say that Paul couldn’t have used the word firstborn literally in Colossians 1:18, because Christ was not literally the first person who was raised from the dead.

John MacArthur clearly stresses this point in the following excerpt, saying:

For example, look at verse 18: “He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning”—now watch—“the firstborn from the dead.” Now, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus, in time, the first person raised from the dead? No. There were some in the Old Tes-tament. There were some previously in the New Testament that Christ himself raised from the dead. He is not the first “in time” from the dead. He is, however, of all of those who have ever been resurrected, the primary one. Do you see? That’s what it means.13

John MacArthur is wrong. He tries to say that Christ cannot literally be the firstborn from the dead since he was not the first-raised from the dead. However, being “born” from the dead––which is what Colossians 1:18 actu-ally says––implies more than merely being revived (c.f. Luke 20:36). One is the final resurrection from the dead, when a person’s body is changed and they become immortal; the other is temporary, when a person is raised back to life from the dead in their same mortal body only to die again. It is true that many people (like Lazarus) were raised from the dead, but no one, other than Christ, has been born from the dead. Those who proclaim that Christ was not literally the firstborn from the dead disregard this fact and fail to ac-knowledge the clear biblical distinction between the two classifications of resurrection.

Whenever Paul speaks of the resurrection from the dead (as in Colossians 1:15) he is almost always referring to the final resurrection rather than the temporal one. Notice what he says:

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It (the body) is sown in

25


corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” (1Corinthians 15:42-44, 51-53)

Paul says that at “the resurrection of the dead” (in reference to the final res-urrection) we will put on immortality. If Trinitarians would acknowledge the kind of resurrection being described by Paul (when a person’s body puts on immortality) then they would also see that Christ is the first one who was resurrected from the dead in such a way:

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1Corinthians 15:20-23)

And again, Paul says:

“Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.” (Acts 26:22-23)

Christ was the first who was raised from the dead in immortality, and there-fore Paul was using the word firstborn literally in Colossians 1:18.

In light of Paul’s literal usage of the word firstborn in Colossians 1:18, we should ask why Paul would have used the exact same term in a non-literal sense three verses earlier in Colossians 1:15. He would not . . . He did not. When Paul says that Christ is “the firstborn14 of all creation” that is exactlywhat he means.

Just as Christ could not be called “firstborn from the dead” if he had not been dead, so also Christ could not be called “the firstborn of all creation” if he had not been created.15

26


Proverbs 8:22 – “The LORD Created Me”

Paul speaks of Christ as Wisdom in the New Testament, saying:

“But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” (1Corinthians 1:24)

Just as Christ is called Word because he is the revelation of the principle Word of God, so also Christ is called Wisdom because he is the revelation of the principle Wisdom of God. Christ is the Wisdom of God unto us because he is the intermediary in whom we receive God’s wisdom.

“But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:” (1Corinthians 1:30 ASV)

This does not mean that Christ is God’s own inherent wisdom in a direct sense, but it rather means that (by God’s Spirit) the wisdom of God is re-vealed unto us through Christ.

The fact that Christ is called “Wisdom” is very pertinent to our present dis-cussion, because there is a passage in the Old Testament where someone who specifically identifies himself as “Wisdom” says that God created him:

“I, wisdom, dwell in prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion. ... I have counsel and sound wisdom, I have insight, I have strength. ... The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the begin-ning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he as-signed to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and de-lighting in the sons of men.” (Proverbs 8:12, 14, 22-31 RSV)

All of the early Christians believed that this Wisdom speaking in Proverbs 8:22 was Christ:

In 225 AD, Origen wrote the following:

27


We, therefore, must first ascertain who the Only-Begotten Son of God is … For he is called Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: “The Lord created me – the beginning of his ways, and among his works before he made any other thing.”16

In 303 AD, Eusebius of Caesarea writes:

And that there is a certain substance which lived and subsisted beforethe world, and which ministered unto the Father and God of the uni-verse for the formation of all created things, and which, is called the Word of God and Wisdom, we may learn, to quote other proofs in addition to those already cited, from the mouth of Wisdom himself,17

who reveals most clearly through Solomon the following mysteries concerning himself: “I, Wisdom, have dwelt with prudence and knowledge, and I have invoked understanding. Through me kings reign, and princes ordain righteousness. Through me the great are magnified, and through me sovereigns rule the earth.” To which he adds: “The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways, for his works; before the world he established me, in the beginning, before he made the earth, before he made the depths, before the mountains were settled, before all hills he begat me. When he prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when he established the foun-tains of the region under heaven I was with him, disposing. I was the one in whom he delighted; daily I rejoiced before him at all times when he was rejoicing at having completed the world.” That the di-vine Word, therefore, preexisted and appeared to some, if not to all, has thus been briefly shown by us.18

Alexander (the bishop of Alexandria who apostatized in the early 4th century and thereafter began the persecution against his subordinate presbyter, Arius) describes the Arian belief regarding how Christ is called Wisdom, saying:

[Arius teaches that] he is neither like the Father in regards to his es-sence, nor is he by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wis-dom. He is one of the things made and produced, but he is called Word and Wisdom inexactly, since he himself came into being by God’s own Word and by the Wisdom of God, whereby God made not only all things, but him also.19

Athanasius (Alexander’s “bulldog” and successor) agreed that Proverbs 8:22 referred to Christ, but he refused to accept the literal meaning of the text. Trinitarian Robert J. Sanders comments on this fact, saying:

In his battle with Arius, Athanasius was forced to reckon with Prov-

28


erbs 8:22 which stated that “The Lord created me, the beginning of his ways, for his works.” This passage refers to Wisdom, and since Wisdom is one way in which God reveals himself, Wisdom is Jesus Christ. As a result, Arius used the passage to say that Christ was created, the first of God’s creatures, the “beginning of his ways.” This would seem to be the obvious and literal meaning. Athanasius accepted that the Wisdom of God is Jesus Christ, and therefore, he had to make sense of Proverbs 8:22. Even if he didn’t agree with its immediate meaning, the text had to mean something, something he could understand.20

Truth be told, Athanasius only accepted the literal meaning of a scripture when it could be used to support his own theology.

Proverbs 8:22 clearly show that Christ was created:

“The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works.” (Proverbs 8:22 LXX)

The Greek word that is translated here as “created” is (ektisen),which definitely means created. The same Greek word that is used in Prov-erbs 8:22 (Septuagint) is also used in Mark 13:19, 1Timothy 4:3, and Revela-tion 10:6 (where it is translated as either “created” or “hath created”). When translated literally, the Septuagint (like the Hebrew text22) clearly states that the Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 was created by God.

But how can the Wisdom be spoken of as “created” in Proverbs 8:22 when this same Wisdom says in Proverbs 8:23 (KJV), that he was set up “from ev-erlasting”?

“I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” (Proverbs 8:23 KJV)

Actually, the correct translation of this passage is not “from everlasting.” The Greek text of the Septuagint reads:

before the age

The word refers to this present world (as in Matthew 13:40, 49, Luke 1:70, John 9:32). This passage simply means that this Wisdom was created before the world was.

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) actually translates Proverbs 8:22-23 correctly, saying:

29


“The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.” (Proverbs 8:22-23 RSV)

Neither the Septuagint nor the Hebrew text23 should be translated as “from everlasting” in Proverbs 8:23.

In summary, the early Christians believed that this passage contained the words of Christ, and although many modern Trinitarians would disagree with them,24 I do not. I too believe that Proverbs 8:22 contains the words of Christ and therefore I also believe that Christ is presented as created by God therein.

Revelation 3:14 – The Beginning Of The Creation Of God

Christ clearly describes himself as the beginning of the creation of God in Revelation 3:14, saying:

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” (Revelation 3:14)

The meaning of this passage is obvious––Christ is the beginning, the first part, of God’s creation.

When Christ says that he is the “beginning of the creation of God” in Revela-tion 3:14, the word translated as “beginning” is the Greek word (ar-che). When standing on its own, without any constricting factors, archesimply means beginning. Since there is nothing to constrict the meaning of arche in Revelation 3:14, Christ literally declares himself to be the “the be-ginning of the creation of God.”

Henry A. Alford, a 19th century Trinitarian scholar, acknowledges the unin-hibited significance of the word arche in Revelation 3:14, saying:

The mere word would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being.25

The word arche is used in a partitive genitive construction in Revelation 3:14. The partitive genitive phrase, “beginning of the creation of God,” leaves no doubt that Christ is truly the first part of God’s creation. Both in the New Testament and in the Septuagint, wherever the word arche is fol-lowed by a genitive phrase (“beginning of the ____”) that which is called the arche is always included as part, the first part, of the category that follows without exception.

30


Here are a few of the many examples that demonstrate how the word arche( ) is always included among the genitive category that follows it in a sentence:

“A land which the LORD thy God careth for: the eyes of the LORD thy God are always upon it, from the beginning ( ) of the year even unto the end of the year.” (Deuteronomy 11:12 LXX) The beginning of the year is the first part of the year.

“So Gideon, and the hundred men that were with him, came unto the outside of the camp in the beginning ( ) of the middle watch; and they had but newly set the watch: and they blew the trumpets, and brake the pitchers that were in their hands.” (Judges 7:19 LXX) The beginning of the watch is the first part of the watch.

“The beginning ( ) of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1) The beginning of the gospel (written by Mark) is the first part of the gospel (it is the first sentence).

“This beginning ( ) of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” (John 2:11) The beginning of miracles (changing the water into wine) was the first public miracle among the miracles of Jesus and is included among the category of miracles.

“And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning ( )of the creation.” (2Peter 3:4) The beginning of creation is included among creation and is therefore a part of creation as well.

“These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the begin-ning of the creation of God.” (Revelation 3:14) The beginning of crea-tion is included among creation and is therefore a part of creation as well (hence the speaker, Christ, was created).

Although Trinitarians accept the meaning of arche in those other texts, they reject the meaning of arche in Revelation 3:14. Since the Trinitarian doc-trine cannot allow Christ to say that he is the “beginning of the creation of God,” advocates of Trinitarianism have attempted to redefine his statement by asserting that arche should be translated as something other than “begin-ning” in this passage. While there are rare occasions when the word arche(being restricted by the context) does carry a meaning other than beginning(See “Appendix B”), it never does so when it is used in the partitive genitive construction (as in Revelation 3:14). In fact, this type of phrase structure

31


(“beginning of the ____”) is intentionally utilized for the purpose of showing that the arche actually is the first part of that category. Hence, when Christ is said to be the “arche of the creation of God” this conclusively proves that Christ is also a part, the first part, of God’s creation.

One Trinitarian theologian, Albert Barnes, made the following concession in regards to Christ’s statement in Revelation 3:14:

If it were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact.26

Albert Barnes shows that Revelation 3:14 undeniably contains grammatical language that may appropriately express the fact that Christ was the first of God’s creation. And indeed it does. The fact that Christ is the beginning of God’s creation, or “the first that God made,” is the obvious and literal meaning of this text.

Not only does the structure of Revelation 3:14 express that Christ was God’s first creation, the context does as well:

Jesus’ entire statement reads as follows:

“These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the be-ginning of the creation of God.” (Revelation 3:14)

He is the “Amen,” which is itself a means of vouching that a thing is true; He is the “faithful and true witness,” which is a declaration of his own reliability as a witness to the truth; He is “the beginning of the creation of God,” which shows his ability to bear witness of all things from the very beginning––The point that Christ is making in this passage is that he is a reliable witness.

A common principle that runs through the Bible is that every matter should be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses:

“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be estab-lished.” (2Corinthians 13:1)

Jesus spoke of this principle as well, saying:

“It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men27 is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” (John 8:17-18)

32


Just as the Father bears witness concerning the Son, so also the Son bears witness concerning the Father. God shows that he has given Christ as a wit-ness to us, saying:

“Behold, I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.” (Isaiah 55:4)

Witnesses are chosen on the basis of the longevity of interaction they have experienced with the one concerning whom they are to bear witness. The longer that a witness has been with someone, the greater their ability to wit-ness on that one’s behalf. In fact this is the sole reason that Christ gives to substantiate his disciples’ ability to witness on his behalf, saying:

“And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.” (John 15:27)

The disciples maintained this rule as well whenever they chose witnesses, saying:

“Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22) (c.f. Luke 1:2)

In light of this principle, it only makes perfect sense that Christ’s ability to testify on God’s behalf goes hand in hand with the fact that he is God’s very first creation. Christ alone has borne witness of the works of God since the beginning of all things; and therefore Christ is the only one, seeing that he is the first creation, who can testify entirely of God’s historical acts.

In Proverbs 8 (LXX), Christ shows that he is a witness to us of the former things while also declaring that he was the beginning of God’s creation, say-ing:

“If I declare to you the things that daily happen, I will remember also to recount the things of old. The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works.” (Proverbs 8:21-22 LXX)

This is perfectly concordant with Christ’s proclamation in Revelation 3:14:

“These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the be-ginning of the creation of God.” (Revelation 3:14)

33


Colossians 1:18 – Why Christ Is Called “The Beginning”

Colossians 1:18 says:

“[Christ] is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might be first.” (Colossians 1:1828)

The reason why Christ is called the beginning in this passage is because he is the first creation of God. “The beginning” does not refer to a time apart from God’s first creation. At the same moment that God’s first creation began to exist, the beginning began to exist as well. Before, when there was only God, there was no beginning, because God always was. Nothing began until something other than God came into existence. Hence, the beginning and God’s first creation are one and the same, and that is Christ.

Colossians 3:10 – Created By God

Another scripture that is speaking of Christ’s creation is Colossians 3:9-10, which says:

“Lie not to one another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” (Colossians 3:9-10)

This verse says that the “new man” that we are to “put on” is renewed in knowledge after the image of him (God) who “created him.” So then, God created the new man, and it is that new man whom we are to put on. Who then is this new man whom Paul is speaking of? Notice how he says that we “put on” the new man … Paul specifies who this new man is elsewhere, say-ing:

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27)

And again Paul says:

“Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 13:14)

So then the new man that we put on is Christ.

Paul also shows that it is “in Christ” where there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” saying:

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on

34


Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:27-28)

Notice how he again uses this description of the new man created by God, saying:

“Put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the im-age of him (God) that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: But Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:10-11)

Galatians 3:27-28

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put onChrist. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor fe-male: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Colossians 3:10-11

“Put on the new man which is re-newed in knowledge after the im-age of him (God) that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncir-cumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: But Christ is all,and in all.”

Colossians 3:10 says that God created the new man whom we are to put on, and because that new man is Christ, then this is yet another verse that proves Christ’s created origin.

Hebrews 3:2 – Faithful To The One Who Made Him

The Bible contains other passages that show Christ was created as well, like Hebrews 3:2. However, this verse is not translated accurately in some of our English versions of the Bible, which often render this passage as:

“[Christ] who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.” (Hebrews 3:2 KJV)

The word translated here as “appointed” is the Greek word (poieysanti). This word does not primarily29 mean “appointed,” it instead re-fers to something “made.” This exact same word is used in Revelation 14:7, which says:

35


“Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made ( ) heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 14:7)

Like Revelation 14:7, Hebrews 3:2 is not referring to something “appointed,” but rather to something “made.”

Some have said that Hebrews 3:2 refers to Jesus Christ being “made High Priest” rather than simply being “made.” They support this theory by point-ing out that Hebrews 3:1 described Christ as “the Apostle and High Priest of our profession.” Since Hebrews 3:1 states that Christ is “the High Priest” and Hebrews 3:2 states that God “made” Christ, they assert that Christ wasn’t simply “made” in an unqualified sense, but that he was rather “made High Priest.”

“Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Je-sus; Who was faithful to him that made him [High Priest], as also Moses was faithful in all his house.” (Hebrews 3:1-2)

They try to support the assertion that Hebrews 3:1-2 refers to Christ being made High Priest by paralleling this text with Hebrews 5:5, which says:

“So also Christ glorified not himself to be made ( ) a high priest.” (Hebrews 5:5)

This may seem reasonable on the surface, but in actuality there is no gram-matical connection between Hebrews 3:2 and Hebrews 5:5, nor is there any connection between “High Priest” in Hebrews 3:1 and “made” in Hebrews 3:2.

“Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Je-sus; Who was faithful to him that made him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.” (Hebrews 3:1-2)

Hence, Hebrews 3:2 presents Christ as being faithful to his maker.30

John 1:1a – In The Beginning Was The Word

We have already examined several scriptures that prove the created origin of Christ. It now seems necessary to briefly address the arguments that are sometimes made to promote the erroneous notion that Christ existed from eternity past (which, if these arguments were valid, would effectively contra-dict the fact that Christ was created).

One common argument that Trinitarians make in order to assert that Christ

36


existed from eternity past is based upon a misinterpretation of John 1:1a, which says:

“In the beginning was the Word...” (John 1:1a)

The Greek verb (ane) (which is the word translated as “was” in John 1:1) is the imperfect tense of the Greek verb (which means exist). It is used similar to how our English word was is used––to show the past existence of a thing without specifying the beginning, duration, or ending of its historic reality.

Example: “Yesterday there was a storm”: The beginning, duration, or end-ing of that storm is not specified. The only thing specified is that a storm ex-isted within the historical parameters stated in the sentence (i.e., “yesterday”).

The same holds true for John 1:1a––the beginning,31 duration, and/or ending of the Word’s existence is not specified; the only thing specified is that the Word existed within the stated historical parameters (i.e., “in the begin-ning”).

Trinitarians sometimes say that “the beginning” in John 1:1 is a precise mo-ment and therefore the imprecise imperfect tense verb denotes an un-specified duration of existence (“was”) in relation to a specified point of existence (“the beginning”).

One Trinitarian presented an argumentative illustration based on the imper-fect tense of that went something like this:

was: o o indefinite duration

in the beginning: · definite point

By such reasoning, Trinitarians sometimes assert that Christ’s existence transcends the beginning (therefore making him eternal). However, the im-perfect tense verb does not demand a drawn out existence, but only an existence defined within the historical parameters specified in the context––“in the beginning.” Hence, the duration of the beginning is irrelevant, and all we see in John 1:1a is that the Word was present when the beginning was. Those who say that presents an extended existence in John 1:1 that is not

37


restricted to the stated historical parameters (“in the beginning”) are reading something into the text that is simply not there.32

With that being said, was John truly referring to a precise moment in John 1:1a when he spoke of “the beginning”? No, he wasn’t. Although the scrip-tures do present a precise beginning (which is Christ), they also present “the beginning” as an extended period of time during which the world was created (Hebrews 1:10), during which man was created (Matthew 19:4), during which Satan rebelled (1John 3:8), etc.

When John refers to the beginning in John 1:1a he is speaking of the ex-tended beginning.

“In the beginning was the Word ... Through him all things were made.” (John 1:1a, 1:3 NIV)

This is actually a parallel with Genesis 1:1, which says:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

When the heaven and the earth were created “in the beginning” (Genesis 1:1) Christ was contemporarily in existence (being the one through whom the heaven and earth were made). This is the simple point conveyed in John 1:1a.

Micah 5:2 – Christ’s Origin Is Not From “Everlasting”

One of the primary “proof texts” cited by those who say that Christ has ex-isted from eternity past is Micah 5:2, which the King James Version renders as:

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2 KJV)

This is indeed a messianic prophecy, but when the KJV says that the Mes-siah’s goings forth is from “everlasting” it misrepresents the original Hebrew thought conveyed.

Ronald Day (of reslight.net) wrote an article showing why the Hebrew text of Micah 5:2 does not signify that Christ has existed from eternity past. In his article, he shows how the two Hebrew words (yowm and olam) that are translated as “from everlasting” in Micah 5:2 are also used elsewhere within

38


passages that cannot be understood as describing eternity past. One of the passages he cites is Deuteronomy 32:7, which says:

“Remember the days (yowm – Strong’s #3117) of old (olam – Strong’s #5769), consider the years of many generations: ask thy fa-ther, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.” (Deu-teronomy 32:7)

After pointing out this text, Ronald Day proceeds to make the following comments:

Again notice Strong's #3117 [yowm] & 5769 [olam]. Certainly Moses was not telling the Israelites to remember eternity, for they were not capable of such.

Another passage cited in Ronald’s article, demonstrating how the Hebrew phrase yowm olam is used, is Micah 7:14, which says:

“Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days (yowm – Strong’s #3117) of old(olam – Strong’s # 5679).” (Micah 7:14)

Ronald then goes on to say:

Strong’s #3117 & 5769 are again used to denote, not eternity, but thedays of old. Indeed, the word olam when used of the past, very sel-dom actually means eternal. This can be seen by its usage in the fol-lowing scriptures: Genesis 6:4; Deuteronomy 32:7; 1Samuel 27:8; Ezra 4:15,19; Job 22:15; Proverbs 23:10; Isaiah 51:9; 58:12; 61:4; 63:9,11; Jeremiah 6:16; 18:15; 28:8; Jonah 2:6; Micah 7:14; Malachi 3:4, as well as many others. [Therefore,] there is nothing in Micah 5:2 that gives evidence that Christ has an eternal past.

Ronald Day thus effectively demonstrates how the Hebrew text of Micah 5:2 does not present Christ as having existed from eternity past.

The same reasoning that pertains to the Hebrew text of Micah 5:2 also per-tains to the Greek Septuagint text of Micah 5:2 as well, which reads:

“...his goings forth are from the beginning, even from the days( ) of old ( ).” (Micah 5:2 LXX)

The exact same Greek phrase from Micah 5:2 (LXX), , is also used in Deuteronomy 32:7:

39


“Remember the days ( ) of old ( ), consider the years for past ages: ask thy father, and he shall relate to thee, thine elders, and they shall tell thee.” (Deuteronomy 32:7 LXX)

The Septuagint refers to ancient “days” ( ) rather than eternity past. Hence, the Septuagint text, like the Hebrew text, does not promote the “eter-nity” past translation of Micah 5:2.

“...from of old, from ancient times.”(Micah 5:2 NIV)

“...from of old, from ancient days.”(Micah 5:2 RSV)

“...are of old, From the days of antiquity.”(Micah 5:2 YLT)

Hebrews 7:3 – Christ And Melchisedec

There has been quite a bit of confusion regarding the comparison between Christ and Melchisedec that is found in Hebrews 7:3.

“[Melchisedec, who was] without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” (Hebrews 7:3)

If someone does not understand the context in which this scripture is pre-sented, they may assume that Melchisedec did not have a father, mother, ge-nealogy, beginning of days, or end of life. However, that is not what the writer is saying. Instead, the point being conveyed is that there is nothingrecorded about Melchisedec’s genealogy in the scriptures, and there is no record of his beginning or ending. The writer was alluding to the fact that none of those things are recorded about Melchisedec, not that they didn’t pertain to him in general. This interpretation of the text is acknowledged by Trinitarians as well.

Trinitarian Albert Barnes comments on this passage accurately, saying:

Without father. The phrase without father ( ) means, liter-ally, one who has no father ... the apostle says that there was no such genealogical table in regard to Melchizedek. There was no record made of the name either of his father, his mother, or any of his pos-terity. ... The meaning of the word rendered “without father” here is, therefore, one the name of whose father is not recorded in the He-brew genealogies. Without mother. The name of whose mother is unknown, or is not recorded in the Hebrew genealogical tables.

40


Philo calls Sarah (without mother) probably because her mother is not mentioned in the sacred records. The Syriac33 has given the correct view of the meaning of the apostle. In that version it is, “Of whom neither the father nor mother are recorded in the ge-nealogies.” Without descent, [margin], pedigree. The Greek word

means without genealogy; whose descent is un-known. He is merely mentioned himself, and nothing is said of his family or of his posterity. Having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. The obvious meaning of the phrase is, that, in the re-cords of Moses, neither the beginning nor the close of his life is men-tioned. It is not said when he was born, or when he died; nor is it said that he was born, or that he died. ... There was no account of the commencement or close of his office as a priest, but, so far as the record goes, it is just as it would have been if his priesthood had nei-ther beginning nor end.34

Albert Barnes gives a good exposition of these statements in regards to their application to Melchisedec. However, despite popular opinion, all of these statements made about Melchisedec are not (and cannot be) applied to Christ. Unlike Melchisedec, Jesus has a mother whose identity is well known. Furthermore, Jesus has a genealogy that is recorded in Matthew 1:2-16, but the writer of Hebrews describes Melchisedec as “without genealogy.” Therefore, it cannot be that Christ is like Melchisedec in all of the aspects mentioned in Hebrews 7:3. Instead, the writer is specifying one particular point that is made immediately prior to his comparison, saying that Melchis-edec was like the Son of God in that sense.

“He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither begin-ning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.” (Hebrews 7:3 RSV)

Melchisedec (as far as the record shows) did not cease to be a priest, but in-stead “abideth a priest forever.” Historically, his priesthood is presented as something that did not end. Likewise, since Christ has risen from the dead and now lives forever, his priesthood (not only on the basis of record, but also in reality) shall not end either.

The context clearly shows that it is the duration of their priesthood that is be-ing compared:

“Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz’edek. ... [Melchiz’edek] is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of

41


days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever. See how great [Melchiz’edek] is! Abraham the patriarch gave him a tithe of the spoils. ... This man who has not their [Levitical] genealogy received tithes from Abraham ... Here tithes are received by mortal men; there, by one of whom it is testi-fied [due to no record of his death] that he lives. ... In the likeness of Melchiz’edek, [Jesus] has become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an in-destructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchiz’edek.” ... Those who formerly be-came priests took their office without an oath, but this one was ad-dressed with an oath, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘Thou art a priest for ever.’” This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever.” (Hebrews 6:20, 7:3, 4, 6, 8,15-17, 21-24 RSV)

The author of Hebrews was specifically comparing Christ to Melchisedec in regards to the perpetuity of their priesthood. He was not comparing Christ to Melchisedec in regards to having no father, no mother, no genealogy, and no beginning of days. Therefore this passage cannot be used to promote an un-created Christ.

“There is no record of his father or mother or any of his ancestors–no beginning or end to his life. He remains a priest forever, resembling the Son of God.” (Hebrews 7:3 NLT)

Hebrews 13:8 – “The Same Yesterday” = Eternity Past?

One Trinitarian claimed that an eternal past is implied within the text of He-brews 13:8, which says:

“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

He argued that the word “yesterday” in this passage clearly signified eternity past. The Greek word that is translated as “yesterday” in Hebrews 13:8 is

(echthes), which literally means yesterday. This exact same word is also used in John 4:52, which says:

“Then inquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, yesterday ( ) at the seventh hour the fever

42


left him.” (John 4:52)

Now, if echthes means eternity past then the man who was healed in this passage never had a fever in the first place, and thus it never left him at all! Yet, this would be absurd. It is also absurd to say that “yesterday” implies eternity past when it is used of Jesus in Hebrews 13:8. Even if there is some extended meaning for the word “yesterday” in Hebrews 13:8 (which I be-lieve there is), in no way, by any reasonable standard, does that necessitate that the extension be stretched to infinity!?!

43

III

BEGOTTENOF GOD

uring the Nicene crisis, one of the most controversial and divisive de-bates centered around the manner and method in which Christ was

“begotten” of God. Was Christ begotten of God by coming out of the Fa-ther’s own divine substance? Was it a natural process in which the Father reproduced a consubstantial offspring? Is there a difference between the na-ture of Christ’s sonship and our sonship? The purpose of this chapter will be to define the scriptural truth regarding the manner in which Christ was begot-ten of God.

D

“Begotten” – Same Substance/Same God?

The Trinitarian idea of God is that God the Father begot a Son in such a way that caused that Son to consist of the same divine substance as the Father himself. Trinitarians believe that the Son, being begotten of the same sub-stance as the Father, is divine by nature just as the Father is divine by nature. Yet, even though they believe that the Father and the Son are two divine per-sons, they do not confess that they are two divinities, but only one divinity who simultaneously exists as more than one person. Whenever attempting to explain how this is possible, Trinitarians usually begin alluding to the term “God” as if it were descriptive of a divine species rather than a divine indi-vidual.

I recently read a Trinitarian book entitled Mere Christianity, written by C.S. Lewis, wherein he made the following assertion:

“A man begets human babies … What God begets is God, just as what man begets is man.”35

Do you see the species terminology? When man begets man this does not re-fer to a reproduction of the same man, but it rather introduces a different man

45


who is a member of the same species of man. Man does not beget himself. Therefore, if we were to draw a parallel between “man begetting man” and “God begetting God” (as C.S. Lewis does) then this would mean that God does not beget the same God, but a different God who is a member of the same species of God. In reality, C.S. Lewis is wrong, because God is an in-dividual, not a species. And since God is an individual, then the Son, who is not the same individual as the Father, cannot (in any absolute sense) be the same God as the Father himself.

In 213 AD, Tertullian said:

A father must necessarily have a son in order to be a father. So, likewise, a son must have a father to be a son. However it is one thing to have, and another thing to be. For example, in order to be a husband I must have a wife. However, I can never myself be my own wife. In like manner, in order to be a father, I must have a son, for I never can be a son to myself.36

The Father and the Son cannot be the same individual, and therefore (since God is an individual) the Son cannot be the same God as the Father. Those who define God as a species consisting of multiple persons effectively rob God of his own individuality, reducing him from one conscious person down to a substantial classification––a what rather than a who. Such a conclusion is entirely unacceptable. Hence, even if the Son were begotten from the sub-stance of the Father, this still would not make Jesus God himself.

“Born Of” Should Be Translated As “Begotten”

I have heard many people, from varying viewpoints, say that only Christ is begotten of God. And thus, according to them, Christ is a Son of God in such a way that does not apply to God’s other non-begotten sons. However, such a conclusion is not based upon accurate scriptural exegesis.

There are many biblical passages where men other than Christ are unques-tionably presented as begotten of God:

In Deuteronomy 32:18, as it reads in the Septuagint, Moses speaks unto the children of Israel, saying:

“Thou hast forsaken God that begot thee, and forgotten God who feeds thee.” (Deuteronomy 32:18 LXX)

The Hebrew Masoretic text says something slightly different:

“Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forsaken

46

Begotten of God

God that formed thee.” (Deuteronomy 32:18 KJV)

Instead of saying “God” begot the Israelites the Hebrew text says that “the Rock” begot them. However, since God is declared to be “the Rock” in verses 3-4 of the same chapter (Deuteronomy 32) then the thought remains the same––“God begot the Israelites.”

We also see God declaring this fact himself in the Septuagint text of Isaiah 1:2, saying:

“I have begotten and reared up children, but they have rebelled against me.” (Isaiah 1:2 LXX)

There are also New Testament examples of men being begotten of God as well. When translated correctly, as in the American Standard Version, 1John 5:1 says:

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.” (1John 5:1 ASV)

This scripture clearly shows that those who believe that [the real37] Jesus is the Christ are begotten of God.

The fact that Christians are begotten of God is very evident in many other New Testament passages as well, but (due to inconsistent translations) the Greek word (gennao), which means begotten, has often been trans-lated as “born” whenever it is applied to Christians, but “begotten” whenever it is applied to Christ.

The Greek word gennao describes Christ being “begotten” of God in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, and 1John 5:18.

The exact same Greek word is also used to describe Christians as being “born” of God in 1John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:4, 5:18.

The same Greek word that describes Christ as “begotten” of God is also used to describe Christians as “born” of God. So, when some of the English ver-sions say that Christians are “born of God” the Greek text actually states that they are “begotten of God” instead.

Example: The KJV renders 1John 2:29 as, “Ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” Yet, the literal translation would in-stead be, “Ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is begotten of him.” (ASV, YLT, Darby)

47


Adam Clarke, who was an adamant Trinitarian during his day, commented on the correct translation of the Greek word gennao in 1John 2:29, saying:

The words “born of him” ( ), should be translated “hath been begotten of him,” which is the literal signification of the word, from “ ,” (gennao) I beget 38

This is true. Yet, does this mean that those who are “begotten” of God be-come the God who begot them? Not at all! Well then why do so many peo-ple say that Christ is God because he is begotten of God? Oh what inconsistency! Being begotten of God in no way suggests that the one who is begotten becomes the begetter.

“Begotten” Explained

Being begotten of someone does not necessarily denote the reproduction of substance. Notice how Paul says that he begot the church in Corinth:

“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” (1Corinthians 4:15)

Paul begot the Christians at Corinth, but he was not saying that the church at Corinth came out of his substance.

And again, this is not what Paul meant when he said:

“I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds.” (Philemon 10)

Does this mean that Onesimus came out of Paul’s substance? No. Accord-ing to its biblical usage, the word begotten may also be used to signify the reproduction of character.

The same Greek word (gennao) that describes how both Christ and Chris-tians are begotten of God is also used in those passages that describe how Paul begot sons as well: Philemon 10, 1Corinthians 4:15. So then, according to the scriptures, the word begotten does not necessarily refer to producing children out of one’s substance. Paul was not referring to a physical and natural begetting process, but rather to a process by which others became “imitators” of him in relation to character.

This is why he says:

“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through

48

Begotten of God

the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.”(1Corinthians 4:15-16)

Paul also says elsewhere:

“Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me – put into practice.” (Philippians 4:9 NIV)

The one begotten does what the father who begot him does, and thus, in a characteristic sense, the begetter is reproduced in the one who is begotten. This is what the Bible means when it speaks of God begetting children.

The Bible shows that those who are begotten of God do as God does and those who are begotten of the devil do as the devil does:

“If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him. My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous: he that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sin-neth from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God mani-fested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” (1John 2:29, 3:7-10 ASV)

God’s character is reproduced in the children of God; Satan’s character is re-produced in the children of Satan.

When we think of God begetting children we should think in terms relative to spiritual qualities rather than to material substances. God does not un-dergo some sort of natural reproductive process by which his substance is di-vided into distinct persons. Rather, the spiritual attributes of God are manifested within the children of God through the indwelling operation of God’s Spirit. By God’s Spirit abiding in them, God’s character is revealed through them, and they are thereby begotten of him.

Let’s look at another biblical example that shows how a father can beget sons regardless of substantial processes:

It is not only the physical offspring of Abraham that are counted as Abra-ham’s children, because––in another sense––those who do the works of Abraham are counted as his children as well.

49


Jesus spoke to some of the physical descendents of Abraham and said:

“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed.” (John 8:37)

And again he says to them:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day” (John 8:56)

Christ clearly acknowledged that those men with whom he spoke were Abra-ham’s children in regards to their genealogical descent. However, Christ shows that those men were not children of Abraham in regards to their char-acter, saying:

“If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abra-ham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth that I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father…the devil.” (John 8:39-41, 44)

Who can say anything against this? Christ shows that there is a wholly dif-ferent way to be Abraham’s children that clearly doesn’t involve a reproduc-tion of substance. The Jews to whom Christ spoke were Abraham’s physicaldescendents; yet in regards to their character they were not Abraham’s chil-dren, but were instead declared to be children of the devil.

So there are two ways in which a person may be a child of Abraham:

1. According to physical reproduction

2. According to reproduction of character (which, by the way, can be pro-duced in us only through Christ)

It is this latter connotation that Paul refers to when he speaks of begetting the Christians at Corinth. This is also the reasoning behind those passages that speak of Christ’s children (c.f. Isaiah 49:20-21, 53:10). Nevertheless the source of all godly fatherhood is God and in that regard he alone is to be re-ferred to as our Father (Matthew 23:9). It is solely God, the Father, who is the source of the character passed down to all:

“For both he that sanctifieth (Christ) and they who are sanctified (true Christians) are all of one (God): for which cause he (Christ) is not ashamed to call them brethren.” (Hebrews 2:11)

None of these things point to a reproduction of substance.

Here are a few more examples, according to the scriptures, that demonstrate how being a son of someone does not necessarily refer to coming out of their

50

Begotten of God

substance:

Matthew 23:15 – Jesus calls the Pharisees “children of hell” but they were not produced out of hell’s substance.

Acts 13:10 – Paul calls Elymas a “child of the devil” but Elymas was not produced of Satan’s substance.

Matthew 5:44-45 – Jesus says, “Love your enemies ... do good to them ... pray for them ... that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Here, Jesus shows that those who do as God does are his children.

John 16:27-28 – Did Jesus Come “Out Of” God’s Substance?

Some people think that Christ came out of God’s substance because of John 16:27, where Jesus says:

I from of the God came forth (John 16:27)

Jesus was not saying that he “came out of God” (as the KJV translates it), in-stead he was simply affirming that he was from God, which is exactly how the NIV translates this passage, saying:

“I came from God” (John 16:27 NIV)

Christ was not saying that he came out of God in John 16:27, and he is not saying that he came out of God in John 16:28 either. However, unlike John 16:27, the reading found in some Greek manuscripts seem to say that he did, portraying Christ’s statement as:

I came forth out of the Father (John 16:28 Nestle)

This structure does state that Christ (which gram-matically presents Jesus coming out of the Father), but the earliest Greek manuscripts containing this passage do not say this at all.

In P5 and P22 (both dating to the 3rd century) the clause in John 16:28 reads as follows:

I came forth from of the Father

51


I do not know of any passage within all of “original” scripture where Jesus says (which would mean that he came out of the Father). And I don’t know of any other structure that grammatically requires Christ to have come “out of” God either.39

The Greek text of John 16:27-28 is accurately translated in the NIV to show that Christ came forth from God, saying:

“The Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. I came from the Father and en-tered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.” (John 16:27-28 NIV)

Notice how Jesus states that he came from the Father and was returning backto the Father . . . He did not return back to God and enter into his substance, likewise he did not come out of God’s substance when he initially came from God to the earth. This is referring to the origin from which Christ was sent,not to the origin of his compositional substance.

Yet, there is at least one acceptable way that Christ can be said to have “come out of God.” If I say that a certain definition “came out of” a Web-ster’s dictionary do I mean that it came out of the substance of that diction-ary? No. I would mean that what was in the dictionary was transferred, not by breaking off of substance, but by duplication of knowledge. The knowl-edge in the dictionary is transferred by the same knowledge being imparted elsewhere. The transferring of such knowledge does not remove or alter any part of the knowledge that was originally in the dictionary. So also, by God’s working in Christ Jesus, the immaterial qualities of God were trans-ferred into Christ without changing or breaking off a part of God. In this way Christ (as the image of God) came out of God indeed.

But if the expressions “from him” … and, “I came forth from the Fa-ther and have come here,” are understood by certain people in terms of an emanation, then, according to them, the Father is compound and divisible, and changeable and material. As far as they are con-cerned, the God who is without a body is undergoing the experiences proper to a body.40 (–Arius)

How Are We Begotten If Christ Is The “Only” Begotten?

As we have already seen, Christians are definitely referred to as begotten of God (1John 5:1). Yet, how is this possible in light of the fact that the Bible describes Christ as God’s “only begotten41 Son”? In order to rightfully grasp

52

Begotten of God

how Christ alone is begotten, even though we too are begotten, we must firstly remember that being “begotten of God” does not refer to a reproduc-tion of substance. Instead, “begotten of God” refers to the reproduction of God’s character/attributes. Christ is the only one in whom the attributes of God are revealed, and it is only when Christ is revealed in us that those at-tributes of God revealed in him are revealed through him in us as well. To put it plainly––God is revealed in Christ alone and Christ is revealed in us (John 17:23).

Christ partakes of the things of God and we partake of the things of Christ, which is why Jesus said:

“[The Holy Spirit] shall glorify me: for it42 shall receive of mine,and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that it shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.” (John 16:14-15)

We only receive the character of God by becoming partakers of the singular revelation of God in Christ. When the Spirit reveals the things of Christ in us then those things of God that are revealed in Christ are (through Christ) revealed in us as well. As the attributes of God (through Christ) are revealed in us, then the same attributes of God that qualify Christ as begotten of God are the same attributes that, through Christ, qualify us as begotten of God as well.

We are begotten of God only in an indirect sense through Christ, and thus we are adopted through Christ Jesus, who is the only begotten of God.

“[God] predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the kind intention of his will.” (Ephesians 1:5 NASB) (c.f. John 1:12-13)

53

IV

CREATOR?

any of the arguments that are made by those who say that Christ is God himself are based upon the assertion that Christ created all

things as God. The purpose of this chapter will be to examine what the Bible says regarding Christ’s involvement in creation.

MWere All Things Created “By” Christ?

There are a few passages within the King James Version that portray all things as having been created “by” Christ:

The KJV renders John 1:3 as:

“All things were made by him (Christ); and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3 KJV)

But the American Standard Version translates John 1:3 as:

“All things were made through him; and without him was not any-thing made that hath been made.” (John 1:3 ASV)

The KJV renders 1Corinthians 8:6 as:

“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1Corinthians 8:6 KJV)

However, 1Corinthians 8:6 in the American Standard Version says:

“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1Corinthians 8:6 ASV)

55


Colossians 1:16 in the KJV says:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and forhim.” (Colossians 1:16 KJV)

But the American Standard Versions translates Colossians 1:16 as:

“For in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or domin-ions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him.” (Colossians 1:16 ASV)

Hebrews 1:2 in the KJV says:

“[God] hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:2 KJV)

But Hebrews 1:2 in the American Standard Version says:

“[God] hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:2 ASV)

It is the American Standard Version, rather than the King James Version,which accurately expresses the meaning of the various Greek prepositions within these passages. We will discuss all of these texts individually a little later in this chapter. When accurately translated, the Bible teaches that all things were created through Christ.

“All Things” Created Through Christ

One of the most widespread arguments presented by those who deny Christ’s creation is based on the fact that the Bible says “all things” were created through Christ (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). Trinitarian and Oneness advo-cates assert that if Christ was truly created first and everything else was sub-sequently created through him then the Bible would say “all other things were created through him,” rather than “all things were created through him” (Colossians 1:16 ASV). By such reasoning they say that Christ is necessarily excluded from the entire category of created things and therefore he himself cannot truly be a created being.

56

Creator?

I suppose that by the same reasoning one could also say that Eve was not alive, because the Bible says:

“Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” (Genesis 3:20)

Based upon this passage, someone could say:

“Eve could not have been alive because she is the mother of all liv-ing! The text doesn’t say she is the mother of all other living, so she is clearly excluded from the total category of living things!”

What nonsense that would be! And it is also nonsense to say that Christ is not created simply because the Bible says “all things were created through him” (Colossians 1:16 ASV). This is especially nonsense since Christ af-firms himself to be the beginning of God’s creation in Revelation 3:14!

The fact of the matter is that the Bible often uses the word “all” in such a way that does allow exceptions to the specified category. Eve was not the mother of either herself or Adam, and yet the Bible says that she is the “mother of all living.” Thus, “mother of all living” manifestly has at least two exceptions. In the same way, Christ was not created through himself, and yet the Bible says that “all things” were created through him. He him-self was created (Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14) and thus he is manifestly excepted from “all things” that were created through him.

The word “all” is not used within the Bible in an exclusively absolute sense, as if to automatically eliminate any possible exception whatsoever.

Hebrews 2:8 says:

“[God] hast put all things in subjection under his (Christ’s) feet. For in that he (God) put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” (Hebrews 2:8)

If somebody were to read Hebrews 2:8 without acknowledging scripture as a whole then they might argue against the existence of any exception to those things that are put under Christ. However, 1Corinthians 15:27 shows that there is an exception to “all things” under Christ, saying:

“When he saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him.” (1Corinthians 15:27)

Now, why is it that the previous passage (Hebrews 2:8) did not let us know that God is excepted from all things put under Christ? Could it be that such a

57


thing is considered obvious, and thus goes unspoken? By the same standard, is it not also equally as obvious that Christ is necessarily excepted from those things that are created through him? Indeed. To say that Christ was created through himself would have been self-contradictory; therefore further clarifi-cation was entirely unnecessary. Christ was created first according to the scriptures (Revelation 3:14) and all other things were subsequently created through him.

It is amazing how so many Trinitarians have bent over backwards to criticize any Bible version that presents the understood word “other” within its trans-lation in order to show that “all [other] things” were made through Christ. They make all kinds of fuss about how the Greek text of John 1:3 and Colos-sians 1:16 does not contain a word that can be translated as “other.” Yet, those same people are absolutely acceptant whenever the more popular ver-sions include the understood word “other” in passages like Luke 13:2, which literally says:

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suf-fered such things?” (Luke 13:2 KJV)

Luke 13:2 says “all Galilaeans” in the Greek, not “all other Galilaeans.” Yet, the translators of the NIV, NLT, NKJV, NASB and RSV all include the word “other” within this passage in order to express the fact that “all the other Galilaeans” were in view. Ever hear of any objections to the addition of the word “other” in this passage? I doubt it.

The biblical usage of the word all is genuinely applicable when the vast, al-most unanimous majority is being referred to. Billions of things were created through Christ, and since Christ is the single exception to that particular category of creation then this is precisely where we should expect to find the word all being applied. Eve was the mother of all living (two exceptions), and Christ is the one through whom all things were created (one exception).

To say that John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 cannot grammatically refer to “all other things” being created through Christ is simply an untrue conclusion based solely upon theological bias.

Understanding Creation In John 1:3

The King James Version renders John 1:3 as:

“All things were made by him (Christ); and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3)

58

Creator?

The Greek word that is translated here as “by” is (dia), which generally means the channel of an act.

The Strong’s Concordance gives this definition for the word dia:

dia – a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through(in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composi-tion it retains the same general import. (– Strong’s #1223)

The Greek word dia expresses an action being performed through something (or someone). Hence, dia is correctly translated as “through” in John 1:3 within most English versions of the Bible (NIV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, YLT, Darby, etc.).

“All things were made through ( ) him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.” (John 1:3 ASV)

John 1:3 states that all things were made through Christ. That is, God made all things through Christ.

In 228 AD, Origen wrote:

If all things were made (as in this passage also) through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos – but by a stronger and greater than he. And who else could this be but the Father?43

God created the Son (Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:15) and he afterwards worked through the Son to create all other things.

It should also be noted that some Greek manuscripts render the last segment of John 1:3 as:

“...and without him not ( ) one thing ( ) was made.”

However, that may not be the original reading of John 1:3. The oldestmanuscript containing this passage is the second century P66, which reads:

“...and without him nothing ( ) was made.”

The original Greek word may have been changed over time44 via the addition of a second , which produced a Greek text that read as (notone thing) rather than (nothing). The significance of this is that the original Greek possibly said, “without him nothing was made,” rather than, “without him not one thing was made.”

The same Greek word which, according to P66, was originally in

59


John 1:3 is also used in Hebrews 2:8, which says:

“[God] hast put all things in subjection under his (Christ’s) feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing ( )that is not put under him.” (Hebrews 2:8)

Like the word all, the word nothing ( ) is shown to allow the possibility of exceptions, because even though Hebrews 2:8 says that God “left nothing( ) that is not put under him,” 1Corinthians 15:27 says:

“When he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.” (1Corinthians 15:27)

Hebrews 2:8 says God left nothing ( ) that was not put under Christ, but 1Corinthians 15:27 shows there to be an exception to that category. In the same way, when John 1:3 says nothing ( ) was made without Christ it is manifest that Christ is excepted from that category since he was created first (Revelation 3:14).45

– All Things Were Created “For” Christ?

Due to their denial of the preincarnate existence of Christ, some Unitarians say that John 1:3 (and any other scripture that refers to all things being made dia Christ) refers to all things being made for Christ.

In order to support such an interpretation they sometimes quote passages like Mark 2:27, which says:

“And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for ( ) man, and not man for ( ) the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)

It is true that this passage utilizes the Greek word dia in such a way that should be understood as for rather than as through––God obviously did not make the Sabbath through man, but he made that day for man instead. So why can’t John 1:3 also be translated to say that all things were made for(dia) Christ as well?

Grammatically, whenever the Greek word dia is followed by a genitive noun (as in John 1:3) then dia does not relay the meaning for. The word dia con-veys the meaning for only when it is followed by an accusative noun.46

When Mark 2:27 says the Sabbath was made “for (dia) man,” the word “man” is in the accusative case, hence it is possible within Greek grammar for dia to be translated as for in this passage. However, when John 1:3 says (regarding Christ) that all things were created “through (dia) him,” the word

60

Creator?

“him” is in the genitive case (not the accusative case), thus signifying that creation was accomplished through Christ.

Acts 2:22 demonstrates how the word dia refers to the channel of an actwhen followed by a genitive Greek noun, saying:

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through ( ) him ( – genitive noun) in your midst, as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22 RSV)

God wrought miracles through Christ while he walked the earth. Likewise, God wrought creation through Christ in the beginning as well.

– All Things Were Created “Through” God?

Many Trinitarians point out the fact that the Greek New Testament also says that all things were made “dia God.”

“For of him (God), and through ( ) him ( – genitive noun), and to him, are all things.” (Romans 11:36)

“For it became him (God), for ( ) whom ( – accusative noun) are all things, and by ( ) whom ( – genitive noun) are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Hebrews 2:10)47

The word dia is followed by a genitive noun in both Romans 11:36 as well as Hebrews 2:10, hence dia is not simply signifying that all things were made for God in those passages.

Usually, dia refers to the passage through which a thing proceeds:

“And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through ( ) the corn fields ( – genitive noun).” (Luke 6:1)

Yet, there are times the word dia refers to the source or ability by which an action is accomplished:

“God is faithful, by ( ) whom ( – genitive noun) ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1Corinthians 1:9)

It is the latter of these two meanings that is intended when Romans 11:36

61


and Hebrews 2:10 say that all things were made dia God. God is the sourceof the creative power, and it is through his own power that all things were created.

Well, how do we know that when the Bible says all things were created diaChrist that Christ is not thereby shown to be the source of creation as well? We know that Christ is not the source because the Bible specifically states that God brought about creation through Christ (as we shall presently show).

Understanding Creation In Hebrews 1:2

Hebrews 1:2 specifically states that God performed his creative acts through Christ, saying:

“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he (God) appointed the heir of all things, through ( ) whom ( – genitive noun) also he (God) created the world.” (Hebrews 1:1-2 RSV)

Like John 1:3, the Greek word translated here as “through” is also dia.

Understanding Creation In 1Corinthians 8:6

1Corinthians 8:6 also shows us that creation originated from God and was wrought through Christ, saying:

“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1Corinthians 8:6 ASV)

The Greek word here translated as “of” is (ek), for which the Strong’s Concordance gives the following definition:

ek – a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote). (– Strong’s #1537)

This word, which denotes the origin of an action, is never applied to Christ in regards to his role in creation. In relation to the act of creating the word, ekis used only in reference to God. Hence, God is the only source of all crea-tion and he (being the source of the ability) accomplished his creative works through Christ. This is precisely what the correct translation of 1Corinthians 8:6 testifies to, saying:

62

Creator?

“Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of ( ) whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through ( ) whom are all things.” (1Corinthians 8:6 ASV)

The scriptures give ample testimony regarding the fact that God carried out his creative acts through Christ.

Does Isaiah 44:24 Exclude Christ From Involvement?

It is often said that Christ could not have been involved in creation unless he was God, because, in Isaiah 44:24, God himself says:

“I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. 48” (Isaiah 44:24)

The argument is this: If God created Christ first and then afterwards created everything else through Christ, then how is it that God truly created the heavens alone when Jesus was also present with God during those events? By such reasoning, those who deny that Christ was created assert that both Christ and the Father must both be identified as the LORD who did these things “alone.”

In order to correctly understand God’s statement in Isaiah 44:24, we should firstly acknowledge the context in which it was made. The context of Isaiah 44 shows God contrasting himself with false gods and idols, hence he says:

“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing? … Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” (Isaiah 44:6-10, 24)

The context is clearly focused on how there were no other gods who were

63


with God when he made the heavens and the earth. Instead there was only one God who did these things.

Notice how a similar point is made regarding the manner in which God led the Israelites out of Egypt:

“For the LORD’S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheri-tance. He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wil-derness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.” (Deuteronomy 32:9-10, 12)

Moses is speaking to the Israelites in this passage (“Jacob” = Jacob’s de-scendants) and he refers to the fact that God “alone” led Israel out of Egypt, and there was “no strange god” with him (Deuteronomy 32:12, c.f. Exodus 13:17-18). Yet, even though “the LORD alone” led the Israelites, this does not mean that God led Israel without the agency of a mediator, because the scriptures clearly say:

“Thou (God) leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.” (Psalms 77:20, c.f. Exodus 32:34)

In Isaiah 44:24, God says that he created the heavens and earth alone, and yet because he did these things through Christ then Trinitarians claim that Christ must therefore be God himself. If they are truly consistent and unbi-ased in their interpretation of scripture then they must also conclude that Moses was God himself as well since God alone led Israel (Deuteronomy 32:12), and yet he did this by the hand of Moses (Psalms 77:20).

We should always interpret biblical passages in light of the context in which they are presented. The context of both Isaiah 44:24 and Deuteronomy 32:12 refers to how God acted independently of any other god.

Furthermore, when God speaks of being alone while creating the earth, it is impossible that he means that no one was with him whatsoever. Look at what God asks Job:

“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? de-clare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, andall the sons of God (i.e., the angels) shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7)

The angels were with God when he created the earth, so God was not saying

64

Creator?

that there was absolutely no one with him at all. Instead, the context is refer-ring to there being no other god with him.

Likewise, Christ was also with the Father when he made the earth (Proverbs 8:27-31). And (although God was alone in the sense that no other gods were with him) Jesus shows that the word alone does not accurately express the relationship that exists between him and his Father, saying:

“I am not alone, because the Father is with me.” (John 16:32)

When the Son is with the Father then they are “not alone.” Therefore, to say that the Father was absolutely alone in every sense is to exclude the Son, and vice versa.

God was not speaking of existing alone in every sense when he created the heaven and the earth, but he instead said, “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:8)

Isaiah 45:12 (etc.) – God’s Own “Hands” Created?

Some people may think that God couldn’t have created all things through the agency of Christ, because, in Isaiah 45:12, God says:

“I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands,have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I com-manded.” (Isaiah 45:12)

God does not have literal hands like a person who is contained in a body has; when he says, “my hands,” he is metaphorically referring to his own power revealed through his Spirit.

Jesus said:

“If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God…” (Matthew 12:28)

And in another place he also says:

“If I cast out demons by the finger of God…” (Luke 11:20)

It wasn’t by a materialized finger that Christ cast out demons, but it was rather by the Spirit of God (manifested through Christ) that this was accom-plished. Just as the Spirit is called “the finger of God” in Luke 11:20, so also when Isaiah 45:12 says God’s “hands” made the heavens, this is a meta-phorical reference to the operation of God’s Spirit (manifested through Christ).

65


Genesis 1:26 – God Said “Let Us Make Man In Our Image”

Many people have thought that Genesis 1:26 presents a God made up of mul-tiple persons (a Trinity) who is speaking to himself about creating man.

Genesis 1:26 says:

“God said, Let us make man in our image.” (Genesis 1:26)

While this statement does show more than one person, this does not mean that both of those persons combine to form one God.

Tell me this, if Christ is the image of God, and he is (2Corinthians 4:4), then why is it that the Father, the only true God (John 17:3), cannot speak toChrist about creating man in such a way that resembles both Christ and him-self?

Suppose that there were two identical twin brothers, and the first identical twin was to say to the second identical twin, “Let us draw a man that looks like us.” Would we assume that the twins both combined to form one being? Of course not! One twin would be speaking to the other twin, and because they resembled one another they could draw one man that looked like them both.

When God says, “Let us make man in our image,” he is speaking to Christ concerning man being created to resemble both he and Christ.

A. Christ is the image of God (2Corinthians 4:4)

B. God desires to create man in his own image (Genesis 1:27)

C. Both God and Christ are involved in creation (1Corinthians 8:6)

D. Therefore God says to Christ, “Let us make man in our image.”

For God to speak to Christ and say, “Let us make man in our image,” makes absolutely perfect sense in light of the fact that Christ is the image of God (2Corinthians 4:4).

In 248 AD, Origen wrote:

For we maintain that it was to him (the Word) that the Father gave the command...“Let there be Light.” ... We say that to him were also addressed the words, “Let us make man in our own image and like-ness.” The Logos, when commanded, obeyed all of the Father’s will.49

66

Creator?

Understanding Creation In Colossians 1:16

The same Greek word that is used in John 1:3 (dia) is also used in Colossians 1:16 when the KJV says:

“…all things were created by ( ) him ( – genitive noun)” (Colossians 1:16)

Since the Greek word dia actually means through then this passage should instead be translated as it is within the American Standard Version:

“…all things have been created through ( ) him” (Colossians 1:16 ASV)

However, there is a different Greek preposition translated as “by” in the KJV when the first segment of Colossians 1:16 says:

“For by ( ) him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth…” (Colossians 1:16)

It is not the Greek word dia, but rather the Greek word (en) that is trans-lated as “by” in this first segment of Colossians 1:16 (KJV).

The Greek preposition en has a meaning similar to that of our English prepo-sition in. Hence we see the American Standard Version translate this first section of Colossians 1:16 as:

“For in ( ) him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth…” (Colossians 1:16 ASV)

In this passage, the phrase “in ( ) him ( )” is in the dative case. The use of the dative case by Paul shows that another (namely God) created all things in Christ.

Yet, there is some dispute over what is meant by all things being created inChrist by God. We could compare the way that en is used in Colossians 1:16 with how en is used in Hebrews 1:1, which says:

“God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in ( ) the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners...” (Hebrews 1:1 ASV)

Here we see God performing an action in the prophets unto the fathers. God is the source of the outward action that he accomplished in the prophets. In a similar way, it could be said that God is the source of the outward creative acts that he wrought in Christ. Although it is true that the prepositional

67


Greek phrase “en auto” can be understood as an instrumental phrase (dative of agency), there is also another possible interpretation of the text as well.

Instead of understanding the phrase “in him” as an instrumental phrase (crea-tion through Christ), many scholars would argue that “in him” should instead be understood as a locative-of-sphere phrase (dative of location). In this way, all things being created “in him” would mean that all creation existed inor subsisted in Christ.

I believe that this is the correct interpretation of the text. Paul already de-scribes all things being created through (dia) Christ at the end of Colossians 1:16 and it is highly unlikely that he would have referred to the exact same thing (God creating all things through Christ) twice within such a small tex-tual proximity (one verse). Hence, the first segment of Colossians 1:16 is most likely a reference to something other than this. All creation was brought into existence through Christ, but he is also the one in whom all things were created as well.

Paul refers to a past event, saying:

“For in him were all things created...” (Colossians 1:16)

He is describing the original condition of all creation. All things were origi-nally created in Christ. In order to properly explain what this means, I must first explain the final condition of creation and work my way back.

The present condition of creation is only temporary (2Peter 3:10-13). God will create new heavens and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17). Paul speaks of this final condition of creation in Ephesians 1:10, saying:

“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he (God) might gather together in one all things in ( ) Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” (Ephesians 1:10)

Here, Paul shows that the final condition of creation will be “in Christ.” This means that all creation will be under the headship of Christ. All things in heaven and on earth will be actively influenced by the Spirit of Christ, result-ing in all creation harmoniously sharing in, and acting in accordance with Christ’s own imparted desire to please the Father.

During this present time, Creation as a whole is not currently in Christ, but this is the present condition of every true Christian:

“Therefore if any man be in ( ) Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away, behold all things are become new.” (2Corinthians 5:17)

68

Creator?

“For we are his (God’s) workmanship, created in ( ) Christ Jesus unto good works.” (Ephesians 2:10)

“And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in ( )him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in ( ) him sinneth not.” (1John 3:5-6)

Those who (by being in Christ) do not sin50 are the first products of the new and righteous creation.

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures (i.e., creation.).” (James 1:18)

Ultimately, when God creates the new heavens and the new earth, the rest of creation (animals, etc.) shall also be brought into the Christian’s state of righteousness as well, as God himself declares, saying:

“For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. … The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 65:17, 25)

As was already stated, this final, righteous condition of creation is what Paul refers to in Ephesians 1:10, saying:

“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he (God) might gather together in one all things in ( ) Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” (Ephesians 1:10)

This future righteous condition of all creation was also the original righteous condition of all creation (prior to sin). It was this original condition of crea-tion that Paul referred to in Colossians 1:16, saying:

“For in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth…” (Colossians 1:16 ASV)

And it is the return to this condition that Paul speaks of when he says:

“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he (God) might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” (Ephesians 1:10)

So originally all things subsisted in Christ, who directed all those things righteously and in such a way that pleased God. And God shall graciously restore that wondrous condition when he creates the new heaven and the new

69


earth. (A detailed discussion of Colossians 1:15-20 can be found in Appen-dix C.)

70

V

INCARNATION

he Bible tells us that Christ (the Word) was present in the beginning (John 1:1-2). This is because Christ was a spiritual being prior to be-

coming a physical man. T

“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son...” (Gala-tians 4:4 RSV)

In order for Christ to become a man, God formed a body for him within the womb of a virgin:

“Wherefore when he (Christ) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacri-fice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God.” (Hebrews 10:5-7 ASV)

While Christ did not cease to be a spiritual being, he did take on this natural body and he thereby became a natural man as well. This is what we refer to as the incarnation, and this will be the focus of our discussion in this chapter.

Luke 1:35 – Was Christ God’s Son Before The Incarnation?

Many Unitarians cite Luke 1:35 in an attempt to prove that Christ was not the Son of God prior to the incarnation.

Luke 1:35 reads as follows:

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

71


Notice how the angel said:

“…therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

Gabriel (the angel speaking to Mary) informs Mary that Christ will be called the Son of God because of the manner in which she would become pregnant. The Unitarian believers say that since the reason for Christ being called the Son of God was the miraculous conception, then Christ was not the Son of God prior to that causal event.

In our previous discussion on the meaning of begotten we saw that there is more than one way to be someone’s son. In fact, the scriptures speak of at least three different ways that a person may be called son:

1. by being a physical descendent from the body of the parent

2. in regards to the reproduction of character (as we discussed in chapter three)

3. being a son of God in the sense that God is the immediate cause of one’s existence apart from the involvement of any intermediary father

It is because of this last reason that Adam is called the son of God within the genealogy of Luke 3. This genealogy––after tracing paternal ancestry via a long list of human fathers––ends by saying:

“...Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke 3:38)

Unlike other men listed in Luke’s genealogy, Adam did not have a human fa-ther. Adam’s existence was brought about by a direct creative act of God and it is for that reason that he was called God’s son.

The same principle also applies to angels. Since God created the angels di-rectly without the intermediation of any natural father, then they are called “sons of God” as well (Job 1:6, 38:7, etc.). However, though the angels are called the sons of God in this sense, Hebrews 1:5 evidently shows that there is another sense in which they are not sons of God, saying:

“For unto which of the angels said he (God) at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Fa-ther, and he shall be to me a Son?” (Hebrews 1:5)

So then, in one way the angels are sons of God and in another way they are not the sons of God. I believe that the reason why both Adam and the angels

72

Incarnation

have been called sons of God is because God was the immediate cause of their existence.

Christ is God’s Son in three ways:

1. in regards to his spiritual existence, because he was created apartfrom any natural father (as were the angels)

2. in regards to the reproduction of character, because the personalattributes of God are manifested in him (as we discussed inchapter three)

3. in regards to the incarnation, because when he became a man hewas born of a virgin, and therefore (like Adam) he traces his immediate genealogy back to God

Luke 1:35 is speaking of how Christ is the Son of God in regards to his in-carnation. The context of Luke 1:35 shows Gabriel telling Mary that her child was to be the Son of God as opposed to being the son of a man:

“And the angel said unto her ... ‘Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son’ ... Then said Mary unto the angel, ‘How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’” (Luke 1:30-31, 34)

Gabriel responds to this question by informing Mary that the child would notbe the product of a man, but would instead be the product of God:

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

Gabriel was responding to Mary’s question, “How shall this be, seeing I have not known a man?” Mary was a virgin, so a human father could not have caused her conception. Instead, the cause of her conception was God, and therefore (for this reason) the child that she conceived was referred to as God’s Son. This entire conversation between Gabriel and Mary centers around the method in which she would become pregnant. It has nothing to do with whether or not Christ existed spiritually as the Son of God before becoming a man.

Jesus’ Body Was From The Substance Of Mary’s Body

There has been a lot of misunderstanding in regards to the composition of

73


Christ’s physical body. Some people say that Christ’s body was formed from the substance of Mary’s body, while others say that God created a body out of nothing, and still others say that Christ’s nature simply changed (by metamorphosis) from a spiritual substance into a physical substance. Which of these is true? What does the Bible say on this subject? As we shall see, it clearly shows that Christ’s physical body was formed from the substance of Mary’s body.

Jesus refers to himself as the Son of man51 in numerous places (e.g., Matthew 16:13). More specifically, he is referred to as the Son of David and the Son of Abraham.

“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matthew 1:1)

It is obvious that neither David nor Abraham had marital relations with Mary, and yet Jesus is still called their Son. Is this referring to Jesus sharing the same character as Abraham and David? No, I don’t believe so. The Bi-ble clearly shows that Christ is a physical descendent of David, saying:

“Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David ac-cording to the flesh.” (Romans 1:3)

How is this possible? It is possible because Mary is from the lineage of David (her genealogy52 is found in Luke 3:23-38). Since Mary is a physical descendent of David, when Jesus’ body was formed from the body of Mary, then Jesus was (through Mary) made a physical descendent of David as well. How else could Jesus have been David’s descendent “according to the flesh” if it were not through the physical genealogy of Mary?

The Bible identifies Christ as a physical descendent of David numerous times:

“Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Romans 1:3)

“God had sworn with an oath to him (David), that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.” (Acts 2:30)

“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead.” (2Timothy 2:8)

“Jesus…shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.” (Luke

74

Incarnation

1:31-32)

“The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set up thy throne.” (Psalms 132:11)

And since David is a descendent of Abraham, then Christ (in regards to his flesh) is also a descendent of Abraham as well:

“To Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to thy seeds, as of many; but as of one, And unto thy seed, Which is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16)

Through the flesh of Abraham and of David, passed down through the sub-stance of Mary’s body, Jesus is indeed “the Son of man,” being “the son of David and of Abraham.” (Matthew 1:1)

Here are some quotations from ancient men who acknowledged that Christ Jesus received his flesh from Mary:

In 125 AD, Aristides said:

“He assumed flesh and clothed himself with it from a Hebrew vir-gin.”53

In 180 AD, Irenaeus said:

[The Gnostics], therefore, who allege that he took nothing from the virgin, do greatly err. In order that they may cast away the inheri-tance of the flesh, they also reject the analogy [between him and Adam] ... And if he was not made what we were, he did no great thing in what he suffered and endured ... For why did he come down into her [Mary] if he was to take nothing from her?54

In 210 AD, Tertullian said:

[They] contend...that just as the Word of God became flesh without the seed of a human father, so likewise there was no flesh of the vir-gin mother ... However, if that were the case, a virgin did not con-ceive and did not bring forth.55

In 205 AD, Hippolytus said:

[Christ, the Word] came down from heaven into the holy virgin Mary, in order that by taking flesh from her ... he could save fallen man ... taking to himself the flesh from the old Adam through the medium of the virgin.56

75


And in 225 AD, Hippolytus says again:

The Logos received a body from a virgin ... for if he were not of the same nature as ourselves, it would be in vain that he commands us to imitate him as the teacher.57

Christ’s body was truly formed from the substance of Mary’s body. This was not a hard thing for God to do. If God could form Eve from Adam’s rib, then he could form Christ’s body from the flesh of Mary’s womb.

The Outward Physical Man And The Inward Spiritual Man

Someone might rightly want to know how it can be said that Jesus’ physical body was from the substance of the body of Mary when Jesus said that his “flesh” came down from heaven (John 6:50-51).

In the sixth chapter of John’s gospel, Christ spoke to those who were follow-ing him concerning his flesh that “came down from heaven,” even saying that his followers had to eat his flesh in order to have eternal life (John 6:54, etc.). Many of those men who heard Christ say these things were offended, having misunderstood what he truly meant by those words (John 6:60). Con-sequently, many of Christ’s disciples ceased to follow him instead of taking the time to grasp the relevance of those truths that he spoke (John 6:66). They needed to be patient in order to understand these proclamations of Christ; so do we. Rather than being as those who abandon reasoning too quickly, I ask you to be patient listeners on this subject of difficulty and take the time to truly consider the things said herein:

Just as we consist of an outward physical man and an inward spiritual man, so did Christ (Hebrews 2:17).

Paul made a distinction between the outward physical man and the inward spiritual man when he said:

“Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” (2Corinthians 4:16)

There is an “outward man” and there is an “inward man.” According to Paul’s statement, there is an outward part of us that can be called “man” as well as a different inward part of us that can also be called “man” as well (c.f. Ephesians 3:16, 1Peter 3:4).

Please pay attention to the following words spoken sometime in the 3rd cen-tury by Origen:

76

Incarnation

I have found that incorporeal things are given the same names as all the corporeal things, so that just as corporeal things apply to the outer man, those which are given the same names as corporeal things apply to the inner man. The Bible says that man is two men: “For if our outward man perish, yet our inward man is renewed day by day,” and, “I rejoice in the Law of God after the inward man.” These two men the apostle everywhere shows to be distinct. In my judgment he would not have ventured to invent this notion out of his own head, but rather said this because he had clearly understood statements in the scriptures which are obscurely expressed. … Therefore in each one of us there are two men. Why does the scripture say that the soul of all flesh is blood? It is a great problem. Just as the outward man has the same name as the inward man [yet though they are both called “man” they are not speaking of the same things], so also this is true of his members, so that one may say that every mem-ber of the outward man has a name corresponding to what is true of the inward man.58

Though we have physical ears, I believe it is the spiritual man’s ears that Christ refers to when he says, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” (Revelation 2:7)

It is not with the physical eyes that we see spiritual things, but we see them with our spiritual eyes, with “the eyes of understanding” (Ephe-sians 1:18).

When David says, “My heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek,” (Psalms 27:8) he was not speaking of the physical heart which cannot say anything, but rather of the spiritual heart.

In the same way that both our physical and spiritual ears are called “ears,” could there also be a physical “flesh” and a spiritual “flesh” as well? Yes in-deed.

Paul speaks of the Christian’s relationship to Christ and says:

After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church––for we are members of his body.“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery––but I am talking about Christ and the church. (Ephe-sians 5:29-32 NIV)

Does this mean that we are members of Christ’s physical flesh? No. Being

77


“one flesh” with Christ is spoken of spiritually (of a spiritual flesh), rather than physically (of a physical flesh).

“What? Know ye not that he which is joined unto an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” (1Corinthians 6:16-17)

We are joined to Christ spiritually, and thus it is also in a spiritual sense that we are “members of Christ’s body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” (Ephe-sians 5:30 KJV59)

John 6 – Christ’s Flesh From Heaven?

This brings us back to the sixth chapter of John’s gospel. In John 6, Jesus tells the people that they need to eat his flesh, saying:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

And again, he said:

“Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.” (John 6:54)

And again:

“He that eateth me, even he shall live by me… he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” (John 6:57-58)

And Christ Jesus also showed that those who did not eat of his flesh did nothave life, saying:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink of his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

Therefore, it is by eating his “flesh” that we have life, and if we do not eat of his flesh we do not have life. How then do we eat of his flesh? Can it be that Jesus was speaking of the spiritual flesh rather than the physical flesh when he described his “flesh” as “the living bread which came down from heaven”? (John 6:51) Which flesh is it that gives life to those who eat of it? Was he speaking of us chewing on his physical flesh? Or was he speaking of the assimilation of spiritual things instead? Many of those following Christ thought that he was speaking of his physical body, but Jesus ended his dis-course concerning his “flesh” by showing them that he was speaking of the

78

Incarnation

spiritual “flesh” instead, saying:

“It is the Spirit that quickeneth (gives life); the flesh profiteth noth-ing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Likewise, the flesh that he previously spoke of as giving life was not the physical flesh (which profits nothing), but the spiritual flesh. The Spirit gives life, not the physical flesh.

And what about the blood that Christ spoke of in John 6?

“Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink of his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

Do we literally drink his physical blood? No way! The Bible shows that the drink is spiritual when it says:

“Jesus stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink… But this spake he of the Spirit.” (John 7:37-39)

And elsewhere Paul says:

“We have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1Corinthians 12:13)

All of these things were summed up in Jesus’ own words:

“It is the Spirit that quickeneth (gives life); the flesh profiteth noth-ing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Since Jesus was not referring to either his physical flesh or his physical blood, then, when he said that his flesh came down from heaven, he was not contradicting the fact that his physical body was formed from the substance of Mary’s body.

John 3:13-21 – Who Is Speaking?

Despite the fact that most of our contemporary English Bible publishers print John 3:16-21 in red letters (thereby implying that the words are Christ’s), these are actually the narrative words of John instead. In his commentary on the third chapter of John’s gospel, Marvin Vincent––the Trinitarian who au-thored Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies––shows why he does not be-lieve that all of the “red letter” words in the third chapter of John are Christ’s, saying:

79


The interview with Nicodemus closes with ver.15; and the succeed-ing words are John’s. This appears from the following facts:

1. The past tenses loved and gave, in ver.16, better suit the later point of view from which John writes, after the atoning death of Christwas an accomplished historic fact, than the drift of the present discourse of Jesus before the full revelation of that work.

2. It is in John’s manner to throw in explanatory comments of his own (1:16-18; 12:37-41), and to do so abruptly.

3. Ver.19 is in the same line of thought with 1:9-11 in the Prologue; and the tone of that verse is historic, carrying the sense of past rejec-tion, as loved darkness; were evil.

4. The phrase believe on the name is not used elsewhere by our Lord,but by John (1:12; 2:23; 1John 5:13).

5. The phrase only-begotten son is not elsewhere used by Jesus of himself, but in every case by the Evangelist (1:14, 18; 1John 4:9).

6. The phrase to do truth (ver.21) occurs elsewhere only in 1John 1:660

The reasons Vincent gives for believing that John 3:16-21 contains the words of John rather than the words of Christ are solid. However, Christ’s inter-view with Nicodemus actually ended in John 3:12 (rather than Vincent’s proposal of John 3:15). This means that John’s narrative begins from John 3:13 onward.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in John 3:13-15 that cannot be grammatically attributed to John’s narrative as well:

In John 3:13 the phrase “has gone up into heaven” is in the perfect tense (indicating a completed past event). John, who penned John 3:13 long after Christ’s bodily ascension, was referring to the completed post-resurrection bodily ascension of Christ into heaven.

Every time that the Bible speaks of Christ ascending into heaven it is al-ways spoken in reference to his post-resurrection bodily ascension into heaven (c.f. Psalms 68:18, John 6:62, 20:17, Acts 2:34, Ephesians 4:8-10, Hebrews 9:24, 1Peter 3:22).

In John 20:17, Christ, speaking prior to his post-resurrection ascension, says:

80

Incarnation

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (John 20:17)

An early Christian belief that John 3:13 is referring back to Christ’s post-resurrection ascension gives a better account for the later addition61 of the phrase, “who is in heaven.” This addition is present in quotations of John 3:13 as early as 140 AD.62

In John 3:14 the phrase, “must the Son of man be lifted up,” is in the ao-rist tense (which has no time relation), hence it can be referring to a past, present, or future event. If John 3:14 truly contains the narrative words of John (and it does) then it should be understood of the past crucifixion.

The Greek verb , which is used when John 3:14 says, “must the Son of man be lifted up,” is in the present tense. It is not uncommon for John to use the present tense in reference to a past event. This is clearly dem-onstrated by John’s usage of the exact same present tense verb in John 20:9, which says:

“The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. ... For as yet they knew not the Scrip-ture, that he must ( ) rise again from the dead.” (John 20:1-2, 9)

This is describing events that occurred after Christ’s resurrection; there-fore, John 20:9 contains John’s present tense narrative account regarding a past event. The NIV study Bible notes that:

“John ... sometimes used the present tense when speaking of the past.”63

This is why the NIV translates the present tense verb used in John 20:9 in the past tense, saying:

“They still did not understand from the scripture that Jesus had to( ) rise from the dead.” (John 20:9 NIV)

Just as John used the present tense verb while referring to a past event in John 20:9 (the resurrection of Christ), so also John used the same present tense verb while referring to a past event in John 3:14

81


(Christ’s ascension). The usage of the present tense in the narration of a past event is known as the historic present tense.

Although the phrase “Son of man” is used elsewhere in John’s gospel only when quoting Christ (eight times), this does not mean that John could not have used the phrase in his own narrative of John 3:13-14 as well. John uses the phrase in his other writings (Revelation 1:13 & Revelation 14:14), and with a contextual view of Christ’s humanity it seems natural for John to have spoken of Christ in such a way here as well. In comparison, Christ refers to himself as the Son of man thirteentimes in the gospel of Mark. Yet, although Mark only employs the ap-pellation twice64 in his own narrative, no one disputes the fact that those words are genuinely his. Likewise, it is unreasonable to assume that John could not have used the phrase “Son of man” in his narrative.

In light of these things, I am convinced that John 3:13-15 contains the narra-tive words of the apostle John.

John 3:13 & 6:62 – The Son Of Man Descended From Heaven

John refers to Christ’s heavenly origin in John 3:13, saying:

“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man.” (John 3:13)

If the “Son of man” descended from heaven, then how could he have been formed from the substance of Mary’s earthly womb?

I could make a comparable statement to John 3:13 by saying:

“No woman lives with me, but she who was born in Texas, even my wife.”

You would not assume that the woman living with me was already my wife when she was born in Texas. It is not necessary to say, “The woman who would later become my wife was born in Texas.” Likewise, it was also completely unnecessary for John to say, “The one who would become the Son of man descended from heaven.” Christ’s current identity allowed for John’s statement without inferring that Christ was already the Son of man during his historic heavenly descent.

This same logic is also applicable to John 6:62, where Jesus says:

“What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” (John 6:62)

82

Incarnation

I could make a comparable statement by saying:

“What if my next-door neighbor moves back to Alaska, where he was before?”

Just as the man was not my next-door neighbor until he left Alaska and moved next door, so also Christ was not the Son of man until he left heaven and became a man. The Bible does not teach that Jesus was already a man before entering the womb of Mary.

John 1:14 – The Word Became Flesh

Since John says, “the Word was made flesh,” (John 1:14) some people have asserted that Christ did not take on a body, but rather that he simply changed into a body. However, the Bible shows that the body was prepared “for” Christ, saying:

“Wherefore when he (Christ) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacri-fice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou (God)prepare for me.” (Hebrews 10:5 ASV)

Before Christ took on the body that was prepared for him he was only a spirit being, but by taking on the flesh he became a physical man. When John says that Christ “was made flesh” he is simply affirming65 that Christ underwent a full transition from being solely spiritual to truly becoming a physical being. This was not by a metamorphosis of Christ’s spiritual nature, but by the tak-ing on of a physical nature. Christ remained what he was and became what he was not. The preexistent Christ became a physical man––this is the sim-ple meaning of “the Word became flesh.”

Christ Took On The Needs Of The Flesh

Because of the incarnation, Jesus had to learn as we do as a consequence of the limitations inherent to his physical body. When Christ took on the flesh he also took on the limitations of the flesh as well. As a man, Christ had to grow and mature from an infant to an adult. While he was an infant he bore the limitations of an infant, etc. One of the ongoing limitations that Christ experienced pertained to the natural and purely physical developmental proc-ess of his human brain.

In exactly what way the physical human brain operates, I do not know (it still baffles both scientists and doctors to a great extent); but I do know that it plays a large role in every man’s learning process. In some way, both the human brain and the spirit of a man are involved in every human being’s in-

83


tellectual progression. The spirit of a man can think independently of the brain, but a man’s brain cannot think independently of his spirit. The brain cannot generate thoughts; it only relays the thoughts generated by the man’s spirit. Since the spirit can learn independently of the brain, but the brain cannot learn anything independent of the spirit, then it appears that the brain simply plays an intermediary role.

Example: Suppose that a certain man grows and learns normally . . . What if he afterwards has an accident at the age of 45 resulting in severe brain dam-age? Would any slowed mental processes (which might occur due to the man’s brain damage) reflect a now defective spirit? Not at all! If that were true then a man’s spirit could be damaged if his brain becomes damaged, but that is not the case.

Since the spirit and the body are distinct then you cannot damage the spirit by damaging the physical brain. However, there is a possibility that damage to the physical brain might inhibit the transmission of the spirit’s thoughts. When learning something new, a damaged brain may relay jumbled trans-missions to the spirit, thereby hindering the spirit’s ability to process the new information. Also (even though a man’s spirit may not be affected at all), a damaged brain could relay jumbled transmissions from the spirit as well, thereby hindering the spirit’s ability to express those things previously learned before the damage to the brain occurred. This shows us that the hu-man brain can hinder the transmission of a man’s spirit even when the spirit itself is not hindered at all.

Many learning disabilities or intellectual hindrances that a person can experi-ence during the time their spirit inhabits the physical body can be the result of a chemical imbalance, malformation, or underdevelopment of the physical brain. Yet the fact that a person may have those learning disabilities does not mean that such a one’s spirit is defective. Hence, a limited intellect or slowed learning process may very well be solely the product of a physical de-fect, irregularity, or immaturity of the brain. Following that same reasoning, an infant’s brain is not as developed as the brain of an adult. As a child’s brain develops the transmission from and to the child’s spirit develops more and more. Since Christ was born as an infant then he would have experi-enced this limiting, purely physical developmental process as well.

Christ’s knowledge as the preexistent Son of God could have been hindered by his new human brain’s lack of development. This does not mean that Christ forgot what he previously knew, but it only means that his human brain had to develop before it could properly transmit the knowledge that pertained to his spirit. This took time (since he had to grow from a baby to a

84

Incarnation

man), and thus as Christ grew into a man his brain transmitted the things that pertained to his spirit more and more efficiently.

The Bible says:

“Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:52)

Now that Jesus is glorified he no longer has that body of weakness, but rather a body that is completely in line with the things of the Spirit. The flesh no longer hinders Jesus. He no longer sees in part, but he knows all of what was previously cloudy to him and pertained to the knowledge of his spiritual na-ture.

85

VI

LAMB OF GOD

hrist suffered temptation through the flesh during his life on earth (He-brews 2:18), but he never sinned by yielding to those temptations. It

was because of his sinless life that he was acceptable to God as a substitu-tionary sacrifice for our sins.

CJesus’ Blood Was Not Divine

Some people have said that Jesus’ blood could not have been acceptable to God if his blood was the same as other men’s blood. They assert that the composition of Christ’s blood was divine, and it was that divine composition which made Christ’s blood acceptable to the Father. Is this a scriptural doc-trine? No, it isn’t. Jesus was a genuine man and he had the same kind of blood as all other men have.

The Bible says:

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Christ) also himself likewise took part of the same.” (Hebrews 2:14)

The Bible does not say anywhere that Christ was an acceptable sacrifice to God because of the composition of his blood. Yet, many of the mainstream Trinitarian preachers have asserted this very thing, attempting to support their claim by using the following reasoning:

“Science proves that the blood of a child comes from its father, not its mother, and therefore Jesus had God’s blood because he was the Son of God, born of a virgin.”

The reasoning behind this argument is simply ridiculous. How can we com-

87


pare such scientific facts––which are only relative to the natural fertilization process between a man and a woman––with the way in which Christ was conceived in a virgin? It may be a scientific fact that a child’s blood is re-ceived from his or her father, but that is in regards to the natural intercourse between a woman and a man that results in the natural conception of a child. God did not have natural relations with Mary, and so it is not a natural pass-ing on of blood that occurred. In fact, God does not even have blood, so how could “God’s blood” have been passed on to Christ? Why do some people suppose that a natural conception bears identical and parallel facts to a con-ception that was not natural? The two are not the same, and neither were the processes involved.

Was it too hard for God to take only the blood and flesh from the womb of Mary and form Christ’s body? No way! John the Baptist said:

“I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Luke 3:8)

Or is it necessary for God to pass on a father’s blood whenever a child is born? It is not at all necessary! Adam had blood, but he had no natural father (yet he was called the son of God in Luke 3:38). God formed Adam out of the dust, and God formed Jesus out of flesh and blood from his mother’s body. Neither the blood of Adam nor the blood of Christ was com-positionally different than the blood of other men.

Acts 20:28 Is Not Speaking Of God’s Blood But Of Christ’s

Many Trinitarians would (and do) assert that Christ’s blood was divine be-cause of what is said in a very common English mistranslation of Acts 20:28, which reads:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28 KJV)

They say that this scripture proves that Christ Jesus was God himself since, according to the KJV, it was God’s blood that was shed. However, that is not the case.

The King James Version does not translate the Greek text of Acts 20:28 cor-rectly. An accurate translation of Acts 20:28 can actually be found in the Darby Translation, which reads:

88

Lamb of God

“Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.” (Acts 20:28 Darby)

The Greek text in Acts 20:28 reads as follows:

the church of God which he acquired

through the blood of (his) own (Acts 20:28)

The adjective , which means [his] own, is the last word in this passage. In all of the places where the word is used it always (without excep-tion) appears before the noun that it modifies.66 Since the word appears after the word (haimatos – blood) in Acts 20:28 then blood is notthe noun being modified by the adjective (“his own”).

Note especially the Greek word order used in the following passages from the book of Hebrews:

The Greek text of Hebrews 9:12 reads as follows:

through but of (his) own blood entered once for all

into the holies (Hebrews 9:12)

Do you see how the adjective appears before the word (unlike Acts 20:28 where appears after the word )? The KJV correctly translates this passage as, “but by his own blood he en-tered in once into the holy place.”

The Greek text of Hebrews 13:12 reads as follows:

where- also Jesus in order he might through of (his) own fore that sanctify

blood the people (Hebrews 13:12)

Again, the adjective appears before the word . The KJV also translates this passage correctly as, “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood.”

Even though the Greek sentence structure in these two passages from He-

89


brews is different than the Greek sentence structure used in Acts 20:28, the King James Version still translates all of three of these verses the same––“his own blood.” But why are they translated the same in the KJV if the original Greek is different?

The Greek in both Hebrews 9:12 and Hebrews 13:12 is phrased as:

of (his) own blood

But that is not how the Greek is phrased in Acts 20:28, which says:

the blood of (his) own

The literal translation of the Greek text in Acts 20:28 does not read, “his own blood,” but rather, “the blood of his own.”

The blood of his own what?

“The blood of Jesus Christ his Son.” (1John 1:7)

“[God] spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” (Romans 8:32)

The note on Acts 20:28 in the NIV Study Bible says:

his own blood: Lit. “the blood of his own one,” a term of endearment (such as “his own dear one,” referring to his own Son).67

Some translations of Acts 20:28 include the word “Son” after “his own” in order to clarify that the text refers to “the blood of his own Son.” Trinitarians sometimes object to this kind of translation by pointing out that the word “Son” is not stated within the Greek text of Acts 20:28. However, the fact of the matter is that the word (his own) can refer to an understood nouneven when that noun is not stated within the text. Confirmation of this fact can be seen by how the word is used (in the accusative case – ) in John 15:19, which says:

“If ye were of the world, the world would love its own ( ).”(John 15:19)

John 15:19 is speaking of a category of people who belong to the world even though it doesn’t say, “the world would love its own people.” (c.f. John 1:11) Likewise, Acts 20:28 is speaking of a person who belongs to God even though it doesn’t say, “God purchased the church with the blood of his own Son.”

90

Lamb of God

The Revised Standard Version includes the understood noun Son within its translation of Acts 20:28, which reads:

“Take heed 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 the blood of his own Son.” (Acts 20:28 RSV)

Even if the understood noun is left out, then the correct translation of Acts 20:28 still does not say “his own blood,” but rather “the blood of his own.” Trinitarian John Darby (author of the Darby Translation) demonstrates this fact in his translation of Acts 20:28, which reads:

“Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own.” (Acts 20:28 Darby)

John Darby made the following comments regarding the accuracy of his Acts 20:28 translation:

I am fully satisfied that this is the right translation of ver.28. To make it a question of the divinity of Christ (which I hold to be of the foundation of Christianity) is absurd. It has been questioned whether “of his own” can be used thus absolutely in the singular. But we have it in John 15.19, and in the neuter singular for material things, Acts 4.32. The torturing of the passage by copyists arose, I believe, from not seeing the real sense of it; a touching expression of the love of God.68

Hence, we even have the Trinitarian testimony of John Darby affirming the fact that this passage does not refer to God’s blood, but rather the blood of God’s own Son. As was already stated, Jesus’ blood was not composition-ally different than our own.

The Effects Of Adam’s Sin

Many people have said that one of the effects of Adam’s sin was that all of his physical descendents were automatically counted guilty of the sin that he himself committed. In reference to this belief, some say that Christ could not have had a body that descended from Mary (who was a physical descendent of Adam) because that (according to them) would have made Christ guilty of Adam’s sin as well and would have therefore made Christ unacceptable to God.

91


Although certain consequences from Adam’s sin have been passed down to all of Adam’s descendents, we are not automatically condemned for the sin that he himself chose to commit. If everyone is cursed automatically be-cause of Adam’s sin, then this would mean that all of the infants who die––who don’t even yet possess the intellectual faculties necessary to repent for Adam’s sin––are condemned before they have even done anything wrong. However, that is obviously not right.

The Bible shows us that men would not be cursed because of what their fa-thers have done, but rather because of their own actions, saying:

“The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fa-thers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge (because of the fathers eating sour grapes)? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Is-rael. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:1-4)

Here, God says that each individual will be condemned for his or her own sin rather than for the sins of their fathers. Adam, who is the father of us all, committed sin, but that sin did not automatically condemn all of his descen-dents, it only brought the presence of sin into our flesh. The presence of sin in our flesh causes a constant pull towards sinful things (Galatians 5:16-21). We refer to the reality of this pull towards sinful things as temptation. Nev-ertheless, being tempted to sin is not the same as actually committing a sin. It is only when a person acts upon that pull of sin in the flesh that they become condemned for sin.

We were not condemned as infants since we did not yet have the intellectual ability to choose sin (Isaiah 7:16). However, as we grew older and learned right from wrong, the sin in our flesh pulled us towards what was sinful. Since we ourselves were powerless to resist sin altogether (Romans 5:6) we all committed sin to some degree (Romans 3:23). It was at that time, when we actually did a sin, that we became condemned for sin.

Paul describes this very same process concerning his own pre-Christian life, saying:

“For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion

92

Lamb of God

by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.” (Romans 7:9-11)

Paul says that he was alive once before he knew the commands of God, but it was when he became aware of those commands69 that the sin in his flesh pulled him towards what was contrary to those commands. It was not until Paul actually acted upon the pull of sin within his flesh that he committed sin and therefore died spiritually.

Like Paul, we were not automatically cursed for Adam’s sin, but it was only by acting upon the presence of sin in our flesh that we became cursed for disobeying God’s law, as the scriptures say:

“Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are writ-ten in the book of the law to do them.” (Galatians 3:10)

Christ’s Obedience Made Him Acceptable To God

Since Christ did not sin he was not cursed for breaking the law, and thus he was not subject to the spiritual70 death that sin brings.

God said:

“But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right … Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 18:5, 9)

God said the one who did these things would live. Christ did do those things. Jesus never sinned, so it would be unjust for him to be cursed for committing sin like everyone else. The verdict for our sin was death (Romans 6:23), but the verdict for Christ’s obedience was life (Ezekiel 18:5, 9).

Since Christ was the only man who was not under the curse of sin, then he was also the only one who could be cursed in our place; and he was, as the scriptures say:

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” (Galatians 3:10, 13)

Jesus became a curse in our place so that we could be freed from the curse we were under.

It should not seem strange that God would allow us to be redeemed from sin through one man’s obedience, because it was also one man’s disobedience

93


that caused sin to enter into the world in the beginning.

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19)

Sin came to us through one act of disobedience (Adam’s sin in the garden), and God has chosen to give us redemption through one act of obedience(Christ’s acceptance of the cross).

“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justi-fication of life to all men.” (Romans 5:18 NASB)

Yet, just as we were not made partakers of the curse of Adam until we acted upon the effects of Adam’s sin, so also we are not included in the life of Christ until we act upon the effects of Christ’s obedience.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1Corinthians 15:22)

It was not the composition of the blood, but rather the righteousness of the man whose blood was shed that made it acceptable to God (Romans 5:18-19). Even though Christ was already guiltless as an infant (as are all infants), he could not have died for our sins until he was first proven righteous by his obedience to God. After this process was completed, Jesus was then able to be the substitutionary lamb for the unrighteousness of humanity.

“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Hebrews 5:8-9)

Everyone has inevitably rebelled against God at some time in his or her life. This is why Christ was the only candidate for our redemption, because he is the only man who lived his entire life in obedience to God. It was that right-eous condition (through obedience) that made him the acceptable lamb.

“Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

What Gave Christ The Ability To Live A Sinless Life?

Someone might ask, “Why didn’t Jesus sin? If everybody else sinned then what made Jesus different?” The answer . . . Faith.

Faith is the only means by which a person may always do those things that

94

Lamb of God

please God.71 Whenever we express dependence upon God through faith, then God responds by revealing his own righteousness within us. God’s re-vealed righteousness in turn enables us to live righteously so that we do not sin (1John 2:29, 3:7, 9).

“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:17)

Christ possessed this faith in God throughout his whole life, and thus, through that lifelong faith, the righteousness of God was revealed within him from his childhood unto his death.

Psalm 22 contains the prophetic words of Christ, who says:

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? … But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breast. I was cast upon thee from the womb: Thou art my God from my mother’s belly.” (Psalms 22:1, 9-10)

This Psalm shows that Jesus trusted in God even from the time when he was still upon his mother’s breast (c.f. Isaiah 49). Jesus maintained this child-hood faith during his entire life, and it was because of this lifelong faith that he did not sin.

That brings us to another question––Why is Christ the only one who pos-sessed this faith in God from his childhood onward?

Jesus, being the preexistent Son of God incarnate, already had this faith to-wards God when he became a man. He has continually possessed this faith from the beginning of creation up till now. Furthermore, only Christ had, has, and will have the kind of faith that is required to receive God’s right-eousness.72 The only way that anyone other than Christ can partake of this necessary faith is by receiving the Spirit of Christ, through which Christ’s own faith in God is revealed within mankind.

Christ’s Spirit reveals the life of Christ within us, and therefore the faith of Christ is revealed within us as well, as Paul said:

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God.” (Galatians 2:20) (c.f. 2Corinthians 3:4 & 1Peter 1:21)

It is in response to Christ’s faith being revealed in us that the righteousness

95


of God is imparted to us, as the scriptures say:

“Even the righteousness of God (God’s righteousness) which is byfaith of Jesus Christ (Christ’s faith) unto all and upon all them that believe.” (Romans 3:22)

We receive the righteousness that is God’s by the faith that is Christ’s, and this is why it says, “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.” (Romans 3:22)

Now that we have received the faith of Christ (by accepting his Spirit), wetoo are able––for the same reason that Christ was able––to live life without committing sin:73

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed re-maineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” (1John 3:9)

As the Spirit of Christ reveals the life of Christ within us, we are thereby en-abled to live as Jesus did while he was here on earth:

“He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk even as he walked.” (1John 2:6)

And this is a wonderful thing. Thanks be to God for true deliverance through Jesus Christ our Lord. (The way in which Christ is revealed in us is dis-cussed in Appendix E)

96

VII

THE RESURRECTION

here are many common unscriptural beliefs within mainstream Christi-anity that misinterpret several of the events surrounding the resurrec-

tion of Christ. Does Christ’s resurrection prove that he was divine? Did Christ raise himself from the dead? Does the fact that Christ raised men from the dead during his life on earth prove that he was God himself? These are some of the issues that we will discuss in this chapter.

T

God Raised Others From The Dead Through Christ

It was God who raised Christ from the dead, but God also gave Christ the au-thority to raise men from the dead as well.

“[Jesus] called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead.” (John 12:17)

Christ gave that same ability (which God had given to him) to his disciples, sending them out with the following commission:

“Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.” (Matthew 10:8)

Although the disciples could raise the dead, we should not assume that they had this ability independent of Christ; and neither should we suppose that Christ had that same ability independent of God.

God gave Christ the ability to raise men from the dead:

“For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ... For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:21, 26)

97


Christ could not raise the dead apart from God (John 5:30). Instead, it was the power of God working through Christ that gave him the authority to do such things.

Peter shows that God was the source of Christ’s miracles, saying:

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man ap-proved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, whichGod did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” (Acts 2:22)

This scripture, as well as several others, show us that it was God’s power working through Christ which gave him the authority to do miraculous deeds. Therefore, since God is the source of Christ’s miracles, whenever we see certain passages of scripture that refer to Christ raising men from the dead we should understand that this was accomplished by God’s power working through Christ.

The Scriptures Call Jesus A Prophet

Many Trinitarians say that Christ raised himself from the dead, basing their assertion (partially) upon the text of John 2:19, which says:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)

God was actually speaking through Christ in this passage, declaring that hewould resurrect the temple of Christ’s body after it was destroyed (i.e., cruci-fied).74 Yet, the context shows Jesus speaking these words, so how could God have spoken this? We will discuss this passage more as we proceed, but we must first acknowledge a certain scriptural truth, namely, that Christ was a prophet. This factor is critically relative to the meaning of this particular resurrection text.

How do we know that Jesus was a prophet? Do the scriptures specifically re-fer to Christ as a “prophet”? Yes indeed.

Jesus’ own disciples said:

“Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people.” (Luke 24:19)

God also refers to Christ as a prophet while speaking to Moses in Deuteronomy 18:17-19, which says:

98

The Resurrection

“And the LORD said unto me (Moses), They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him (c.f. John 12:49). And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:17-19)

Peter shows that this coming “prophet” was Jesus, saying:

“And he (God) shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you … For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. … Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:20, 22-23, 26)

Hence, Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise to send a prophet like Moses.

Jesus did not correct the woman at the well when she said to him:

“I perceive that thou art a prophet.” (John 4:19)

The crowds called Jesus a prophet (Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16).

There can be no doubt that Christ was truly referred to as a prophet by those who knew him. In fact, Jesus even refers to himself as a prophet:

When Jesus “was come into his own country” (Matthew 13:54) the people did not receive him; “And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own coun-try.” (Matthew 13:57)

When Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem to be crucified, some Pharisees tried to get him to flee by saying that Herod would kill him, but Jesus said, “I must walk today, and tomorrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.” (Luke 13:31-33)

Jesus Christ, even according to his own proclamations, was truly a prophet.

So then, what is a prophet? A prophet is (although not exclusively so) some-

99


one who speaks God’s words. Christ fits this description perfectly, because it is clearly stated in the scriptures that Christ “speaketh the words of God.” (John 3:34) With that being said, when God’s words would come to the prophets in the Old Testament, they would speak the words of God in the first person narrative. There are hundreds of examples of this throughout Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. God spoke through the prophets of old in the first person narrative and God also spoke through Christ in the same way:

“God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)

If God spoke through Christ in the same way that he spoke through the Old Testament prophets,75 then why is it that every time God has spoken through Christ, Trinitarians say that Christ must have spoken those things concerning himself?

John 2:19 – Jesus Did Not Raise Himself From The Dead

It was God’s words that Christ spoke when he said:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)

In this passage, God is speaking through Christ concerning the raising of the temple of Christ’s body.

Someone might object to this conclusion since the introduction to God’s dec-laration says:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)

Indeed, Christ did speak these words. However, the question is not whether or not Christ spoke the words, but the question is rather whether or not the words that Christ spoke were God’s words or his own. John only states that Jesus said these words, and that does not eliminate the possibility that they were the prophetic words of God. In fact, it is normal for John to record the words of God as the sayings of the prophet through whom God spoke. For instance, Paul shows that God spoke through Isaiah when he says:

“Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with

100

The Resurrection

their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I (God) should heal them.” (Acts 28:25-27)

And yet John records these words from Isaiah 6:9-10 as having been spoken by Isaiah:

“Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be con-verted, and I (God) should heal them.” (John 12:39-40)

Just as Isaiah said, “I should heal them,” though he was evidently speaking the words of God, so also Jesus said, “I will raise it up,” while speaking the words of God as well.

The fact that God spoke through Christ in John 2:19 is also implied gram-matically, because the active voice of the verb used in John 2:19 does not match the passive voice of the verb used in John 2:22.

John 2:19 says:

“...in three days I will raise ( ) it”

Here, the Greek verb (egero) is in the active voice, which shows that the subject is performing the action.

John 2:22 says:

“...therefore he was raised ( ) from the dead” (ASV)

Here, John uses a verb in the passive voice, (egerthe). The pas-sive voice identifies the subject as the recipient of an action that is per-formed.

John could have easily written, “...therefore he raised himself from the dead,” using an active verb with a reflexive pronoun to show that Christ was both the initiator and recipient of the action (as in John 2:24, etc.). However, that was not the point John was trying to convey (and that point is not con-veyed anywhere else in the Bible either). God performed the action (hence the active voice is used in John 2:19) and Christ received the action (hence the passive voice is used in John 2:22).

Further proof that Christ was speaking God’s words in John 2:19 is also found in the latter context of John 2:22, which says:

101


“When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remem-bered that he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” (John 2:22 ASV)

What scripture was it that the disciples believed in regards to Christ’s resur-rection? Does the scripture that the disciples believed speak of Jesus resur-recting himself, or does it speak of God resurrecting Jesus instead?

Trinitarian Albert Barnes accurately shows which scripture it was that the disciples believed, saying:

They believed the scripture - The Old Testament, which predicted his resurrection. Reference here must be made to Psalms 16:10,comp. Acts 2:27-32, Acts 13:35-37; Psalms 2:7, comp. Acts 13:33.They understood those Scriptures in a sense different from what they did before.76

Albert Barnes correctly states that the scripture believed by the disciples was Psalms 16:10. Accordingly, this is precisely the passage that the disciples re-fer to after Christ’s resurrection, saying:

“For David speaketh concerning him (Jesus), I foresaw the Lord al-ways before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.” (Acts 2:25-28)

Now, someone may think that the disciples were quoting David’s words as if they applied to David himself, but they were not. David spoke Christ’s words prophetically in the first person narrative. The disciples showed that these words were the prophetic words of Christ when they said:

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.” (Acts 2:29-31)

Thus, it was Christ who said:

102

The Resurrection

“My flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:26-27)

The fact that this is the passage of scripture that the disciples believed (and thus quoted) after Christ’s resurrection is very important, because it clearly demonstrates that Christ was dependent upon God for his resurrection.

Look again at what Christ says:

“My flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou (God) wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou (God) suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:26-27)

By these words it is manifestly evident that Christ was dependent upon God to rescue his soul and resurrect his body. Would Christ really have said such things if he could raise himself from the dead? No, he would not have. In-stead, it was God who spoke through Christ in John 2:19, saying, “I will raise it up.” And after Christ was raised, John 2:22 says that the disciples remembered those words and believed a scripture (Psalms 16:10) which showed God raising a dependent Christ from the grave.

Christ was entirely dependent upon God to raise him from the dead, as the scriptures say:

“[Jesus] offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.” (Hebrews 5:7)

God Raised Christ From The Dead

The fact that God raised Christ from the dead is a foundational truth that is attested to throughout the entire New Testament. On the other hand, the Trinitarian claim that Christ resurrected himself is not found anywhere in the Bible.

Notice how the writers of the New Testament simply portray Christ as being raised by God:

“The Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses” (Acts 3:15)

“Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead” (Acts 4:10)

103


“Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly” (Acts 10:40)

“But God raised him from the dead” (Acts 13:30)

“He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies” (Romans 8:11)

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be-lieve in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Romans 10:9)

“We have testified of God that he raised up Christ” (1Corinthians 15:15)

“Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus.” (2Corinthians 4:14)

“God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12)

“Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Je-sus” (1Thessalonians 1:9-10)

“Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.” (1Peter 1:21)

And the scriptures even specifically say that it was “the Father” who raised Christ from the dead:

“Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.” (Ga-latians 1:1)

The Son is not the Father, therefore Christ did not raise himself from the dead.

John 10:17-18 – Christ Laid Down His Life Daily

Many say that Christ was speaking of the ability to raise himself from the dead in John 10:17-18, where he says:

“I lay my life down for the sheep ... Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” (John 10:15, 17-18)

When Christ said these things he was not referring exclusively to his death

104

The Resurrection

and resurrection, instead he was referring to the laying aside of his own per-sonal interests in general. O hear the truth so that you may see how Christ gave up his life for us even before the cross!

John compares the way that Christ laid down his life for us with the way that we should lay down our lives for the brethren, saying:

“He laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (1John 3:16)

Do you see how John parallels the way in which Christ laid down his life for us with the way that we ought to lay down our lives for one another?

When Jesus spoke of laying down his life, he said:

“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down ( ) of myself” (John 10:18)

The exact same Greek word that is translated as “lay down” in Christ’s statement, (theinai), is also used when John speaks of how we ought to lay down our lives, saying:

“We ought to lay down ( ) our lives for the brethren.” (1John 3:16)

Since it is obvious that John wasn’t speaking exclusively of dying for the brethren (see the context in 1John 3:17-18) then it should be equally just as obvious that Christ wasn’t speaking exclusively of dying for his sheep either. The losing of, or laying down of ones life is not an exclusive reference to death, but it is instead spoken of in regards to laying aside ones own personal self-interests in general. In that sense, Christ laid down his own life on a daily basis.

Someone might say, “No, Christ was obviously referring specifically to physical death because he paralleled his statement with the analogy of a shepherd laying down his life for his sheep whenever a wolf attacks.”

Indeed Jesus does speak of laying down his life when the wolf attacks, say-ing:

“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.” (John 10:11-12)

105


It is just this text, when understood correctly, that will show how Christ was not speaking exclusively of dying for the sheep. A shepherd does not go to the wolf with the intention of dying. In fact if the wolf kills the shepherd then that will leave the sheep without any remaining protection at all. While a shepherd laying down his life for his sheep does include the possibility that the wolf would kill him, it does not demand that outcome.

In his Notes on the Bible, Albert Barnes comments on the manner in which the shepherd gives his life for the sheep, saying:

Giveth his life - A shepherd that regarded his flock would hazard his own life to defend them. When the wolf comes, he would still re-main to protect them. To give his life, here, means the same as not to fly, or to forsake his flock; to be willing to expose his life, if neces-sary, to defend them.77

The climax of Christ laying down his own life was indeed the cross, but that does not negate the fact that Christ also set aside his life for us prior to that event. Even before the cross Christ was already laying down his life for his sheep.

Jesus was not speaking of a future event in John 10:14-18 when he referred to laying down his own life. He didn’t speak in the future tense, so as to say:

“I will lay down my life.”

Instead, he always spoke in the present tense, saying:

“I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:15)

“Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life.” (John 10:17)

“No man taketh it from me but I lay it down of myself.” (John 10:18)

Christ was laying down his own life all along. In fact, he actually shows that he already laid down his life in the past and was continuing to do so in the present when he says:

“No one78 has taken79 it away from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative.” (John 10:18 NASB)

Was Christ speaking of his future death in the past tense, saying, “No one has taken it”? Not at all! When he said these words his death was still to come. Furthermore, when he said that no one has “taken” his life he couldn’thave been referring exclusively to his crucifixion, because when he was cru-

106

The Resurrection

cified someone did take his life.

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb be-fore his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? For his life is taken from the earth.” (Acts 8:32-33)

In light of this passage, John 10:18 can’t possibly be referring to Christ’s death on the cross. Instead, by saying, “No one has taken it away from me,” Jesus was referring to his own freewill choice to abandon his life in this world in order to seek and to save that which was lost. The self-denying life that Christ now lived was not forced upon him by default, but it was instead something that he chose to accept. If he wanted to then he could have taken this life up again. This is why he said:

“I lay it down on my own initiative. I have freedom to lay it down, and I have freedom to take it up again.” (John 10:1880)

The word translated here as “freedom” (or “power” in the KJV) is the Greek word (exousia), which is given the following definition in the Strong’s Concordance:

exousia - (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subj.) force, capac-ity, competency, freedom, or (obj.) mastery (concr. magistrate, su-perhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence. (– Strong’s #1849)

The definition for the word exousia simply refers to ability (in one respect or another). The emphasis of John 10:18 is focused upon Christ’s freewill abil-ity to choose [to lay down his life or to take it again]. This is obvious be-cause of how Jesus begins his statement, saying:

“I lay it down on my own initiative...” (John 10:18 NASB)

Christ was not speaking of the ability to raise himself from the dead, but he was instead referring to his own ability to choose whether or not he would lay down his life as a whole. Jesus had to choose to obey God even as we do. The choice that he made to lay down his life was actually a choice to obey God,81 because God commanded Jesus to lay down his life, which is why he says:

“No one has taken it away from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative. I have freedom to lay it down, and I have freedom to take it up again. This commandment I received from my Father.” (John 10:18)

107


In fact, Christ’s relationship with God was dependent upon his obedience toGod. Jesus himself showed this, saying:

“If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.” (John 15:10 NIV)

The Father continued to love Christ because of Christ’s obedience to the Fa-ther’s commandments. This principle also applies to how Christ obeyed God by laying down his life, which is why Jesus says:

“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life ... This commandment I received from my Father.” (John 10:17-18 NASB)

Jesus also showed how his obedience to God was the reason why the Father did not leave him, saying:

“And he that has sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, be-cause I do always the things that are pleasing to him.” (John 8:29 Darby)

Jesus even showed that he had to obey the commandment of God in order to partake of life everlasting as well, saying:

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, hegave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting:whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” (John 12:49-50)

God commanded Christ to lay down his life for the sheep. If Christ dis-obeyed God in an attempt to hold on to this present life then his eternal life would have been forfeited.82 Yet, Christ remained faithful. He refused to take up his life in this present world so that he would be able to take up the eternal life that was to come.

Jesus told his disciples:

“He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matthew 10:39)

And again, he says:

“He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” (John 12:25)

108

The Resurrection

This is the equivalent of Jesus’ words:

“I lay down my life, that I might take it again.” (John 10:17)

When he says, “I lay down my life, that I might take it again,” he is referring to the laying down of his life in this world so that he could take it up again in the eternal life.

Could Jesus Have Called For The Twelve Legions Of Angels?

When the group of soldiers came to take Jesus away to be tried and crucified, Christ spoke to Peter and said:

“Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53)

At first glance this may seem to suggest that Jesus had an option to either go with the soldiers or to pray and receive enough angels to wipe them all out, but that is not what Christ meant. Look at the whole context:

“Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, be-hold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.” (Matthew 26:50-56)

The group of men had come to arrest Jesus “that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled” (Matthew 26:56). There was no more of a possibility that the angels would come to prevent Jesus’ arrest than there was that the prophecies of scripture would prove to be false. When Christ spoke of the twelve legions of angels he was simply pointing out to Peter that ifwhat he needed was a group to fight and prevent his arrest, God himself would provide a great army of angels to do this instead of the disciples. “But, how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Mat-thew 26:54)

109


Romans 1:4 – Declared The Son Of God By The Resurrection

Another scripture that speaks of the resurrection of Christ is Romans 1:4, which says:

“[Christ was] declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:4)

Some people understand this passage to mean that Christ’s own power was declared by his resurrection. In other words, they say that this refers to Christ raising himself from the dead. However, that is not what this means at all.

The Greek text of Romans 1:4 reads as follows:

of his designation Son of God in power according to

spirit of holiness from a resurrection of the dead

The exact same Greek phrase, (en dunamei), that is translated here as “in power” (agreeing with RSV, YLT, Darby) is also translated as “in power” in 1Corinthians 15:42-44, which says:

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It (the body) is sown in cor-ruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in ( ) power( : It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” (1Corinthians 15:42-44)

Paul is contrasting the weakness of the pre-resurrection body with the em-powered condition of the post-resurrection body when he says:

“It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power” (1Corinthians 15:43)

This change from weakness to power shall be accomplished (and sustained) according to the power of the Spirit of God:

“But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” (Romans 8:11)

It is important to realize that our bodies shall be changed upon the resurrec-tion to be like Christ’s resurrected body now is:

110

The Resurrection

“We look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” (Philippians 3:20-21)

Therefore, just as we are “sown in weakness” and “raised in power,” so also this same principle was true of Christ as well:

“For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God.” (2Corinthians 13:4)

In the same way that our resurrected condition is described as “in power,” so also that same resurrected condition is ascribed to Christ as well in Romans 1:4.

“[Christ was] designated the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, from the resurrection of the dead.” (Romans 1:4)

Paul was describing the condition of the resurrected Christ as “in power, ac-cording to the Holy Spirit.” This is the meaning of Romans 1:4.83

Christ Begotten Completely At The Resurrection

While proclaiming the gospel at a synagogue in Antioch, Paul spoke the fol-lowing words regarding Christ’s resurrection:

“But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath ful-filled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Je-sus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Where-fore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (Acts 13:30-35)

Paul equated Jesus’ resurrection with his being begotten of God when he said:

“God hath… raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’” (Acts 13:33)

First we will show why this is definitely referring to Christ’s resurrection and

111


then we will discuss in what way Christ was begotten of God upon that event.

Before Paul applied the text, “this day have I begotten thee,” to Christ’s res-urrection, he referred to how Christ was given over by the rulers of the peo-ple to be crucified by Pilate:

“For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pi-late that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.” (Acts 13:27-29)

Notice that Paul speaks of how the rulers desired Christ to be slain and then says, “and when they had fulfilled all that was written of him.” So whichscriptures did those who slew Christ fulfill? Peter shows us which scriptures were fulfilled by their actions when, while praying to God, he spoke of this same event, saying:

“Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. Forof a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” (Acts 4:24-28)

Peter describes the same thing here in Acts 4:24-28 that Paul described in Acts 13:27-29. Notice how Peter shows that Christ’s death is a fulfillment of the prophecy that he quotes from Psalms 2, which says:

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel to-gether, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” (Psalms 2:1-3)

Yet, after this Psalm describes how the rulers would rise up against Christ and would kill him, this same Psalm also goes on to show what occurred af-ter Christ’s death, saying:

112

The Resurrection

“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” (Psalms 2:4-8)

Thus, when understood as the Apostle Peter applied it, Psalms 2 first de-scribes how the rulers would rise up against Christ and have him killed, and after this event Psalms 2 goes on to record God’s words regarding Christ’s resurrection, saying:

“Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” (Psalms 2:6)

By saying “Yet” he shows that God set up his chosen king despite the rulers’ attempts to stop the LORD’s Christ (namely by the crucifixion). This was accomplished by the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:31-36).

The resurrection is also what is in view when Psalms 2 then immediately re-cords Christ reciting the words that God speaks to him after the resurrection, saying:

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” (Psalms 2:7-8)

Therefore, the statement, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” is applied to Christ upon his resurrection. That is exactly how Paul under-stood Psalms 2 as well, because after describing the death of Christ (which was prophesied in Psalms 2 according to Peter), he then says:

“But God raised him from the dead: And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath ful-filled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Acts 13:30-33)

Paul did not just bust out with the quotation, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” for no reason. By referring to this quotation he was also re-ferring to the context of the Psalm from which the quotation was taken, and the context shows that this statement applies to Christ upon his resurrection

113


from the dead.

Albert Barnes clearly acknowledges this in his commentary on Acts 13:33, saying:

This day have I begotten thee - It is evident that Paul uses the ex-pression here as implying that the Lord Jesus is called the Son of God because he raised him up from the dead; and that he means to imply that it was for this reason that he is so called in the psalm. This interpretation of an inspired apostle fixes the meaning of this passage in the psalm; and proves that it is not there used with refer-ence to the doctrine of eternal generation, or to his incarnation, but that he is here called his Son because he was raised from the dead. And this interpretation accords with the scope of the psalm… Paul understood this manifestly of the resurrection. This settles the in-quiry, and this is the indispensable interpretation in the psalm it-self.84

Albert Barnes is obviously correct. “This day have I begotten thee” is a ref-erence to the resurrection of Christ, and therefore Christ was begotten of God whenever that event occurred.

Some people object to this conclusion, saying that this is not a reference to Christ’s resurrection, because Paul says:

“And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begot-ten thee.” (Acts 13:32-33)

What does God’s promise have to do with Christ’s resurrection? And how could a promise made to Israel be fulfilled by Christ’s resurrection? These questions form the basis for the following objection made by Trinitarian John Gill:

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus; which may not be understood of his resurrec-tion from the dead, since the promise made, and now fulfilled has not a single respect to that.85

It would be easy enough to say that Christ’s resurrection actually has every-thing to do with the promises made (1Corinthians 15:17), but one should alsoexplain how the fulfillment of God’s promise is applicable to the particular text in question. So then, how was God’s promise to Israel fulfilled by

114

The Resurrection

Christ’s resurrection?

God promised that he would send the Messiah as an everlasting king over Is-rael (Isaiah 9:7, Daniel 7:13-14, Luke 1:32-33). That is the promise that Is-rael was waiting for. Yet, in order for God’s promise to be fulfilled, Christ could not cease to be at 33 years of age . . . he had to live forever.

“The people answered [Jesus, saying], We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up (i.e., crucified)?” (John 12:33-34)

God’s promise was not negated when Christ died, but it was rather fulfilled through Christ’s resurrection, by which resurrection Christ even now contin-ues to reign.

God also promised an everlasting priest who would redeem Israel from their sins. This promise was fulfilled by Christ’s resurrection as well:

“For he (God) testifieth, Thou (Christ) art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. ... By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And [the Levites] truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:17, 22-25)

In order for Christ to be a priest forever then he had to rise from the dead, which the writer of Hebrews also refers to by quoting the familiar resurrec-tion passage from Psalms 2, saying:

“So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Hebrews 5:5-6)

The writer clearly shows that the quotation, “Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee,” is intricately joined to the fact that Christ would live forever. This is because “this day have I begotten thee” truly is a reference to the resurrection of Christ.

Yet, that must mean that Jesus was somehow begotten of God whenever he was raised him from the dead. But how is that possible? Wasn’t Christ al-ready begotten of God before he died? Yes, he was. So, without contradict-ing that fact, let’s learn why the scriptures say that Christ was also begotten

115


of God at the time of his resurrection as well.

Like Christ, we are begotten of God both before we die and upon our resur-rection.

Are we now sons of God? Yes, as John says:

“Beloved, now are we the Sons of God.” (1John 3:2)

Yet, notice also what Paul says:

“[We] which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re-demption of our body.” (Romans 8:23)

In one sense we are “now” Sons of God, and yet in another sense we are still “waiting for the adoption” that will occur at the resurrection (i.e., the re-demption of our body).

We are already spiritually begotten of God in regards to our character, but in regards to our bodies we will not be begotten of God until the final resurrec-tion.

This is why Paul says:

“[We] which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re-demption of our body.” (Romans 8:23)

In order to correctly understand these things please remember what it means to be begotten of God (as has already been discussed in chapter three). Be-ing begotten of God does not refer to coming out of God’s substance, but it instead refers to partaking of the characteristics of God. In every Christian we have the Spirit (which is begotten of God and thus is in agreement with the things of God) and we also have the flesh (which is not yet begotten of God and thus does not yet desire the things of God).

“For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other.” (Galatians 5:17)

We have not yet been begotten of God in regards to the flesh since the flesh is still against God and does not yet partake of his characteristics (Romans 8:7-8).

“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the

116

The Resurrection

Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God.” (Romans 8:12-14)

Our bodies are contrary to the Spirit at this time, but at the final resurrection of the dead they shall be changed to be in one accord with the Spirit.86 In this way, even though our bodies were previously contrary to God in their desires, they shall at that time be in agreement with God. And thus, being in agreement with God, our resurrected bodies shall also be begotten of God. Hence, at that time, our whole being shall be desirous of the things of God and it is in that glorious condition that we shall all, in one accord, serve God in absolute peace forever and ever. Amen.

So then, in one sense (regarding the Spirit) we are now the children of God, while in another sense (regarding the flesh) we are still awaiting the adoption (Romans 8:23). Just as we are now begotten of God spiritually, but our flesh is not yet begotten of God, so also this same truth applied to Christ Jesus.

The scriptures say:

“In all things he (Jesus) was made like unto his brethren.” (Hebrews 2:17)

Jesus was begotten of God already in regards to his spirit man, but his flesh desired what was contrary to God (which is why Hebrews 4:15 can truthfully say that he was tempted like we are). Christ’s flesh was not begotten of God until it was changed upon his resurrection.

The scriptures prove this, saying:

“God hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’” (Acts 13:33)

As we have already seen, this scripture which refers to Jesus being begotten of God, is applied to his resurrection. Upon Christ’s resurrection he was be-gotten of God completely, body and all. This is also why Colossians 1:18 does not say, “He is the first raised from the dead,” but it instead says, “He is the firstborn from the dead.” (Colossians 1:18)

After seeing that Christ’s flesh was not begotten of God in its desires prior to his resurrection, someone might ask the following question:

“If Christ’s flesh was not ‘begotten’ of God until the resurrection, and it was Christ’s flesh that died on the cross, then how can we

117


even say that it was the ‘begotten’ Son who died on the cross at all?”

Again, we must remember that being begotten of God refers to partaking of the characteristics and attributes of God. Christ was not two beings, but one being who consisted of both a spiritual nature and a physical nature. The identity of the physical and spiritual Christ as a whole was counted as begot-ten of God due to the subjecting of the part that was not begotten. A person is identified as either a child of God or a child of the devil according to what they do (1John 3:7-10). By subjecting the flesh to the Spirit (Romans 8:13), Christ did not do the works of the flesh, and thus he was not identified by the flesh’s unbegotten condition.

“As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

Did The Resurrection Prove That Christ Was Divine?

There is an erroneous argument circulating these days that says Christ’s res-urrection, in and of itself, proved that Jesus was God himself. Yet, how is that in any way a valid argument? I really do not see any grounds for mak-ing such a claim. We too shall be raised from the dead, but that does not make us divine.

The difference in Christ’s resurrection and our own is in regards to timing,not divinity.

“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead… But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (1Corinthians 15: 20-21, 23)

Our resurrection will not prove that we are divine and Christ’s resurrection did not prove that he was divine either.

118

VIII

OUR LORD

he Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is Lord. Yet, what does this mean? Does this mean that Jesus is God? Or does the title Lord simply denote

a position of authority? The declaration that Christ is Lord is certainly a foundational truth of Christianity, yet so few people who profess to be Chris-tians understand what this statement truly means.

TThe Word “Lord” Does Not Mean “God”

The Greek word that is translated as “Lord” in the New Testament is (kurios). Even though the word does not mean God, many

people commonly interpret it as if it does. And thus, when Christ is called (Lord) some have understood this to be proof that Christ is divine.

However, it cannot mean that, because the title of Lord ( ) is also ap-plied to many people other than God and Christ.

Example: “Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord87 ( ).” (1Peter 3:6)

Was Sarah calling Abraham God? Not at all! And the scriptures are not say-ing that Jesus is God either just because he is called Lord.

The word (lord) simply denotes a position of ruling authority. Sarah referred to Abraham as her lord ( ) because he was in authority over her, so also now we also refer to Christ as our Lord ( ) because he is in authority over us.

The Bible says:

“The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1Corinthians 11:3)

119


Christ is our Lord because God has placed him in a position of authority over us. We call Christ our “Lord” to acknowledge that fact.

There are also many other examples within the New Testament where men other than Jesus and Abraham are referred to as (Lord) as well. Yet, due to inconsistencies in translation processes this is sometimes not very evi-dent in many of our English versions of the Bible.

Here are some places (KJV) where the word , translated as something other than “lord,” is applied to men other than Christ:

sir – Matthew 13:27, 21:30, 27:63, John 12:21, Revelation 7:14

sirs – Acts 16:30

masters – Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13, Acts 16:16, 16:19, Ephesians 6:5, 6:9, Colossians 3:22, 4:1

masters’ – Matthew 15:27

owners – Luke 19:33

A consistent translation of the word as “lord” would show that manyother people who were not either God or Jesus are called (lord). Nevertheless, many Trinitarians ignore this fact and continue to say that

, whenever it is applied to Christ, is a concrete reference to his divin-ity.

For instance, in its study notes for Romans 10:9, the NIV Study Bible says:

Jesus is Lord. The earliest Christian confession of faith, probably used at baptisms. In view of the fact that “Lord” (Greek kyrios88) is used over 6,000 times in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) to translate the name of Israel’s God (Yahweh), it is clear that Paul, when using this word of Jesus, is ascribing deity to him.89

To say that Paul is clearly ascribing deity to Christ simply because he refers to Christ as “Lord”( ) is based only upon circular reasoning.

One could also say:

In view of the fact that “Lord” (Greek kyrios) is used over 6,000 times in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) to translate the name of Israel’s God (Yahweh), it is clear that Sarah, when us-ing this word of Abraham, is ascribing deity to him.

120

Our Lord

If someone began with the premise that Abraham was God then they could say that Sarah was acknowledging that fact when she referred to Abraham as

as well. I do not doubt that you see the error of such reasoning.

While it is true that the Hebrew name YHWH (Jehovah or Yahweh) is trans-lated into the Greek language as that does not mean that every time the word appears it automatically refers to Jehovah. Sometimes the word refers to Jehovah and other times it simply refers to someone who is in a position of authority.

If we were to understand the word as an automatic reference to Jeho-vah then we would also have to understand the following scriptures as refer-ences to Jehovah as well:

“The woman saith unto him, Jehovah ( ), I perceive that thou art a prophet.” (John 4:19)

“Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Jehovah ( ), if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.” (John 20:15)

“The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Jehovah ( ), we would see Jesus.” (John 12:21)

“Jehovahs (plural form of ), give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Jehovah ( ) in heaven.” (Colossians 4:1)

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and Jehovahs [plural form of ] many).” (1Corinthians 8:5)

“The Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Jehovah ( ) of Je-hovahs (plural possessive form of ), and King of kings.” (Revela-tion 17:14)

As you can see, translating to mean Jehovah every time that it ap-pears would result in an utterly ridiculous understanding of the Bible. So then, let’s determine by the context whether the word is speaking of God or not.

121


1Corinthians 8:6 – Christ Is Our One Lord

This may be the proper place to discuss 1Corinthians 8:6, which says:

“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” (1Corinthians 8:690)

This is a very clear statement from Paul in which he acknowledges that Christians have only one God, the Father.

The Bible never says:

“To us there is but one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Nor does it ever say:

“To us there is but one God, Jesus Christ.”

Instead, it identifies only the Father as our God, saying:

“But to us there is but one God, the Father.” (1Corinthians 8:6)

This is in agreement with Christ’s statement made in John 17:3, where, while praying, he says:

“Father, ... this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God.” (John 17:1, 3)

He is not being ambiguous. He is not trying to confuse us. The Father is the only true God. Nevertheless, in order to defend a three-person god doctrine, Trinitarians have attempted to reason away 1Corinthians 8:6 by using the fol-lowing argumentation:

“The text says that the Father is our one God and it also says that Je-sus is our one Lord. Though the Father is called our one God, and Jesus is called our one Lord, it is not saying that Jesus is not God just as it is not saying that God is not Lord. If the Father being called the one God over all Christians excludes Jesus from being our God, then, to be consistent, Jesus being called our one Lord must exclude the Father from being our Lord as well. Yet, this is not true, be-cause, after all, there are many places throughout the scriptures where the Father is called Lord and the Son is called God.”

The catalyst of this argument is simply ignorance as to how the word (Lord) is used. The fact of the matter is that both God and Christ are

122

Our Lord

called , but in different connotations. Abraham was Sarah’s because he was in authority over her, not because he was her God. The Trinitarian argument that Jesus cannot be the one Lord over us without being God only sounds reasonable when it is coupled with a failure to acknowledge the fact that God has given the entire kingdom over to Jesus so that Jesus can rule over it.91

“For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus’) feet.” (1Corinthians 15:27)

The Bible is very clear on the fact that God has given the position as ruler over the kingdom to Christ, saying:

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man (Je-sus) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days (God), and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, na-tions, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlast-ing dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13-14)

This passage of scripture from the book of Daniel clearly depicts Christ as the Son of man and shows him receiving ruling authority over the kingdom from God.

It is because God has given the ruling authority over the kingdom to Christ that the scriptures say:

“God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord ( ) and Christ92.” (Acts 2:36)

This verse says that God made Christ to be Lord. It is obviously not saying, “God hath made Jesus Jehovah,” because it is impossible for someone to be made Jehovah in any literal sense. This is instead referring to how God made Christ the ruler over the kingdom. So also when Paul says, “But to us there is but one Lord Jesus Christ,” (1Corinthians 8:6) he was referring to how Christ is the one ruler whom God has placed over us. God has made Christ to be the one ruler over the people of the kingdom of God.

What then, does God not rule as well? Yes he does, but only in an indirect sense, and that is because Jesus rules according to God’s will. It is not that God is sometimes ordering us and Jesus is ordering us at other times. No. God does not go around Jesus to speak to us:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the

123


man Christ Jesus.” (1Timothy 2:5)

Christ is the mediator between God and man through whom God’s will is re-vealed. We do not know the will of God by direct interaction, but only through Christ.

“Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” (Matthew 11:27)

No man can know the Father except Christ reveals him, so also no man can know the will of the Father unless Christ reveals that will as well. We have one Lord, Jesus Christ, (who reveals the will of God to us) and it is by serv-ing him that we serve God.

By way of an analogy, suppose that we had a job where there was only one supervisor with whom we ever interacted. Suppose also that this one super-visor of ours was ruling over the company for the owner of the company who had given him that position. Now suppose that the owner, having entrusted the entire business to the supervisor, never sought to command the employ-ees at the business during the time of the supervisor’s rule, but rather always permitted that supervisor to command the employees as he willed? And yet, suppose that the supervisor, who had the authority to rule as he willed, did not seek his own will while ruling the company, but instead ruled only ac-cording to the will of the owner. Take a few seconds to imagine that sce-nario… Would we be able to say that we had two supervisors, or rather that we had only one? We would have only one supervisor no doubt. If the owner never ordered us, but rather gave that authority over to the supervisor alone, then how could it be said that we had two supervisors? Even though the supervisor ruled according to the will of the owner, we would still have only one supervisor. This example expresses principles that are parallel to the manner in which Christ is Lord over God’s kingdom.

The Bible says:

“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” (John 5:22)

But after this, Jesus also said:

“I judge no man” (John 8:15), but, “as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father.” (John 5:30)

God has committed “all” judgment over to Christ, but Christ judges only as he hears from God. This is also why the Bible says:

124

Our Lord

“[Jesus,] through the Holy Ghost had given commandments untothe apostles.” (Acts 1:2)

We have only one Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 4), but since Christ rules according to the will of God then we are serving God as well when we obey Christ. So then, Jesus was given the place of rulership over the king-dom, but he does not rule that kingdom independent of God, but rather ac-cording to God. In that way we still serve God as well even though we have only one Lord, Jesus Christ. This is why a Christian professes to be both “a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (James 1:1)

In reference to our previous owner/supervisor scenario, suppose that after the supervisor completed a certain project then he was to give the position of su-pervisor back over to the owner. At that time the owner would become the supervisor over the entire business again (and over the previous supervisor as well). This scenario contains similar principles to those Paul spoke of in 1Corinthians 15:24-28, saying:

“Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered the kingdom unto God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he (Jesus) must reign, tillhe hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he (God) hath put all things under his (Je-sus’) feet. But when he saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus). And when all things have been subdued unto him (Je-sus), then shall the Son himself also be subject unto him that put all things under him.” (1Corinthians 15:24-28)

This shows that Jesus is the one reigning over the kingdom “till” the end (when he will deliver the kingdom’s rulership to God). God has given the kingdom over to Jesus so that Jesus can rule (be Lord) over it until that time. God did not give the rulership of the kingdom to Jesus and somebody else––Jesus is the one Lord over the kingdom that God gave him.

Why God Will Judge Mankind Through Christ

There is at least one profound reason why God gave the rulership of the kingdom over to Christ.

Jesus said:

“The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son … and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, be-

125


cause he is the Son of man.” (John 5:22, 27)

Jesus is able to judge us “because he is the Son of man.” In the Greek text, there is no direct article before “the Son of man,” hence it can literally be translated as, “a son of man” (Mark 3:28 and Ephesians 3:5 speak of men in general as “sons of men”). But why did God give Jesus the authority to judge simply because he is a son of man?

Around 304 AD, a man named Lactantius wrote the following:

If anyone gives men commandments for living and molds the char-acters of others he is obligated himself to practice the things that he teaches. Otherwise, [the student] will answer his teacher in this way: “I am not able to do the things you command, for they are impossi-ble. … Or, if you are so entirely convinced that it is possible to resist nature, you yourself practice the things you teach, so I can know that they are possible.” But how can one practice what he teaches, unless he is like the teacher? For if the teacher is subject to no passion, a man may answer the teacher in this manner: “It is my wish not to sin. However, I am overpowered. For I am clothed with frail and weak flesh.” Now, what will that teacher of righteousness say in reply to these things? How will he refute and convict a man who alleges the frailty of the flesh as an excuse for his faults – unless he himself will also be clothed with flesh – so that he can show that even the flesh is capable of virtue? You see, therefore, how much more perfect is a teacher who is mortal, for he is able to guide the one who is mortal. Therefore, let men learn and understand why the Most High God – when he sent his Ambassador and Messenger to instruct mortals with the commandments of his righteousness – willed for him to be clothed with mortal flesh.93

If God himself were to judge us directly someone might reply to God on judgment day, saying:

“But God, you don’t know what it is like to be tempted like I was. It was impossible for me to resist sin.”

Yet, since Jesus was made like us in all things (Hebrews 2:17) then it is im-possible for someone to reply to Christ in such a way. God is just, and he desires to be seen as just when he gives his judgments. That is why he will judge the world through Jesus Christ.

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we

126

Our Lord

are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

Jesus was tempted like us in all ways, and yet he was without sin. Likewise, since he was made like his brethren in all things he knows that we can go without sin just as he did.

That is why Jesus said:

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

We must overcome as Jesus overcame; and we are assured that we can over-come because he, being made like us in all things, has overcome already. God has set the standard for us, and that standard is Christ.

“Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in his steps: Who did no sin…” (1Peter 2:21-22)

“He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” (1John 2:6)

“Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.” (1John 4:17)

The Bible speaks of God judging the world in righteousness through a man, saying:

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, becausehe has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteous-ness through a man whom he has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31 NASB)

After the day of judgment, when God will judge us in Christ Jesus, Jesus will give the kingdom’s rulership back to God. Until then, God has given the rul-ership over to Christ Jesus so that he can, through Christ, judge us accord-ingly.

Jesus’ Everlasting Kingdom / The Kingdom Returned To God

Someone might ask how the Son of man (Jesus Christ) is truly said to have an everlasting dominion in the Bible if he is going to give the kingdom back to his Father. In other words, how can Christ give the kingdom over to God and yet be said to reign forever?

127


Daniel 7:14 shows Christ’s rule as having no end, saying:

“His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away.” (Daniel 7:14)

And yet Paul says:

“Then cometh the end, when he (Jesus) shall have delivered the kingdom unto God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet… And when all things have been subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son himself also be subject unto him that put all things under him.” (1Corinthians 15:24-28)

How can Christ reign forever if he will eventually return the kingdom to God? The fact of the matter is that there will be several rulers in God’s kingdom.

That is why the Bible says:

“Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.” (Daniel 7:27 NIV) (c.f. Dan-iel 7:18)

I believe that God will be the supreme monarch over the entire kingdom, and that Christ will also rule over the entire kingdom under God. However, in reference to how the saints will rule over the kingdom(s), I believe that we will each only be allotted certain areas within the kingdom of God and of Christ. This seems evident when we look at the following parable that Jesus spoke in Luke 19:

“[Jesus] spake a parable, because he was nigh unto Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far coun-try to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered to them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come … And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded those servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

128

Our Lord

And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.”(Luke 19:11-13, 15-18) (c.f. Luke 22:28-30)

This parable depicts a ruler over an entire kingdom making his subjects rul-ers over various cities within that kingdom. Likewise, God will rule over all, and Christ will rule over all under God, 94 and the saints will rule over parts of their kingdom under both God and Christ (though some may rule over the entire kingdom with God and Christ as well). In this way, God, Christ, and the saints will reign forever according to the scriptures.

Is God Called “Our” Lord At This Time?

We have already discussed how the Hebrew name for God, YHWH, is trans-lated as in the Greek. There are many places within the New Testa-ment where the title (Lord) is applied to God in that respect. So, by way of identification, God is called . However, in reference to this present time, during which Christ is reigning over God’s kingdom, God is never referred to positionally as “our Lord”; because that is the position that he has given to Christ alone. We should not feel as if we are being disre-spectful to God by acknowledging the authority that he himself has estab-lished. Jesus Christ is indeed our one Lord at this time, but by serving him we automatically serve God as well. Christ does not rule of himself, but of God.

Someone might argue against this by saying:

“During the time that Jesus is described as our one Lord, the Bible still calls God ‘our Lord’ as well, so then both God and Christ are our Lord at this time.”

This is not true. In reference to the time frame during which Christ is reign-ing supreme, God is never referred to as “our Lord.” Let’s briefly look at the three places in the New Testament that allegedly designate God as presently being “our Lord” during this era.

Revelation 11:15 says:

“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the king-doms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)

It is true that this particular scripture calls God “our Lord,” but this is refer-

129


ring to the end, when Christ delivers the kingdom up to his Father. How do we know this? Here is a brief explanation:

Revelation 11:15 is describing the future events that will occur when the seventh trumpet is blown (Revelation 8:2, 8:6-9:14, 10:7, 11:15). The sev-enth trumpet is the last trumpet to be blown according to the Bible. Con-cerning this last trumpet, 1Corinthians 15:51-54 says:

“We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. … then (at the last trump) shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1Corinthians 15:51-52, 54)

It is after death is “swallowed up in victory” that Christ Jesus will give the kingdom to his Father:

“Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the king-dom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put allenemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” (1Corinthians 15:24-26)

So then, at the seventh and last trumpet we will be changed and death will be swallowed up in victory. Death is the last enemy to be destroyed, and so it will be at that time that Christ will deliver the kingdom up to his Father. (See1Corinthians 15:22-24 and observe when “the end” will come.) The context pertaining to Revelation 11:15 shows that God is called “our Lord” after the seventh trumpet is blown, and so it does not apply until after Christ gives the kingdom’s rulership back to God.

“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the king-doms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” (Revelation 11:15)

And thus, when God is called “our Lord” in Revelation 11:15 it is referring to that future event rather than this present time.

As was already said, we now serve God by serving Christ, but until the end (when Christ will give the kingdom back to God) we have only one Lord ac-cording to the scriptures, and that is Jesus Christ.

___________________

130

Our Lord

Revelation 4:11 is also sometimes pointed to as a passage that refers to God as “our Lord.” Yet, many English versions of the Bible do not even hint that God is called “our Lord” therein:

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power.” (Revelation 4:11 KJV)

“Worthy art Thou, O Lord, to receive the glory, and the honour, and the power.” (Revelation 4:11 YLT)

These translations accurately represent the Greek as it is found in the Textus Receptus. However, there are many ancient Greek manuscripts that varyfrom the Textus Receptus in Revelation 4:11. It is because of such variants in the Greek that some of the other English translations have rendered Reve-lation 4:11 in such a way that does refer to God as “our Lord,” saying:

“Worthy art thou, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power.” (Revelation 4:11 RSV)

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power.” (Revelation 4:11 NIV)

The dispute over which Greek text is the most accurate could go on and on. Notwithstanding that fact, we do not need to enter into such debate at this time, because none of the Greek manuscripts require a translation that shows God being addressed as “our Lord.” Even those Greek texts that are em-ployed when translating Revelation 4:11 as, “our Lord and God,” can also just as equally be translated into English as, “O Lord our God.” This fact is demonstrated in the following translations:

“You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power.” (Revelation 4:11 NLT)

“Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honour and power.” (Revelation 4:11 Douay-Rheims Bible)

The Greek phrase that is sometimes translated as “our Lord and God” has the following word order:

the Lord and the God of us (Revelation 4:11)

Grammatically, the word (hemown – of us) can either modify both of the preceding nouns in the text (“our Lord and God”) or only the one noun that immediately precedes it (“Lord and our God”).

131


Since the only Greek text that could be translated to call God “our Lord” can also be translated to say, “O Lord our God,” then whether or not God is actu-ally called “our Lord” in Revelation 4:11 becomes a matter of conjectural opinion.

___________________

Someone might also think that God is being called “our Lord” in 2Peter 3:15, which says:

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you.” (2Peter 3:15)

Regarding 2Peter 3:15, Archibald Robertson (who believed that Jesus is God himself) said:

“The Lord here is Christ.”95

And indeed the one referred to in 2Peter 3:15 is Christ, but some people may believe that it is referring to God instead, because the preceding context re-fers to both Christ and God.

Here is an outline of 2Peter 3 that shows how it is Christ, not God, who is be-ing referred to as “our Lord” in 2Peter 3:15.

2Peter 3:2 – Peter identifies himself with the “apostles of the Lord and Sav-iour.” This is manifestly a reference to the apostles of Christ, especially since Peter just finished speaking of “the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” in 2Peter 2:20. These things show that the Lord here in 2Peter 3:2 is Christ.

2Peter 3:3-4 – In this passage Peter speaks of the scoffers who would say, “Where is the promise of his coming?” This is a reference to the second coming of Christ. We are waiting for Christ to come back to earth.

2Peter 3:8-9 – Here Peter says, “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (This is not a quotation of Psalms 90:4, although it may be expressing a common longevity principle.) Peter is speaking of how time is not very relative when it comes to whether or not Christ’s promise to return will be fulfilled. He continues this thought when he then says, “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise.” What promise is he referring to? He tells us, it is the “promise of his (Christ’s) coming.” (2Peter 3:4) Thus, Christ is the Lord being referred to here as well.

2Peter 3:10 – Here Peter refers to the day of the Lord (v.10). “The day of the Lord” is also known as “the day of Christ.” (1Corinthians 5:5, Philippi-

132

Our Lord

ans 1:6, 10) However, “the day of the Lord” is also sometimes to be under-stood as “the day of Jehovah.” (Isaiah 13:9, Joel 2:31, Obadiah 1:15) The word “Lord” in the New Testament oftentimes represents the Tetragramma-ton (YHWH). This may be one of those instances. Either way, I believe that this refers to the day that the Lord Jesus will return to the earth and execute the wrath of God (Revelation 19:13-15).

2Peter 3:12 – In this passage, Peter refers back to the same day of the Lord (v.10) as the day of God (v.12). Since God will be executing his wrath and judgment upon the world through Jesus Christ (Acts 17:31) then the day of Christ is also known as the day of God. This is not to say that God and Christ are the same person, but rather that the wrath of God (Revelation 11:16-18) and the wrath of Christ (Revelation 6:16-17) will be poured out on the same day (God’s wrath executed through the agency of Christ). This is why men will be fleeing to the mountains in terror and screaming to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sit-teth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb!” (Revelation 6:16) The one who sits upon the throne is identified as being distinct from the Lamb (Revelation 4:8-5:7).

2Peter 3:13 – Since Peter just referred to the day of “God,” then he also now, in this verse, refers back to the same God when he speaks of “his” promise to create new heavens and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17).

2Peter 3:14 – Now Peter makes a summary statement when he says, “Wherefore beloved, since ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.” Be found by whom? Who is it that is coming? It is Christ no doubt. Peter already referred to Christ’s return in this chapter (2Peter 3:4, 8-9), and he is now referring to how we should be diligent to be found without “spot” upon that same return. The Bible says Christ gave himself for the church “that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” (Ephesians 5:27)

Trinitarian Adam Clarke shows that he too believes this is a reference to Christ, saying:

“That ye may be found of him – the Lord Jesus, the Judge of quickand dead, without spot.”96

2Peter 3:15-16 – Continuing his discourse on the coming of Christ, Peter now states that we should account the longsuffering of “our Lord” as salva-tion, saying:

133


“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;97 As also in all98 his epistles.” (2Peter 3:15-16)

Albert Barnes shows how the longsuffering of Christ is in view here, saying:

Many had drawn a different inference from the fact that the Saviour did not return, and had supposed that it was a proof that he would never come, and that his promises had failed. Peter says that that conclusion was not authorized, but that we should rather regard it as an evidence of his mercy, and of his desire that we should be saved.99

In addition to 2Peter 3:15, Christ is specifically referred to as “our Lord” six times in 2Peter:

“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.” (2Peter 1:2)

“For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Peter 1:8)

“For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the ev-erlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (2Peter 1:11)

“Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as ourLord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.” (2Peter 1:14)

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”(2Peter 1:16)

“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Je-sus Christ.” (2Peter 3:18)

Within the New Testament, Christ is specifically called “our Lord” over sev-enty five times! On the other hand, since God has made Christ to be the one Lord over us, God is not presently referred to as “our Lord” even once. Is this merely a coincidence? I think not.

“Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)

134

Our Lord

“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.”(John 5:22)

“The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” (John 3:35)

“God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord andChrist.” (Acts 2:36)

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” (Matthew 23:9-10)

“There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)

“To us there is but one God, the Father … and one Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Corinthians 8:6)

The Bible Says That Some Men Also Had Masters On Earth

If we have only one Lord, Jesus Christ, then how is it that the Bible speaks of Christians as also having “masters” (plural) here on earth as well?

Jesus said:

“No servant can serve two masters.” (Luke 16:13)

And yet the Bible says elsewhere:

“Servants be obedient to them that are your masters (plural form of ).” (Ephesians 6:5)

When Paul says servants should obey their “masters” (plural) he uses the same Greek word that Jesus used when he said that no man could serve two “masters.” The word translated as “masters” in both instances is the plural form of the word , which means lord. So how is it that Paul says those men who served Christ had other lords as well? How could a servant have another lord here on earth and still say that they had only one Lord, Je-sus Christ? Were they not Christians because they had a lord other than Je-sus? Actually, the Bible commands servants to obey their earthly masters, so someone cannot truly be a servant of Christ without doing just that. A per-son is serving Christ by serving their earthly master.

This principle is shown to be true when Paul says:

135


“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, asunto Christ; Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the ser-vants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men.” (Ephesians 6:5-9)

So then, while the servant was serving the earthly master he was simultane-ously serving Christ. If the earthly master should command the servant to do something that Christ would not allow, then at that time the servant would refuse to do the will of the earthly master and continue to do the will of that one master whom he had been serving all along. In this way, while having two masters the servant has only one. He is serving the lower master out of obedience to the higher master.

It is for this cause that Paul says:

“For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s free-man.” (1Corinthians 7:22)

The servant is freed from the earthly master and has become the servant of Christ. It has now become in service to Christ that the servant continues to serve his old earthly master. Therefore, even Christians who have masters on earth continue to have only one true master, Jesus Christ.

1Timothy 6:15 – Describing The Father, Not Jesus

Before we begin our discussion on the title King of kings and Lord of lords,we must first address a common misconception regarding who it is that is called “King of kings and Lord of lords” in 1Timothy 6:15. Some have thought that 1Timothy 6:15 is describing Christ since the preceding verse (1Timothy 6:14) speaks of Christ’s return.

1Timothy 6:14-15 reads as follows:

“(14) That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: (15) Which in his own times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, King of kings and Lord of Lords.” (1Timothy 6:14-15 KJV)

Although Christ is the subject of the last clause in verse 14, there is a transi-tion made at the beginning of verse 15 that switches the context to God. Some would argue against this transition, but the proof establishing its valid-ity is incontrovertible.

136

Our Lord

First of all, the Greek in 1Timothy 6:15 should not be translated as it is within the King James Version:

“Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Poten-tate.” (1Timothy 6:15 KJV)

The correct translation can be found in The Greek-English New Testament100

where the word order is numbered to read as follows:

“Which in his own times the blessed and only Potentate shall show.” (1Timothy 6:15)

And notice how some of the other English versions render this text:

“For at the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God” (1Timothy 6:15 NLT)

“...which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler” (1Timothy 6:15 NIV)

“...and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign” (1Timothy 6:15 RSV)

When the Greek is translated correctly then the transition from Christ to God becomes more apparent:

“...the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his own times the blessed and only Potentate shall show.” (1Timothy 6:14-15)

The blessed and only Potentate is the one who has set the time of Christ’s appearing. And since the blessed and only Potentate is the Father, 1Timothy 6:14-15 lines up with the rest of scripture, which says:

“But of that day and that hour [when Christ shall return] knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, butthe Father.” (Mark 13:32)

And again, Jesus says:

“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Fa-ther hath put in his own power.” (Acts 1:7)

It is the Father who has set the time of Christ’s return101 and this is precisely what Paul is speaking of in 1Timothy 6:15, saying:

“The appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his own timesthe blessed and only Potentate shall show.” (1Timothy 6:14-15)

137


Therefore, the blessed and only Potentate whom Paul identifies as the “King of kings and the Lord of lords” is the Father:

“...the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1Timothy 6:14-15 NIV)

After identifying God as the “King of kings and the Lord of lords,” Paul goes on to describe him using language that is not applicable to the Son at all, say-ing:

“The King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” (1Timothy 6:15-16 KJV)

Now, who will say that no man has ever seen Jesus? Of course men saw Je-sus! Paul even says that he saw Jesus (1Corinthians 15:8); therefore he couldn’t have been speaking of Jesus when he said:

“… whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” (1Timothy 6:16)

The Bible clearly teaches that it is God (not Jesus) who has never been seen by man:

“No man hath seen God at any time.” (1John 4:12)

Thus, it is obviously the God who has never been seen, rather than Christ who has been seen, who is being described in 1Timothy 6:15-16. And since it is God who is described in that passage, then it is also God, not Christ, who is called “King of kings and Lord of lords” therein.

“The King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” (1Timothy 6:15-16 KJV)

Understanding The Title “King Of Kings And Lord Of Lords”

Jesus is called, “King of kings and Lord of lords,” in Revelation 19:16, and God is also called, “The King of kings, and Lord of lords,” in 1Timothy 6:15 (KJV). However, the Greek phrase that is used in the book of Revelation when Christ is called, “King of kings and Lord of lords,” is not the same Greek phrase that is used in 1Timothy 6:15 when God is called “King of kings and Lord of lords” (KJV).

The Greek phrase applied to Christ is:

138

Our Lord

King king’s and Lord lord’s (Revelation 19:16)102

The Greek phrase that is applied to God is:

the King of kingships and the Lord

of lordships (1Timothy 6:15)

Christ’s title denotes a ruler over rulers, but God’s title expresses more of the ruler over who can be placed in the positions of rulership. God has made Jesus Lord (Acts 2:36), but God is still the one who arranges the positions of authority within the kingdom that Christ is over.

Once, a woman came to Jesus and asked him to assign positions of authority to her two sons, saying:

“Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.” (Matthew 20:21)

Notice Jesus’ response to her request:

“To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Mat-thew 20:23)

It is God who assigns positions of authority. God designs the governments and Christ is the ruler over those governments that God designs. And just as God assigns the positions of authority to others, so also he assigned the posi-tion of authority to Christ as well (Isaiah 55:4). God gave the kingdoms of the earth over to Jesus, as the scriptures say:

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given himdominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting domin-ion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13-14)

This passage of scripture shows that the kingdom that Christ is over was given to him by God. It is God who has appointed Christ Jesus to be “the King of kings and Lord of lords” (Revelation 17:14 & 19:16).

139


Albert Barnes writes:

“The phrase ‘king of kings,’ is a Hebraism, to denote a supreme monarch.”103

The title “king of kings” does not simply mean that one king has two or more kings under him. Instead, this title is used to signify dominion over all of the kings of the earth.

Prior to making Christ the King of kings in the New Testament God previ-ously made someone else to be King of kings in the in the Old Testament. The prophet Daniel acknowledged Nebuchadnezzar as “king of kings,” say-ing:

“Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.” (Daniel 2:37) (c.f. Ezra 7:12)

The same Greek phrase that is used when Nebuchadnezzar is called “king of kings” in the Septuagint is the same Greek phrase that is used when Christ is called “king of kings” in the New Testament.104 Nebuchadnezzar was made ruler over “all” men (Daniel 2:38, Jeremiah 27:6-8), and thus he was the su-preme monarch over all of the kings of the world.

Notice how the prophet Daniel acknowledges that God gave Nebuchadnezzar that position of authority, saying:

“Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all.” (Daniel 2:37-38)

Nebuchadnezzar was only “king of kings” because God assigned that posi-tion to him.

“The Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” (Daniel 4:17) (c.f. Isaiah 41:2)

God gives the kingdoms of the earth to whomever he wants. However, Ne-buchadnezzar failed to recognize that fact.

Daniel warned Nebuchadnezzar of the consequences for not acknowledging that it was God who gave the kingdom to him, saying:

140

Our Lord

“This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon my lord the king: That they shall drive thee from men ... till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” (Daniel 4:24-25)

When Nebuchadnezzar said that he gained the kingdom by his own strength, God took it from him (Daniel 4:31). Afterwards, when Nebuchadnezzar ac-knowledged that God gives it to whomever he wants, God gave the kingdom back to him (Daniel 4:36). Therefore, even though God gives the kingdoms of the earth to a man, he still decides when to remove that king from his posi-tion and when to give it back.

“He removeth kings, and setteth up kings.” (Daniel 2:21)

The Bible says:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Ro-mans 13:1)

So also the Bible says:

“[Christ] was ordained by God to be the Judge of the quick and dead.” (Acts 10:42)

God is the one who decides who will rule and who will be king. That is why God is referred to as “the King of kingships” (not kings) and “the Lord of lordships” (not lords).

141

IX

IMAGE OF GOD

he Bible very clearly states that Christ is the image of God (2Corinthians 4:4). Although there have been all kinds of weird theo-

ries regarding the meaning of such a profession, it is actually quite simple to understand––God is one, and Christ is the image, reflection, and representa-tion of that one God. Nevertheless, despite the simplicity of defining the im-age of God terminology, this concept does have some interwoven ramifications that need to be expounded upon further. In this chapter we will discuss those ramifications and answer some of the common misconceptions relative to this topic.

T

Christ Reflects God And Spoke God’s Words

An image reflects only the features of the original. Therefore, when you honor the features of the image you are at the same time honoring the fea-tures of the original that the image reflects.

Example: If Sally gets her picture taken, then that picture will reveal the fea-tures of Sally to whoever sees it. If someone looks at the photograph and says, “She is ugly,” then they are directing the insult to those features re-vealed in the photograph as well as to Sally herself. They cannot look at Sally’s picture (her image) and say anything about it without also saying the same thing about Sally. Although the photograph is only an image of Sally, and not Sally herself, we still see Sally whenever we look at the photo. Thus, when someone criticizes the image of Sally they also criticize Sally herself. So also, if someone compliments the image of Sally by saying, “She is pretty,” then they are also complimenting Sally herself, because the photo-graph is only reflecting Sally’s beauty.

Do you understand? The photograph (an image) doesn’t reveal what pertains

143


to itself, but rather what pertains to the person who is revealed in the photo-graph. The photograph is only a representation of the original. The original is the true possessor of the features that are seen in the photograph. When you compliment the features that a photograph reflects then you are not complimenting the photograph itself, because those features revealed by the photograph do not truly belong to the photograph. These same principles apply to how Christ reflects the features of God. Rather than expressing his own person, Christ is the express image of God’s person (Hebrews 1:3). Christ constantly put down his own will so that the will of God would be ex-pressed through him (Luke 22:42).

Jesus shows how he reflects the things of God, saying:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19)

Christ did those things that he saw the Father do, and in this way God was revealed through Christ.

And again, Jesus says:

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judg-ment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Fa-ther which hath sent me.” (John 5:30)

It was not of himself that Christ judged, but he instead judged only according to what he heard of God (c.f. John 8:28, 12:49-50).

And pay close attention to the following words of Christ:

“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:16-17)

Notice in this last passage how Jesus says:

“My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” (John 7:16)

And also:

“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whetherit be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17)

Christ proclaimed the he spoke of God rather than of himself. Would Christ have said this if he were truly God himself? I do not suppose it is necessary

144

Image of God

to expound further on such a passage as this since anyone who is honest can see what is plainly said therein.

Christ was always subjecting his own will to God so that God would be re-vealed in him. Whenever someone heard Christ’s teachings they were not hearing Christ’s own doctrine, but rather the doctrine that was of God.

This is why Jesus said:

“Whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” (Mark 9:37)

And again:

“Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.” (John 12:44)

Christ was not expressing the things that were of himself, but rather the things that were of God; therefore by receiving Christ you weren’t receiving Christ (who was subjecting his will to God) but you were instead receiving God (who was being revealed through Christ).

John 14:9 – Did Jesus Claim To Be The Father?

One of the favorite passages of scripture used by the Oneness advocates (who say that Jesus is the Father himself) is John 14:8-9. In this passage, Philip says to Jesus:

“Lord show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” (John 14:8)

Jesus replies to Philip’s request, saying:

“Have I been so long time with you, and hast thou not known me,Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father?” (John 14:9)

The Oneness advocates say that Christ was claiming to be the Father himself in this passage, but that is not the case. Let’s look at Christ’s statement in its proper context.

Immediately before Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus said:

“If ye had known me, ye should have known the Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” (John 14:7)

Notice how Jesus says, “If ye had known me, ye should have known the Fa-ther also.” The word also represents two, not one––Jesus is not the Father himself.

145


Also notice here how Jesus informs his disciples that they have already“seen” the Father.

“If ye had known me, ye should have known the Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.” (John 14:7)

Philip did not comprehend the manner in which he had already seen the Fa-ther, which consequently led him to ask Jesus to show the Father to him. Yet, the Father was already being shown to Philip, because the Father was being revealed through Jesus all along (for which cause Jesus is called the image of God).

Suppose I was to show you an image (a photograph) of Abraham Lincoln, in-forming you that once you have seen that image you have seen Abraham Lincoln as well. Now suppose that after you stare at that image for ten min-utes you were to say to me, “Will you show me Abraham Lincoln now?” I could say, “Has the image been in your face all along, and yet have you not seen it (the image)? Don’t you know that when you have seen the image you have seen Abraham Lincoln as well? How can you say, ‘Show me Abraham Lincoln’?”

Jesus is the image of God (2Corinthians 4:4). He already told Philip that those who saw him had seen the Father, so when Philip afterwards requested that Jesus show him the Father, Jesus responded by saying:

“Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me,Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” (John 14:7-9)

Since the Father was constantlybeing revealed through Christ, for Philip to ask Christ to show him the Father demonstrated either disregard or unbelief concerning the fact that the Father was already being revealed through Christ all along. Christ is the image of God, so when Philip saw Christ he also saw God.

EXAMPLEThe photograph is an image of Abraham Lin-coln

When you have seen the image you have seen Abraham Lincoln

After seeing the image, someone says, “Show me Abraham Lincoln”

Reply: “Has the imagebeen in your face all along, and yet have you not seen it? When you have seen the image you have seen Abra-ham Lincoln as well? How can you say, ‘Show me Abraham Lincoln’?”

JOHN 14:7-9Christ is the Image of the Father

When you have seen Christ you have seen the Father (v.7, 9)

After seeing Christ, Philip says, “Show us the Father” (v.8)

Jesus’ reply: “Have Ibeen so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Fa-ther?” (v.9)

146

Image of God

The Image Is Called By The Name Of The Archetype

In chapter one we saw how the Word was called God because God was re-vealed through him. That conclusion regarding John 1:1 is based upon a principle that recurs throughout the entire Bible, namely, that the representa-tive or image is called by the name of the archetype whose attributes are be-ing revealed through them.

Here is an example of a man being addressed by the name of an archetype whose attributes were being manifested through his person:

“[Jesus] turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan.” (Matthew 16:23)

Does this mean that Peter was Satan because Jesus called him “Satan”? It plainly says:

“He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan.” (Mat-thew 16:23)

It is clear to whom Jesus was speaking––Jesus refers to Peter as “Satan” in this passage. Yet, does this mean that Peter was literally Satan? No way!

And notice also how Jesus referred to Judas as a “devil,” saying:

“Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70)

Judas was not literally the devil, but the devil was working through him, and therefore he was called by the name of the archetype whose attributes were being manifested.

It may even be that it was not Satan himself who was working through Peter and Judas, because Satan’s demons are also called “Satan” as well. This is obviously true, because once when the Pharisees were accusing Jesus of cast-ing out demons by the prince of the demons, Jesus responded to them by say-ing:

“If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? … But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Mat-thew 12:26, 28 RSV)

Satan’s demons are called “Satan” because the attributes of Satan are mani-fested in them. Similarly, the angels of God are sometimes called “God” as well:

147


After seeing an angel of God, Manoah says:

“We have seen God.” (Judges 13:22)

The context shows that Manoah only saw “an angel of the LORD” (Judges 13:21). However, since the angel was acting as God’s personal representa-tive to Manoah, he was therefore called God by Manoah.

This principle regarding the image being called by the name of its archetype may also be applied when a man serves as the prototypical forerunner for an-other man. This is why Jesus called John the Baptist “Elias,” saying:

“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.” (Matthew 11:13-14)

Since Jesus refers to John the Baptist by the name of “Elias,” does this mean that John the Baptist was Elias? Not at all! Some of the Levites asked John, “Art thou Elias?” And John answered, “I am not.” (John 1:21)

Albert Barnes comments on why John the Baptist was called Elias, saying:

The prophet Malachi predicted that Elijah should be sent before the coming of the Messiah, to prepare the way for him (Malachi 4:5,6).By this was evidently meant, not that he should appear in person, but that one should appear with a striking resemblance to him; or, as Luke (Luke 1:17) expresses it, “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” 105

John was referred to as Elias because he came “in the spirit and power ofElias.” (Luke 1:17) Although Elias’ personal attributes were not revealed in John, certain ministerial attributes identified with Elias were (which made John somewhat of an Elias replica).

The principle regarding the representative taking on the name of the arche-type does not only apply to living things either. Look how Paul refers to the writings of Moses as “Moses,” saying:

“Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.” (2Corinthians 3:15)

Now, Moses himself was not being read, but this is instead referring to Moses’ writings. Moses’ words are being referred to here as “Moses.” Simi-larly, even in our modern day we still sometimes refer to the writings ofShakespeare as Shakespeare.

148

Image of God

In summary, a person (or thing) is often called by the name of the archetype whose attributes are being expressed through them:

Jesus called Peter Satan, though Peter is not part of a Bi-nity that con-sists of both Satan and Peter

Jesus called Judas a devil, though Judas himself was not a devil

Satan’s demons were called Satan, though they are not Satan himself

An angel of the LORD was called God, though God is not an angel

John was called Elias because he went forth “in the spirit and power of Elias,” but John is not Elias himself.

Moses’ writings are called Moses, not because they are Moses, but be-cause Moses is expressed through them.

In light of all these examples, it should not seem the least bit strange that Je-sus is called God because he is the image of God (rather than because he is God himself).

It has already been shown, by God’s grace in Christ, that the name is given according to that which is being manifested or revealed. Yet, before we pro-ceed to our next subject, there are a few other passages that should be ad-dressed on this topic as well.

Exodus 7:1 says:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”

Here, in the Hebrew language, the word translated as “a god” is elohiym,which may also be (and usually is) translated as “God.”

The Bible says:

“Here O Israel, The LORD our God (elohiym) is one LORD.” (Deu-teronomy 6:4)

Therefore, a correct translation of Exodus 7:1 could very well be:

“I have made thee God unto Pharaoh.” (Exodus 7:1)

That is not to say that Moses was himself God, but rather that God’s judg-ments (etc.) were being revealed through Moses, and thus he was God’s ex-pression to Pharaoh.

149


Someone might say that Exodus 7:1 means that Pharaoh, who already be-lieved in many gods, thought that Moses was also a literal god too, but that is incorrect. Pharaoh understood that Moses was God’s representative (Exodus 5:1-3, 8:25-29, etc.). Furthermore, God already spoke of this principle to Moses in a previous passage, saying:

“And he (Aaron) shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be…to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him (Aaron) instead of God.” (Exodus 4:16)

Here, the phrase, “instead of God,” is also translated from the Hebrew word elohiym, which doesn’t mean instead of God, but simply God. This obvi-ously does not mean that Moses was a replacement for God to Aaron, but rather that Moses was the one through whom God revealed himself untoAaron. In this way, Moses was––not in any literal sense––made God to Aaron.

With that being said, pay close attention to the content of Deuteronomy 18:17-19, which says:

“And the LORD said unto [Moses], They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuter-onomy 18:17-19)

This prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, as the scriptures say:

“And he (God) shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you … For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. … Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turn-ing away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:20, 22-23, 26)

The Bible says that Moses was made “God,” and Christ, who was “like unto Moses,” was also called “God” as well (John 1:1). Both Moses and Christ are called “God” because the only true God, the Father, was revealed through them (though it was only through the Spirit of Christ that God was revealed

150

Image of God

in Moses).

Do not misunderstand my words. I am not implying that those in whom God is revealed will be deified (made literal gods). In fact, I do not say that we should even call men “God” at this present time. Although Jesus and Moses were called “God” in the Bible, we do not practice that type of vernacular ti-tle application in our modern language. We no longer speak the languages that were used when the Bible was written. The biblical languages and usesof those languages have long since been replaced. Consequently, we no longer use some of the grammatical peculiarities that were indigenous tothose languages.

Examples:

Even though the Bible says that people worshipped men who were in high positions (1Chronicles 29:20, Matthew 18:26, Luke 14:10, Revela-tion 3:9), we no longer apply the word worship in that manner. We now only use the word worship in reference to the homage that is due to God alone (these things will be discussed in depth in chapter eleven).

Within the biblical Hebrew language, references to a singular noun are sometimes written in the plural form in order to express the greatness of that noun, but such a practice does not exist within our contemporary rules of English grammar. (Although this quirk has been implemented by England’s royalty for quite some time.)

Languages change. However, just because we do not practice these gram-matical applications now does not mean that it isn’t necessary to understand how they were practiced in times past. Just because we do not apply the ti-tles of archetypes to those who expressly represent them does not mean that we must remain ignorant as to how these titles were applied within the con-fines of historic biblical dialects.

I do not endorse calling people by the name of the one who is being ex-pressed through them outside of the realm of biblical exegesis. To practice such things in our present frame of thought would be altogether hurtful and would open up huge doors for misunderstandings and heresies. In fact, this may be the principle on which the coming antichrist will base his untrue claim to be God (2Thessalonians 2:4).

Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, And John All Saw God

The Bible clearly teaches that no man has ever seen God:

151


“No man hath seen God at any time.” (1John 4:12)

“Who only hath immortality ... whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” (1Timothy 6:16)

No man can see God because God is invisible:

“[Christ] is the image of the invisible God.” (Colossians 1:15)

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God…” (1Timothy 1:17)

And yet there are places within the Bible that say men have seen God:

“Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.” (Exodus 24:9-10)

Isaiah also saw God:

“In the year that king Uzziah died I (Isaiah) saw also the Lord sit-ting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the tem-ple. ... Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD (YHWH) of hosts.”(Isaiah 6:1, 5)

Daniel saw God:

“I (Daniel) beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. ... I saw in the night visions, and, be-hold, one like the Son of man (Christ) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days (God), and they brought him near before him.” (Daniel 7:9-10, 13)

And John also saw God as well:

“Behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine

152

Image of God

stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. ... And I (John) saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. ... And he (Christ) came and took the book out of the right hand of him (God) that sat upon the throne.” (Revelation 4:2-3, 5:1, 7)

We cannot say that these appearances of God were Christ, because Christ is shown to be distinct from God in some of these texts. So then, in what way did these men see God if “no man hath seen God at any time?” (1John 4:12) Is this a biblical contradiction? Not at all! The same John who describes seeing God in Revelation 4:3 is the same John who also said, “No man hath seen God at any time.” (1John 4:12) Surely he wasn’t contradicting his own teachings!

We have already discussed how those in whom God was revealed were sometimes referred to as “God.” Yet, unlike those instances where God re-vealed himself through another person, in these passages we see God reveal-ing himself independently. No one has seen the invisible God himself, but by means of an independent, visible projection of himself (which is also called a theophany) God did allow men to see his representation.

Ezekiel’s usage of language shows that he did not see God directly, but rather by means of a theophany:

“And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the like-ness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. ... This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.” (Ezekiel 1:26, 28)

Ezekiel never says, “This was God himself,” but he instead specifically says, “This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.” (Ezekiel 1:28) Ezekiel did see a visible representation of God, but this does not change the fact that no one has ever seen the invisible God himself (1Timothy 6:16, John 1:18, 1John 4:12, Colossians 1:15). Whenever some-one saw God they saw him only by expression or by representation, but never directly. This is what the scriptures teach. (See Appendix D for a de-tailed study of Moses’ encounter with God on Mt. Sinai.)

153


John 12:37-41 – Is Christ The LORD Whom Isaiah Saw?

This brings us to another passage of scripture that has been thought to prove that Jesus is God himself––John 12:37-41. This passage (John 12:37-41) in-corporates a quotation from Isaiah 53:1 as well as a subsequent quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10, saying

“But though he (Jesus) had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him: that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be ful-filled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and should turn,and I should heal them. These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.” (John 12:37-41 ASV)

The second set of bold letters indicate John’s quotation from Isaiah chapter six, in which chapter Isaiah also says that he saw the “the Lord sitting upon a throne,” whom he afterwards also identifies as “the LORD of hosts” (Isaiah 6:5). The controversy arises from the fact that John follows his quotation from Isaiah 6 by saying, “These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and spake of [Christ].” (John 12:41 ASV) Some say that John is paralleling seeing God with seeing Christ, thereby asserting that Christ must have been the LORD (Jehovah) whom Isaiah saw. Is that an accurate conclusion? Does John identify Christ as the LORD here in John 12:39-41?

We must remember that there are two quotations from the book of Isaiah in John 12:37-41 (Isaiah 6:9-10 and Isaiah 53:1). John refers back to both of these quotations when he says:

“These things (plural = both of these sayings) said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and spake of him.” (John 12:41 ASV)

Many interpretations of John 12:41 have been presented to explain John’s second quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10, but few have also acknowledged the first quotation from Isaiah 53:1. Indeed, Isaiah 53 (and a large amount of text preceding and following Isaiah 53) truly speaks in great detail about events in Christ’s life that Isaiah saw106 beforehand. Nevertheless, while ac-knowledging the quote from Isaiah 53:1 in John 12:38, we must not forget to also acknowledge the quote from Isaiah 6:9-10 in John 12:40. No matter how much emphasis we place on one of John’s quotes, the proper explana-

154

Image of God

tion of this passage must necessarily comply with both of the texts that he re-fers to.

Isaiah 6:9-10, the second passage quoted by John, shows God speaking to Isaiah, saying:

“Go, and say to this people, ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not un-derstand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hear-ing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” (Isaiah 6:9-10 LXX)

God told Isaiah to tell the people that the time was coming when they would see and not perceive, and hear and not understand. Jesus shows that this prophecy was fulfilled during the time of his own ministry, saying:

“Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should un-derstand with their heart, and should be converted, and I107 should heal them.” (Matthew 13:13-15)

The prophecy of Isaiah 6:9-10 was “fulfilled” during Christ’s ministry. This is the same prophecy that John quotes in John 12:39-40. Yet, how was such a prophecy (regarding the people seeing and not perceiving, and hearing but not understanding) fulfilled in the ministry of Christ?

Albert Barnes comments on how the people’s eyes were blinded and their hearts were hardened, saying:

He hath blinded their eyes - The expression in Isaiah is, “Go, make the heart of this people fat, and shut their eyes.” That is, go and pro-claim truth to them––truth that will result in blinding their eyes. Go and proclaim the law and the will of God, and the effect will be, ow-ing to the hardness of their heart, that their eyes will be blinded and their hearts hardened.108

This kind of truth, which upon being proclaimed resulted in men’s eyes be-ing blinded, was heralded by Christ, as John says:

155


“Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He(Christ) hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart...” (John 12:39-40)

When John says, “He hath blinded their eyes,” he is not quoting Isaiah 6:9 verbatim, because there is no manuscript that reads, “He hath blinded their eyes.” John instead says, “He hath blinded their eyes,” to show that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ. This point is of great importance, because God is the one speaking in Isaiah 6:9-10; yet John shows a distinction be-tween the speaker (God) and the one who blinds the peoples’ eyes (Christ), saying:

“Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He(Christ) hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I (God) should heal them.” (John 12:39-40)

God was speaking in the first person narrative, and he, according to John, was speaking of Christ in the third person narrative; therefore Christ is not identified as the God who was speaking, but rather as the one of whom God spoke.

God sent Christ to proclaim truth to the people in such a way that they would hear it, but not understand it.109 This was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s proph-ecy to Israel, “Ye shall hear indeed, but ye shall not understand; and ye shall see indeed, but ye shall not perceive.” (Isaiah 6:9 LXX) But what was it about Jesus’ teachings that caused the people to hear but not understand, and see but not perceive? This blinding principle is attributed to Jesus’ usage of parables . . . Jesus always spoke in parables to the crowds:

“But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.” (Mark 4:34)

Jesus only explained the parables to those who remained with him after the crowds dispersed:

“And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” (Mark 4:10-12)

156

Image of God

Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables. The crowds did not understand the meaning of the parables, but neither did they seek to understand the meaning. Nevertheless, Christ did give the explanation of those parables to those who remained with him.

How could the masses of people not seek to truly understand Christ’s words even though they saw all of the miracles that Christ performed? Those mira-cles clearly proved that he was from God. This is why Nicodemus came to Jesus, saying:

“Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do those miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” (John 3:2)

Jesus was obviously of God, so why did the crowds not take his words to heart? Multitudes of people flocked to Jesus because of the miracles that he performed, but when it came to his teachings few people even believed what he said. Why didn’t they seek to learn from Jesus? It was this lack of belief regarding the teachings of Christ that caused many of the Jews to be blinded.

The Jews’110 failure to believe in Christ despite the many miracles that they saw him perform is precisely what John is referring to in John 12:37-43, say-ing:

“But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, because he saw his glory, and spake of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:37-43)

Isaiah prophetically saw the coming and ministry of Christ (including seeing his miracles).111 Isaiah also saw that the people would not receive Christ de-spite the many miracles that he would perform. These are the things John was referring to in John 12:37-41.

157


Someone might object to this by saying that such an understanding does not account for John saying, “These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.” (John 12:41 ASV) Oh contraire! The contextof John 12 does refer to Christ’s miracles as being the glory that is seen and rejected by the Jews during Christ’s ministry. What is more, the Bible spe-cifically identifies Christ’s miracles as the way in which Christ’s glory was revealed:

“This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and mani-fested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” (John 2:11) (c.f. John 11:4, 40)

Christ manifested his glory by the performance of miracles. The context of John 12:37-41 refers to the miracles of Christ, therefore it makes perfect sense to interpret the glory of Christ that Isaiah saw as being the miraculous nature of Christ’s ministry.

In summary, the correct understanding of John 12:37-41 is as follows:

“But though [Jesus] had done so many miracles before [the Jews], yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our re-port? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord [that is, the miraculous works of God] been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, be-cause that Esaias said again, [Christ] hath blinded their eyes [using parables], and hardened their heart [using parables]; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be con-verted, and [God] should heal them. These things said Esaias, be-cause he saw [the miraculous ministry of Christ], and he spake of him.” (John 12:37-41)

On the other hand, those who say that John was identifying Christ as the LORD whom Isaiah saw sitting upon the throne adhere to a shallow interpre-tation of the text, which:

fails to acknowledge the true and entire context of John 12:37-43

does not provide a logical explanation as to why Isaiah said those things “because” he saw Christ’s glory112

ignores the fact that John refers to Isaiah 53:1 as well (which referenced Christ’s coming ministry rather than Christ appearing in a glorious form)

is contrary to Daniel 7:9-14 as well as Revelation 4:2-5:7, which both portray God sitting on a throne while being distinct from Christ

158

Image of God

does not give an adequate reason as to why John quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 saying, “He (Christ) hath blinded their minds … lest I (the LORD whom Isaiah saw) should heal them”

2Corinthians 4:4 – Satan Is Not The God Of This World

It is so often said these days that Satan is “the god of this world.” People make this claim based on an incorrect interpretation of 2Corinthians 4:4, which says:

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2Corinthians 4:4 KJV)

Satan is not referred to here as “the god of this world.” The word “god” in this verse is translated from the phrase (ho theos) which means theGod.

The fact that our English versions do not capitalize the g when it says, “the god of this world,” is irrelevant, because the Greek text never capitalizes the first letter of a word unless that word is a name, written as the first word in a quotation, or written at the beginning of a new paragraph. The Greek word

is a title, but it is not a name, hence it is not even capitalized when used to identify the Father himself. In light of this fact, it is the content and con-text of 2Corinthians 4:4 (not the capitalization) which must determine whether a false god (god) is being spoken of rather than the true God (God).

Adam Clarke (who believed that Jesus was God himself) said:

I must own I feel considerable reluctance to assign the epi-thet , “THE God,” to Satan; and were there not a rooted prejudice in favor of the common opinion, the contrary might be well vindicated, viz. that by, “the God of this world,” the supreme being is meant, who in his judgment gave over the minds of the un-believing Jews to spiritual darkness, so that destruction came upon them to the uttermost. Satan...has said that the kingdoms of the world and their glory are his, and that he gives them to whomsoever he will; Matthew 4:8, 9. But has God ever said so? and are we to take this assertion of the boasting devil and father of lies for truth?Certainly not. We are not willing to attribute the blinding of men’s minds to God, because we sometimes forget that he is the God of justice, and may in judgment remove mercies from those that abusethem; but this is repeatedly attributed to him in the Bible, and the

159


expression before us is quite a parallel to the following, Isaiah 6:9-10: Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,&c. And see the parallel places, Matthew 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12;John 12:40; and particularly Romans 11:8-10: God hath given themthe spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; let their eyes be darkened, &c. Now all this is spoken of the same people, in the same circumstances of willful rebellion and obstinate unbelief; and the great God of heaven and earth is he who judicially blinds their eyes; makes their hearts fat, i.e. stupid; gives them the spirit of slumber: and bows down their back, &c. On these very grounds it is exceedingly likely that the apostlemeans the true God by the words “the god of this world.” 113

Although 2Corinthians 4:4 says that the God of this world “blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them,” this does not mean that it is automatically Satan who did that blinding.

It is God who gave blinded eyes to the unbelievers:

“According as it is written, God ( ) hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; unto this day.” (Romans 11:8)

This passage clearly shows that it was God, the only God, who blinded their minds by giving them “the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear.”

God did not blind their minds so that they wouldn’t have a chance to believe, but rather because they had already refused to believe.

“Whom the God ( ) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not…” (2Corinthians 4:4)

And elsewhere the scriptures also say:

“They received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God ( ) shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who be-lieved not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2Thessalonians 2:10-12)

160

Image of God

It is because men already refuse to believe the truth that they are blinded.

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God ( ) gave them over to a reprobate mind.” (Romans 1:28)

1Corinthians 8:4-6 – There Are Not Many Real Gods

Some denominations (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses) assert that Jesus is “a god.” They say that certain passages in the Bible prove the existence of many gods besides the Father. One of the most commonly misapplied texts that has been used to promote such a doctrine of multiple gods is 1Corinthians 8:5, which says:

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many)...” (1Corinthians 8:5)

When Paul says that there are many gods he is not saying many real gods. The surrounding context plainly indicates that Paul was speaking of falsegods:

“We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there isnone other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father.” (1Corinthians 8:4-6)

Paul is without a doubt contrasting the “many” gods of the pagan religions with the “one” God of the Christian faith.

“For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he is also to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.” (1Chronicles 16:25-26)

161

X

FIFTH CHAPTEROF St.JOHN

he fifth chapter of John’s gospel contains some profound statements re-garding the relationship between the Father and the Son that have often

been misappropriated by various sects in an attempt to support their own doctrines. The focus of this present chapter is the exposition of those state-ments in particular (although we will branch off into a couple of other issues as well).

T

John 5:23 – Honor The Son Even As The Father

Many people, usually those who are trying to promote a deified Christ, have misunderstood the implications of John 5:23, where Jesus says:

“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Fa-ther. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:23)

Trinitarians say that since we are told to honor the Son as we honor the Fa-ther, and we honor the Father as God, then the Son must be honored as God too. In a sense, that is a correct observation, but not when that observation is taken to the extremities of a one God coexisting in three persons doctrine. Instead, Jesus was simply affirming that those who honor him are likewise honoring the God being revealed through him. Just as the compliments that a person gives regarding someone’s photograph also equally compliment the person whose traits are seen in that photograph, so also by honoring the Son (who is the image of God) we equally honor the Father whose traits are seen in the Son.

By honoring the image of God a person simultaneously honors God himself. Therefore, it was not because Christ was God himself that we are to honor him as we honor God, but rather because he is God’s representative. Jesus

163


knew this, and that is why (even though he said men are to honor him as they honor God) he also said:

“I receive not honour from men.” (John 5:41)

The honor given to Christ was actually given to God through Christ, because Christ did not receive the honor from men unto himself. In fact, God is to receive the glory whenever he reveals himself in anyone. This principle is clearly attested to within two very similar stories that are recorded in the book of Judges.

In the first story an angel of the LORD appeared to a man named Gideon with a message from God. When the angel delivered the message from God he spoke God’s words in first person narrative:

“And the LORD said unto him (Gideon), ‘Surely I will be with thee.” (Judges 6:16)

Now, it is evident that it was an angel who was speaking to Gideon (as is seen in the context of Judges 6:11-16). However, though Gideon plainly saw that the angel was the one speaking (Judges 6:12), he also understood that God spoke through his angels.

This is why Gideon says:

“Show me a sign that thou talkest with me.” (Judges 6:17)

Why would Gideon ask for a sign to prove that the one speaking with him was truly speaking with him? Of course Gideon knew that the angel was speaking with him, but he was inquiring whether it was God speaking to him through the angel.

Gideon understood that God spoke through his angels, and it was only be-cause Gideon recognized the angel as God’s representative that the angel did not rebuke him for honoring him with a present (Judges 6:18). Gideon rec-ognized that it was God who was being revealed and that the angel was only the messenger. The honor Gideon gave to the angel (when he offered him a gift) was honor given to him as God’s representative, whereby he was honor-ing God.

In the second story, an angel of the LORD was also representing God when he appeared to a man named Manoah; but, unlike Gideon, Manoah did not acknowledge whom it was that the angel represented. Instead, Manoah was trying to give honor to the angel himself:

“Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, ‘What is thy name, that

164

Fifth Chapter of St. John

when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?” (Judges 13:17)

This is in contrast with Gideon, who was honoring the God whom the angel represented. The angel only received the gift from Gideon because he of-fered it in honor of God, but because Manoah was not giving God the honor then when he offered to bring a gift the angel would not accept it.

Notice what the angels says:

“I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD.” (Judges 13:16)

Why did the angel say this? The very next words in Judges 13:16 tell us ex-actly why:

“For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD.” (Judges 13:16)

The angel would not accept Manoah’s gift because he knew that Manoah did not know that he was an angel of God. Consequently, Manoah was not ac-knowledging the fact that the angel was God’s representative. Later, when “Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD” (Judges 13:21) he pro-claimed, “We have seen God.” (Judges 13:22) The reason Manoah said that he saw God by seeing God’s angel was because he realized whom it was that the angel was representing.

Do you see how the angel of the LORD would not receive the honor from men for what God was doing? The only time that the angels would receive the honor from men is when those men honored them as God’s representa-tives.

In the same way, Christ says:

“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Fa-ther. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” (John 5:23)

But he also says:

“I receive not honour from men.” (John 5:41)

Jesus Would Not Let The Man Call Him “Good Master”

Jesus clearly showed that he would not receive honor from men who did not acknowledge him as the Son of God when a man approached him and said:

165


“Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17)

Jesus responded to the man by saying:

“Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” (Mark 10:18)

Jesus knew that it was the goodness of God being revealed through him, but the man was trying to give the credit to Jesus (by calling him “good”) and thus Jesus corrected him by giving glory to God. The man that Jesus spoke to obviously understood the point that Jesus was conveying because the next time he spoke to Jesus (two verses later), he no longer addressed him as “Good Master,” but simply as “Master” (Mark 10:20).

In 160 AD, Justin Martyr said:

The Son foretells that he will be saved by the same God. He does not boast of accomplishing anything through his own will or might. For when on earth, he acted in the very same manner. He answered to a man who addressed him as “Good Master”: “Why do you call me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.”114

In 248 AD, Origen also writes:

Our Lord and Savior, hearing himself on one occasion addressed as, “Good Master,” referred the person who used it to his own Father, saying, “Why do you call me good? There is no one good but one, that is, God the Father.” It was in accordance with sound reason that this was said by the Son of the Father’s love, for he was the image of the goodness of God.115

None “Good” But God – Christ The “Good” Shepherd

Someone might think (though I have never heard anyone assert such a thing) that Christ identifies himself as God when he says:

“I am the good shepherd.” (John 10:11)

And elsewhere:

“There is none good but one, that is God.” (Mark 10:18)

If Christ is good, and there is none good but God, then doesn’t this make Christ God? Actually, the Greek words that Christ used in these two pas-sages are entirely different from one another:

166


“There is none good ( ) but one, that is God.” (Mark 10:18)

“I am the good ( ) shepherd.” (John 10:11)

Since the Greek words used are entirely different in these passages then it cannot justly be said that Christ was making himself out to be the good ( ) God when he presents himself as the good ( ) shepherd.

Yet, what if Christ did use the same word that was applied to God? There can be no doubt that Trinitarians would pounce upon this comparison, say-ing:

“He said none was good ( ) but God, and Jesus is the good( ) shepherd, therefore Jesus is God.”

Now let me ask you this … Is Joseph of Arimathea God? No way! And yet the Bible does apply the Greek word (which was attributed exclu-sively to God) to Joseph, saying:

“And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor, and he was a good ( ) man.” (Luke 23:50)

The exact same word that Christ used when he said, “There is none good( ) but one, that is God,” is also applied to Joseph in Luke 23:50! If this passage were speaking of Jesus rather than of Joseph then Trinitarians would be citing it as a “proof text” till they were blue in the face! In reality, the reason why Christ said that God alone is good is because he was ac-knowledging the source of all goodness (God). God is the perpetual posses-sor of the goodness that makes anyone else good. Hence, a man is made good only when God’s own personal attributes are revealed in him. A good man’s goodness is not of himself, instead that goodness is of God.

“He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.” (3John 11)

John 5:18 – Equal With God

The fifth chapter of John records a certain miraculous healing that Christ per-formed on the Sabbath. Since the Jews didn’t believe that anyone should do such works on the Sabbath, they persecuted him.

“And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus an-swered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” (John 5:16-17)

167


They said that Christ shouldn’t do those things on the Sabbath, but Christ re-sponded to the Jews by showing them that God was working on the Sabbath, and thus he worked as well. Since the works of the Father were revealed through the Son, then when God worked Christ also worked.

Christ again expresses this same principle later on in John 9:3-4, saying:

“[This man was born blind] that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me while it is day.” (John 9:3-4)

The works were God’s works, but Christ had to act in accordance with God so that God’s works would be manifested through him. God worked to heal this man who was born blind, yet Christ was the channel through whom that healing from God was put into effect. This is also the principle upon which Jesus made his defense for healing the previous man on the Sabbath:

“Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” (John 5:17)

If God was working to heal the man, and that work was to be accomplished through Christ, then Jesus was obligated to heal the man on the Sabbath in obedience to God. If the Jews chose to blame Jesus then they would have to point their accusations at his Father instead, because as the Son of God it was God’s works that were being manifested through him.

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, mak-ing himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of him-self, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:18-19)

Jesus claimed that the works of the Father were revealed through him (which supplies the meaning of Son of God). The Jews wanted to stone Christ for “breaking the Sabbath” and for attributing his actions to God. Jesus re-sponded by affirming that he could do nothing without seeing the Father do the same thing. In this way, Christ was placing the authority of his actions on par with the authority of God. In that respect he was equal with God. All of these things show the true meaning of the statement made in John 5:18:

“[Jesus] said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)

John showed that being the Son of God makes a person equal with God (in

168


regards to the causation of their actions). The Jews tried to make this same claim for themselves in John 8:

Jesus said to the Jews:

“Ye do the deeds of your father.” (John 8:41)

Notice how the Jews respond:

“Then said they unto him, We be not born of fornication, we have one Father, even God.” (John 8:41)

They were trying to say that God was their Father and that, instead of doing the deeds of the devil, they were doing the works of God. Christ did not ac-cept this from them, but he instead reproves them, saying:

“If God were your Father, ye would love me … Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” (John 8:42,44)

Being a child of God refers to how the works of God are revealed through a person. It is in that sense that being God’s Son made Christ equal with God (in regards to his works).

Again, John 5:18 says:

“[Jesus] said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)

The Jews were making this same claim when they said:

“We have one Father, even God.” (John 8:41)

The Jews did not seek to kill Jesus simply because he claimed to do the works of God. The reason they sought to kill him was because (1) Jesus “broke the Sabbath,” and (2) He attributed his “Sabbath-breaking” actions to God.

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, mak-ing himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)

John 5:19 – Every Action Of Christ An Action Of God?

Even though Christ did reflect the words and actions of the Father this didnot exclude Christ from speaking his own words and performing his own ac-tions as well.

169


Not everything that Christ did reflected God’s own words and actions:

Christ prayed to God, but this was not a reflection of God’s actions.

Christ said, “My Father is greater than I,” (John 14:28) but these were not the words of God (who has no father)

The list of things which Christ did and spoke that were not reflecting God himself could go on and on. Nevertheless, there are still some people who continue to think that every word and action of Christ is replicated from the very words and actions of the Father himself. Most of the people who main-tain this position present John 5:19 as their primary proof text, which says:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19)

When Christ said he could do “nothing” of himself he was not saying that he couldn’t do anything in any capacity that didn’t reflect the very actions and words of God himself.

By way of comparison, Jesus made a similar statement regarding his disci-ples’ relationship to him, saying:

“Without me ye can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

Now, Jesus wasn’t saying that his disciples couldn’t do anything in any ca-pacity without him . . . If that were the case, Peter could not have denied Christ three times without Christ’s involvement. Instead, the context shows that Jesus was informing his disciples that they could not bear fruit (i.e., do the works of the kingdom of God) unless he was involved (John 15:1-8).

In regards to how Christ said that his disciples could do “nothing” without him, we would clearly be in error if we interpreted this to mean that they couldn’t have done anything in any capacity without him whatsoever. The “nothing” that Christ spoke of was clearly nothing in a specified category(bearing fruit). So also, when Christ said that he could do nothing of him-self, but only what he saw the Father do, he was referring to a specific cate-gory as well, namely, those miracles done in his public ministry.

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show himgreater works than these, that ye may marvel.” (John 5:19-20)

170


In all practicality, Jesus was simply arguing that he couldn’t have performed such a miraculous work (healing the man on the Sabbath) unless God was involved.

171

XI

CHRIST AND WORSHIP

n our modern culture we use the word worship in reference to an act of reverence given only to someone who is divine. However, in times before

ours the word worship was simply used to signify a giving of high honor and/or adoration. In fact, examples of how the word worship was formerly used in our English language can still be found in the historic King James Version. For instance, the KJV renders Luke 14:10 as follows:

I

“But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.” (Luke 14:10 KJV)

This antiquated translation (AD 1611) bears undeniable evidence that those men who published its contents did not consider the word worship as some-thing applicable only to God. Likewise, just as the word worship was not used exclusively of God in the English vocabulary while the King James Version was being translated, so also the Hebrew and Greek words for wor-ship were not used in biblical times exclusively of God either.

The Greek Word For “Worship”

In the New Testament the word “worship” is usually translated from the Greek word (proskuneo). The word proskuneo (“worship”) is a combination of two smaller Greek words, (pros) and (kuneo):

(pros) – unto or towards

(kuneo) – to kiss

Pros-kuneo (“worship”) is compounded from these two words; and when it is

173


broken down it literally means to kiss towards. However, the connotative application of proskuneo in the Bible conveys homage given to those in posi-tions of authority or prestige.

The Strong’s Concordance defines proskuneo as follows:

proskuneo - (mean. to kiss like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (lit. or fig.) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): – worship. (– Strong’s #4352)

Albert Barnes comments accurately on the meaning of proskuneo, saying:

“So far as the word is concerned, it may refer either to spiritual hom-age, that is, the worship of God; or it may mean respect as shown to superiors.”116

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) the word, pro-skuneo is applied, not only to God (Exodus 34:14, etc.), but also to David (1Samuel 25:23), to David’s servants (1Samuel 25:41), to angels (Genesis 19:1), and to others as well.117

In the New Testament, Jesus states that the Christians at Philadelphia would receive worship (proskuneo) as well, saying:

“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship ( ) before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” (Revelation 3:9)

Trinitarians say that Christ’s words should be interpreted as:

“...behold, I will make them to come and worship [God] before thy feet.”

However, that is not what Christ was saying at all. Compare Christ’s state-ment in Revelation 3:9, “worship before thy (the Christian’s) feet,” to Reve-lation 22:8, where John worshipped “before the feet of the angel” and was rebuked for trying to worship the angel himself (not for trying to worship God at the angel’s feet). (c.f. Revelation 15:4 ) The Trinitarians are wrong. Christ was definitely letting these Christians know that he would cause their persecutors to come and “worship” them. Therefore, the word “worship,” as it is used in the New Testament, cannot exclusively mean worship as God.

Some other examples of where proskuneo is used in the New Testament are as follows:

174

Christ and Worship

Jesus shows that he himself is a worshipper of God, saying, “Ye worship ye know not what: we [Jews] know what we worship.” (John 4:22)

The servant in Jesus’ parable worshipped his human king. (Matthew 18:26)

The wise men worshipped Jesus as “the King of the Jews.” (Matthew 2:1-2)

Why The Angel Would Not Let John Worship Him

The Greek word for worship, proskuneo, denotes the homage given to one’s superior. This is why the angel in Revelation 19:10 refused to receive wor-ship from John.

“And I (John) fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 19:10)

The angel wasn’t in a position of authority over John, but he was instead in a position of equality with John.

Look at what the angel said to John when John tried to worship him:

“See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant.” (Revelation 19:10)

The angel explains his reason for not receiving worship from John right there in the text––he was John’s fellow servant. John was told not to worship the angel because they were in positions of equality, not because God is the only one who is worshipped in the scriptures.

The angel who spoke to John in Revelation 19:10 was one of those seven an-gels who had the seven vials (Revelation 17:1,3,15 19:9), so John knew that this was just an angel; therefore John obviously did not think that he was fal-ling down to worship either God or Jesus. If worship was applicable only to God himself then what would that say about the character and integ-rity of John who tried to worship an angel??? Especially since he tried to worship an angel again three chapters later in Revelation 22:8???

“And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant.” (Revelation 22:8-9)

John wasn’t trying to commit a blasphemous act by worshipping someone

175


who wasn’t God, because worship (as it is used in the scriptures) doesn’t al-ways mean worship as God.

Why Peter Would Not Let Cornelius Worship Him

There is also a scenario in Acts 10:25-26 where a Roman centurion named Cornelius tried to “worship” Peter. Unlike the angel whom John was trying to worship, Peter did not say, “I am thy fellow servant,” but he instead says:

“Stand up; I myself am also a man.” (Acts 10:26)

Peter knew that the Romans mostly believed in Greek mythology (which claimed that gods took on the forms of men). This is why he said, “I myself am also a man,” so that those who were present would not think that he was some kind of god.

A similar incident happened in Acts 14:11-15, which says:

“And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men.” (Acts 14:11-15)

Notice how Paul and Barnabas were clearing up any misconceptions by say-ing, “We also are men.” (Acts 14:15) Peter was doing this same thing at Cornelius’ house when he said, “I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26).

Regarding Peter’s statement, I agree with the note found in the NIV Study Bible, which says:

I am only a man. Possibly Cornelius was only intending to honor Peter as one having a rank superior to his own, since he was God’s messenger. But Peter allowed no chance for misunderstanding––he was not to be worshipped as more than a created being.118

Thus, Peter was simply protecting against any misconceptions that could re-sult in him being worshipped as something that he was not.

176

Christ and Worship

Matthew 4:10 – Worship {Only} God?

Although Trinitarians sometimes misquote Matthew 4:10 as if it says, “Wor-ship God alone,” all that it actually says is:

“Thou shalt worship ( ) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4:10)

This Old Testament commandment being quoted by Christ in Matthew 4:10 simply says, “Worship the Lord thy God,” not, “Worship only the Lord thy God.” So why do so many people cite Matthew 4:10 as “proof” that we are to worship only God? Perhaps it is because they misunderstand the context in which this statement was made.

Jesus spoke those words in Matthew 4:10 as a reply to Satan, who said:

“All these things will I give unto thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” (Matthew 4:9)

The logic that Trinitarians use is this:

“Since Satan’s request was that Christ worship him, then by Christ saying, ‘It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,’ he was affirming that the reason he could not worship Satan was because that Old Testament commandment actually means worship God alone.”

Although I do believe that Jesus quoted this passage to show that he was commanded to worship God, this still does not, in any way, imply that we are to worship only God. The command does not say, “Worship only God,” but it only says, “Worship God.” Jesus fully intended on keeping this com-mandment by worshipping God, but Jesus could not have truly done so if he worshipped Satan as well. Why? Because Jesus said “the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23) In order to wor-ship God “in Spirit and in truth” we must be sincere in our worship. A per-son cannot be a sincere worshipper of God if they are worshipping God’s enemies as well. By worshipping Satan, Christ would have nullified his abil-ity to worship God in truth. Can you imagine if someone said, “I worship both God and the devil”? Could such a statement be true? No, because wor-shipping Satan would cancel out true worship of God. Thus, to worship Sa-tan would be to break God’s command to worship him. However, worship applied to a superior who is not in opposition to God is compatible with wor-shipping God.

1Chronicles 29:20 records an event where the Israelites worshipped both the

177


LORD (God) and their king (David), saying:

“[David said,] Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congre-gation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.” (1Chronicles 29:20)

Nowhere in this chapter (1Chronicles 29) does it speak of God as “the king,” but it speaks of “David the king” several times (1Chronicles 29:1, 9, 24, 29 etc.). Thus, when it says they “worshipped the king” it is obvious that the king being worshipped is “David the king.” (1Chronicles 29:1)

There is not a single passage in the Bible that says we are to worship God only; Jesus simply says:

“Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4:10)

This clearly does not say that we are to worship God only, however it doessay that we are to serve God only.

“Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4:10)

Now, in Christ, let me take the time to say this: The Bible says we are to serve God only, but it also says that we are to “serve one another.”

“Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:13)

Does this mean that we are God since the Bible says serve only God and it also says to serve one another? No way!119 Yet, this is precisely the kind of reasoning that is used in many of the Trinitarian arguments. They assert that the Bible commands us to worship only God (although it doesn’t say this anywhere) and based upon that assumption they claim that Christ must be God since he was worshipped as well.

The Hebrew Word For “Worship”

The New Testament is translated from the Greek language, but the Old Tes-tament is mostly (by far) translated from the Hebrew language. The primary Hebrew word translated as “worship” in the Old Testament is shachah.

“Worship (shachah) the Lord thy God” (1Samuel 15:30)

178

Christ and Worship

The Strong’s Concordance defines shachah as follows:

shachah - to prostrate (espec. reflex. in homage to royalty or God):– bow(self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship. (– Strong’s #7812)

Even though this word can refer to the worship given to God, in many scrip-tures it is instead used to typify the kind of homage given to men who are in positions of authority or prestige. The Hebrew word shachah appears 170 times in the Old Testament, but only about half of those instances refer to the worship of God.

Here are some examples where the word shachah is applied in the Old Tes-tament to persons who are not God:

Abraham “bowed himself (shachah)” to the people of Canaan. (Genesis 23:7, 12)

Isaac blessed Jacob, saying, “Let nations bow down (shachah) to you ... and let your mother’s sons bow down (shachah) to you.” (Genesis 27:29)

“David stooped and bowed himself (shachah) to the earth” to king Saul. (1Samuel 24:8)

Abigail “bowed herself (shachah) to the ground” to David, and again to David’s representatives. (1Samuel 25:23,41)

The woman of Tekoah “fell on her face ... and did obeisance (shachah)”to king David. Joab and Absalom did likewise. (2Samuel 14:4,22,33)

“When Mephibosheth ... was come unto David, he fell on his face and did reverence (shachah).” (2Samuel 9:6)

These scriptures prove that “worship” (shachah) was given to men in the Old Testament who were not God. Hence, the Hebrew word for worship(shachah) does not exclusively mean worship as God.

Thou Shalt Not Worship Any Other God

Some people have pointed to certain commandments in the Old Testament that prohibit the “worship” (shachah) of false gods as if this precludes the giving of “worship” (shachah) to anyone other than the one true God. How-ever, like the fact that Christ could not worship both Satan and God in Mat-

179


thew 4, those Old Testament commandments forbid the worship of things that are in opposition to God (namely, false gods).

The first commandment says:

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me ... Thou shalt not bowdown thyself (shachah) to them, nor serve them.” (Exodus 20:3, 5)

This commandment warns against image worship, laying down a prohibition of any worship given to anything (other than God himself) as if it were a god. This principle is shown in Exodus 34:14 as well, where it says:

“Thou shalt worship (shachah) no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” (Exodus 34:14)

It is impossible that the forbiddance of worshipping (shachah) false gods also inclusively forbade the “worship” (shachah) of anyone other than God himself, because the Old Testament incorporates numerous instances where others were “worshipped” (shachah) in an appropriate manner.

Both the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as “worship” are clearly applied to persons other than God; therefore when these words are applied to Jesus it does not imply that he is God any more than it implies that they are God.120

Refuting More Erroneous Arguments

Since those words that mean worship are irrefutably applied to beings other than God and Christ throughout the scriptures, some men––still desirous of saying Jesus was God because he was worshipped––have claimed that these words mean something different when they are applied to Christ than when they are applied to others. There is absolutely no justification for such a claim. To say that the exact same word applied in the exact same waymeans that one man is simply honored but another man is worshipped as God is very biased. Such a claim is based on circular reasoning, which says:

“Because Jesus is God they worshipped him as God, and because they worshipped him as God this proves that Jesus is God.”

To say that Christ was worshipped in a way that is different than the worship given to (other) kings (etc.) is not based on anything other than a biased in-terpretation.

One man said that proskuneo only means to show honor, but if someone is first bowed down and then they proskuneo (worship) then this is the kind of

180

Christ and Worship

proskuneo that is applicable to God alone. He then proceeded to give several examples where men were already bowed down when they worshipped Christ. Nevertheless, his entire argument is rendered irrelevant because all through the Bible (other) men were worshipped (proskuneo) while the ones worshipping them were bowed.

Here are some examples from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which demonstrate how men and women who were already bowed down gave proskuneo to men who were not God:

1Samuel 25:23 says that Abigail saw David and fell down before him on her face and worshipped (proskuneo) him.

2Samuel 14:4 says that the woman of Tekoah went into the king (David) and fell on her face to the earth and worshipped (proskuneo) him (David).

2Samuel 14:22 says that Joab fell to the ground on his face, and wor-shipped (proskuneo) and thanked the king (David).

1Chronicles 29:20 shows the people giving the same proskuneo to God and King David.

There are also many other examples in the Bible where men are “wor-shipped” after the worshippers bowed down (Matthew 18:26, Revelation 3:9, etc.). Therefore proskuneo, even while being bowed, was not applicable to God alone.

181

XII

HEBREWSCHAPTER ONE

nyone who has studied contemporary Trinitarian ideology has proba-bly encountered several citations from the first chapter of Hebrews.

This is because Trinitarians present it as a chapter overflowing with affirma-tions of a multipolar God, but, as we shall see, they have misunderstood its contents entirely.

AHebrews 1:3 Is Not Referring To God’s Substance

The KJV translates the Greek text of Hebrews 1:3 as:

“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” (Hebrews 1:3)

The word “person” in this passage is translated from the Greek word (hupostasis). The word hupostasis is derived from two smaller

Greek words: (hupo) and (histemi).

(hupo) – under or below

(histemi) – basis or supporting principle

Hupostasis is a derivative of these two words and can itself be defined as anunderlying supportive principle.

The author of the epistle to the Hebrews also uses the word hupostasis in Hebrews 3:14, which says:

“For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence ( ) stedfast unto the end.” (Hebrews 3:14)

This is referring to an underlying supportive principle relative to our charac-

183


ter. The writer used the same word in Hebrews 3:14 as he did when he wrote Hebrews 1:3, saying:

“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person ( )…” (Hebrews 1:3 KJV)

Christ is the express image of the underlying supportive principle that relates to the character of God. God’s moral basis, the standard which govern his actions, the fountain of his character, the principles of his personage––Christ is the express image of these things.

“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…” (Hebrews 1:3 KJV)

Hebrews 1:8 – Thy Throne O God?

Hebrews 1:8 depicts the Father addressing the Son as “God” in many of our English versions of the Bible:

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God...” (Hebrews 1:8, KingJames Version, 1611)

“Your throne, O God, will last forever...” (Hebrews 1:8, New Interna-tional Version, 1973)

“Your throne, O God, is forever...” (Hebrews 1:8, New American Stan-dard Bible, 1960)

“Thy throne, O God, is for ever...” (Hebrews 1:8, Revised Standard Ver-sion, 1951)

“Your throne, O God, endures forever...” (Hebrews 1:8, New Living Translation, 1996)

Do these versions represent the correct translation of Hebrews 1:8? Compare those translations with the translations of Hebrews 1:8 listed below:

“God is thy throne for ever and ever…” (Hebrews 1:8, Daniel Mace New Testament, 1729)

“God is thy throne for ever and ever…” (Hebrews 1:8, Moffatt, 1922)

“God is your throne forever…” (Hebrews 1:8, Smith & Godspeed, AnAmerican Translation, 1931)

“God is your throne forever and ever…” (Hebrews 1:8, Byington’s Bible

184

Hebrews Chapter One

in Living English, 1972)

“God is your throne forever…” (Hebrews 1:8, New World Translation,1950)

Why do these versions of the Bible present, “God is thy throne,” as a possi-ble translation of Hebrews 1:8? Is this truly an acceptable translation of the Greek text?

In a section written against Hebrews 1:8 being translated as, “God is your throne,” Ron Rhodes, an adamant Trinitarian, makes the following conces-sion:

“We must acknowledge that the Watchtower translation ‘God is your throne’ is grammatically possible from the Greek text.” 121

(Note: “Thy throne is God” presents the Greek word order more precisely than “God is thy throne.” From here on out I will generally refer to the translation, “Thy throne is God,” rather than, “God is thy throne.” Both translations are acceptable.)

The truth of the matter is that, “Thy throne, O God,” and, “Thy throne is God,” are both grammatically possible translations of Hebrews 1:8. But how can both of these translations accurately express the grammar of a common Greek text when the thoughts they express are so different from one another? In order to grasp how this is possible we first need to attain a basic under-standing of Greek noun usage.

In the English language a noun appears the same regardless of the role that it plays in a sentence (possessive nouns are an exception):

Example: “The man pushed the man towards the man and said, ‘Hurry, man, the man’s leg is broken.’”

In this sentence the noun man appears in the nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, and vocative positions. Yet, since the various ways that an English noun is used does not change the way that the English noun is written, then the noun man continued to be written the exact same way (“man”) regardless of the role that it played within the sentence. However, in the Greek lan-guage the way that nouns are written varies from case to case. If we were to substitute the English word “man” with the Greek word for “man” ( ), then our example sentence would read as follows:

“The pushed the towards the and said, ‘Hurry, , the leg is broken.’”

185


Did you notice how the noun’s ending changed in accordance with its syn-tactic relation to the other words in the sentence? The way that a Greek noun is used determines the way that the Greek noun is written.

Unlike Modern English, which really only has two cases (the common case [“man”] and the possessive or genitive case [“man’s”]), Koine Greek utilizes five different noun cases to show how a noun is used.

Those five cases are:

1. Nominative – the subject noun of a sentence. “The (man) pushed the (man) towards the (man) and said, ‘Hurry, (man), the (man’s) leg is broken.’”

2. Accusative – the object noun of a sentence. “The (man) pushed the (man) towards the (man) and said, ‘Hurry, (man), the (man’s) leg is broken.’”

3. Dative – a noun that is the indirect object or recipient. “The (man) pushed the (man) towards the (man) and said, ‘Hurry, (man), the (man’s) leg is broken.’”

4. Genitive – a possessive noun. “The (man) pushed the (man) towards the (man) and said, ‘Hurry,

(man), the (man’s) leg is broken.’”

5. Vocative – a noun being addressed directly. “The (man) pushed the (man) towards the (man) and said, ‘Hurry, (man), the (man’s) leg is broken.’”

The five cases for the word God appear as follows:

Nominative -

Accusative -

Dative -

Genitive -

Vocative -

When God is being addressed directly (i.e., being spoken to) then the Greek word for “God” appears in the vocative case, .

186

Hebrews Chapter One

Matthew 27:46 demonstrates how the vocative noun is used within Greek grammar, saying:

“My God ( ), My God ( ), why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mat-thew 27:46)

The Greek word for “God” appears in the vocative case ( ) in Matthew 27:46 because God is being spoken to. However, the Greek word for “God” in Hebrews 1:8 is not in the vocative case (which would show that God was being spoken to) but it is instead in the nominative case (which shows that God is the subject of the sentence).

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne [is] God ( ) forever and ever.” (Hebrews 1:8)

The nominative noun shows that the word “God” is the subject of the sentence.

Consider the following examples:

“God ( ) is a Spirit.” (John 4:24)

“God ( ) is no respecter of persons.” (Acts 10:34)

“God ( ) is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:29)

“God ( ) is well pleased.” (Hebrews 13:16)

“God ( ) is thy throne.” (Hebrews 1:8 Moffatt)

All of these passages demonstrate the proper use of the nominative noun .

Like the word , the Greek word for “throne” in Hebrews 1:8 is also in the nominative case:

the throne thy [is] the God (Hebrews 1:8)

Since both “God” and “throne” are in the nominative case and are not con-nected by the word “and” then these two subject nouns are being paralleledwith one another. This parallel drawn between “God” and “throne” allows for the understood122 linking verb “is” to be implemented whenever Hebrews 1:8 is translated into English (“God is thy throne,” or, “Thy throne is God”).

In light of all that has just been said, how is it grammatically possible for a nominative noun to be translated as if it were a vocative noun (“Thy throne,

187


O God ( ), is forever”)? If Hebrews 1:8 truly intended to show that Christ was being addressed by the title “God” then wouldn’t the writer have utilized the vocative case of the word “God” rather than the nominative case? Perhaps so, but not necessarily.

The fact of the matter is that the nominative case can be understood as the vocative within any Greek text that has been translated from a Semitic source. Since the Old Testament is a Semitic source, whenever its contents are translated into the Greek (as it is whenever the New Testament writers quote Old Testament scriptures) then the resulting Greek text often uses the nominative case as the vocative. A clear example of this can be found in Hebrews 10:7, which reads as follows:

“Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God ( ).” (Hebrews 10:7)

This passage is translated from a Semitic source (Psalms 40:7-8), therefore the writer was able to use the nominative noun in the place of a voca-tive noun. It is this categorical exception that (grammatically) allows the nominative noun in Hebrews 1:8 (quoted from Psalms 45:6) to be un-derstood as a vocative noun as well.

Since both translations (“Thy throne, O God,” and, “Thy throne is God”) are grammatically possible in Hebrews 1:8 then we must turn to sources outsideof the clause itself in order to discover which of these two translations was intended by the writer.

Psalms 45:6 – The Hebrew Nouns Are Ambiguous

The passage quoted in Hebrews 1:8 is from Psalms 45:6. However, we can-not come to any conclusions regarding Hebrews 1:8 by looking to the He-brew noun cases in Psalms 45:6, because Hebrew grammar does not contain a vocative case at all (the nominative is used as the vocative instead). This is why Greek quotations of Old Testament Hebrew do not contain vocative nouns either, even when the vocative case is obviously intended within the Hebrew text being quoted (as in Hebrews 10:7).

An obvious example of how Semitic nouns, even when used as vocative nouns, are translated as nominative nouns in the Greek can be seen by com-paring the following two passages:

“At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated (from a Semitic language into Greek), “My God ( - nominative), my God ( - nominative), why have

188

Hebrews Chapter One

you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34 NASB)

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say (the meaning, not the translation), My God ( - vocative), my God ( - vocative), why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

Since the New Testament, for the most part, is not translating He-brew/Aramaic into Greek then we see the Greek vocative noun being applied freely whenever someone is being addressed. Yet, when the New Testament is translating a Semitic source, the Greek text literally relays the ambiguity of the source being quoted. The fact that Hebrew grammar does not contain vocative nouns spills over into the Greek translation of the Hebrew language; and thus the ambiguity of the Greek text in Hebrews 1:8 is actually expres-sive of the ambiguity which already existed within the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6.

Since the Septuagint is wholly a Greek translation from a Semitic source (Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament) then we frequently find the nominative being used as a vocative therein. Therefore, we cannot base our conclusions regarding Psalms 45:6 (which is quoted in Hebrews 1:8) upon the noun cases used in the Septuagint text either, because, being a Greek translation from a Semitic source, it simply reproduces the ambiguity found in its Hebrew counterpart.

Marvin Vincent (a Trinitarian who prefers the vocative translation in He-brews 1:8) concedes that the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6 is ambiguous, say-ing:

I retain the vocative, although the translation of the Hebrew is doubtful. The following renderings have been proposed: “thy throne (which is a throne) of God”: “thy throne is (a throne) of God”:“God is thy throne.”123

In summary, whether or not Hebrews 1:8 is to be understood as vocative or nominative cannot be discovered by an evaluation of Hebrew noun cases in Psalms 45:6.

Psalms 45 – The Context Does Not Support “O God”

Although the observance of noun cases does not help us determine the proper translation of Hebrews 1:8, some Trinitarians have advanced the notion that the context of Psalms 45 does support the translation “Thy throne, O God.” However, as we shall see, the context of Psalms 45 actually (strongly) sup-

189


ports the translation “Thy throne is God” instead.

Note: In the following section we will be discussing the content of Psalms 45. Since the author of Hebrews apparently agrees with the readings found in the Septuagint rather than the readings we find in the extant Hebrew OT124

then we too, in agreement with the author of Hebrews, will acknowledge the Septuagint reading of Psalms 45 as our primary text (which actually appears as Psalms 44 in the LXX).125

___________________

Psalms 44(45):2-4 – Some people may think that this passage excludesChrist from the category of mankind:

“Thou [Christ] are more beautiful than the sons of men: grace has been shed forth on thy lips: therefore God has blessed thee forever. Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O Mighty One, in thy comeliness and in thy beauty; and bend thy bow, and prosper, and reign.” (Psalms 44:2-4 LXX)

The fact that this passage says that Christ is “more beautiful than the sons of men” does not exclude him from being a “son of man” himself (Christ is the Son of Abraham and of David). We can see the true meaning of this text by comparing it to the text of Isaiah 53:2-3, which says:

“He (Christ) has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but hehad no form nor beauty. But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men.” (Isaiah 53:2-3 LXX)

Isaiah 53:2-3 and Psalms 44(45):2 refer to Christ’s pre-resurrection and post-resurrection appearance. Christ’s pre-resurrection appearance was “inferior to that of the children of men,” (Isaiah 53:3) but his post-resurrection appear-ance is “more beautiful than the sons of men” (Psalms 44:2 LXX). Both statements refer to Christ’s persona. His appearance is being contrasted with the normal and expected appearance of those in the category of sons/children of men.

Another example of this type of “above/below the norm” contrast is found in Proverbs 30:2, which says:

“Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the under-standing of a man.” (Proverbs 30:2 KJV)

The speaker is not excluding himself from the category that he is contrasted with (“man”). Likewise, Christ is not being excluded from the category that

190

Hebrews Chapter One

he is contrasted with in Psalms 44(45):2 either.

___________________

Psalms 44(45):5-6 – Some Trinitarians have attempted to formulate an ar-gument in favor of the translation, “Thy throne, O God,” based on the He-brew parallelism located in Psalms 44:5-6.

In his book Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses,Trinitarian Ron Rhodes says:

Hebrews 1:8, as noted earlier, is actually a quotation from Psalm 45:6. It is important to note that in Psalm 45:5 and 6 we find a clear example of Hebrew parallelism. This means the literary structure of one verse is seen to be identical to that of another. Theologian Millard Erickson notes that “God is your throne” is a “most unlikely interpretation, because the preceding verse in the Septuagint transla-tion of the psalm which is being quoted begins, ‘Thy weapons, O Mighty One, are sharpened,’ and the nature of Hebrew parallelism is such as to require the reading, ‘Thy throne, O God.’” In other words, verse five says, “Thy weapons, O Mighty One” (emphasis added). And because this verse has a literary structure that is parallel to verse 6, the only translation that does justice to verse 6 is, “Thy throne, O God.” 126

Refuting his argument is not difficult. First of all, Psalms 44(45):5 does notread as Ron Rhodes says it does (“Thy weapons, O Mighty One, are sharp-ened”). The sentence structure in Psalms 44(45):5 actually appears as fol-lows:

The weapons thy [are] sharpened Mighty One (Psalms 44:5 LXX)

Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton shows the proper translation of this passage within The Septuagint with Apocrypha, 127 saying:

“Thy weapons are sharpened, Mighty One” (Psalms 44:5 LXX)

Why then does Ron Rhodes misrepresent the Septuagint text by asserting that it reads, “Thy weapons, O Mighty One, are sharpened”? Such a transla-tion is clearly contrary to the word order present in Psalms 44(45):5. There-fore, the basis of his entire argument is erroneously founded upon a misrepresentation of the Hebrew parallelism that he refers to. With that be-ing said, let’s look at the Hebrew parallelism in Psalms 44(45):5-6 as it trulyappears in the Septuagint:

191


(v.5) the weapons thy [are] sharpened (Psalms 44:5 LXX)

(v.6) the throne thy [is] the God (Psalms 44:6 LXX)

Here we see the true word order as it appears in the Septuagint. An accuratecomparison of the Greek sentence structure and word order in Psalms 44(45):5 & 44(45):6 shows that the Hebrew parallelism existing between these two passages gives (strong) support for the translation, “Thy throne is God,” rather than, “Thy throne, O God.” If we translate the sentence struc-ture of Psalms 44(45):5 to match “Thy throne, O God” then it would have to read, “Thy weapons, O Sharpened”!?!?

And what is more, the second line of Psalms 44(45):6 is also similar to the first line of Psalms 44(45):6 as well, producing a uniform structure both be-fore and after Psalms 44(45):6a.

“Thy weapons are sharpened” (Psalms 44:5 LXX)

“Thy throne is God.” (Psalms 45:6a)

“The scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness.” (Psalms 44:6b LXX)

And to cap it all off, the extant Hebrew Old Testament (from which our Eng-lish OT is translated) also supports the Hebrew parallelism in favor of “Thy throne is God.” Observe the Hebrew parallelism drawn between Psalms 45:5 (translated from the Hebrew text) with Psalms 45:6 (when translated “Thy throne is God”):

“Thine arrows [are] sharp in the heart of the kings enemies.” (Psalms 45:5 KJV)

“Thy throne [is] God for ever and ever.” (Psalms 45:6)

The KJV shows the correct translation of the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:5. Therefore, both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint support the Hebrew par-allelism in favor of “Thy throne is God.” On the other hand, the (alleged) parallelism in favor of “Thy throne, O God,” is not supported by either. I be-lieve that these facts provide conclusive evidence in favor of the translation “Thy throne is God.”

“Thy Throne Is God” – An Odd Translation?

Many Trinitarians argue against the translation “Thy throne is God” using the following reasoning:

192

Hebrews Chapter One

To claim that Hebrews 1:8 should read, “God is thy throne forever,” and that this shows that God is the source of Christ’s authority is a completely odd way to make a point. In the scriptures a “throne” is not the source of one’s authority, but the place from which one rules. Thus, heaven is called “the throne of God” in Matthew 5:34. Surely God does not derive his authority from heaven!

In response to this, I would like to quote Dr. B.F. Westcott, former Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University (1870), Bishop of Durham (1890), and the co-editor of the Westcott-Hort critical edition of the Greek New Testament (1881):

It is scarcely possible that [elohiym] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that

is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is “Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the im-movable Rock”; and to take as in apposition in the second clause.

The phrase, “God is thy throne,” is not indeed found elsewhere, but it is in no way more strange than Ps.lxxi.3 [Lord] be thou to me a rock of habitation ... Thou art my rock and fortress. Is.xxvi.4 (R.V.) In the LORD JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock. Ps.xc.1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place. Ps.xci.1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most high ... v.2 I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress, v.9 Thou hast made ... the Most High thy habitation. Deut.xxx111.27 The eternal God is thy dwelling-place.”128

Amen. And, adding to the list of Dr. Westcott, I would also like to point out some similar passages that relate to our present discussion as well:

Psalms 16:5 says:

“The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.” (Psalms 16:5)

Here we see that God is referred to as the psalmist’s “portion of inheri-tance.” The psalmist went on to explain the meaning of this when he said, “Thou maintainest my lot.” A “lot” is an inheritance, hence we see the psalmist referring to the one who maintains his inheritance as his in-heritance. In the same way, the LORD who maintains Christ’s throne ishis throne.

193


Isaiah 12:2 says:

“The LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song.” (Isaiah 12:2)

The LORD who is the cause of the song is the song – God is the cause ofChrist’s throne so God is his throne.

Psalms 71:3 says:

“[LORD] thou hast given commandment to save me; for thou art my rock and my fortress.” (Psalms 71:3)

The LORD who exercised authority to save him is the fortress in which he is saved – God exercises authority to establish Christ’s throne there-fore God is his throne.

Psalms 118:14 says:

“[The LORD] is become my salvation.” (Psalms 118:14)

The LORD who caused him to be saved is his salvation – The LORD who caused Christ to rule is Christ’s throne.

Like the examples we just listed, a throne can be descriptive of what quali-fies one as a ruler rather than the place from which a person rules. It is God who qualifies the authority of Christ, and that is why the Bible says, “Thy throne is God.”

What About The Context In Hebrews Chapter One?

It has already been shown how the one who establishes Christ’s throne can be referred to as his throne. But does the context surrounding Hebrews 1:8 support such an interpretation, showing that God is the one who establishedChrist’s throne? Oh, yes indeed.

One of the most common arguments made by Trinitarians is that “Thy throne is God” is contrary to the context surrounding Hebrews 1:8. The reasoning they use is as follows:

If the translation, “God is thy throne,” is correct then all that this verse means is that the Son’s authority is derived from God; This in no way makes Jesus unique or greater than the angels, since this could be said of any of God’s obedient angels. But the context is speaking of Christ’s superiority over the angels. Therefore if the point of verse 8 was simply to demonstrate that Jesus’ authority is derived from God then Jesus’ superiority is not demonstrated in the

194

Hebrews Chapter One

least. After all, the angels also derived their authority from God.

The Trinitarian claim that Christ’s superiority over the angels is not demon-strated within the translation “Thy throne is God” is based only upon the as-sumption that if Christ is not God then Christ cannot be superior to the angels. In reality, God as the source of Christ’s rulership does establish his greatness over the angels. Angels do not rule. Christ does. The Bible never says that an angel’s throne (which shows a position of rulership) is God. So for Christ to be said to reign (which “throne” signifies) indeed places him in a higher position than the angels. Christ is the ruler. The angels are inferior to Christ because they are his servants. In fact, this is the whole reason why Psalms 103(104):4 is quoted in Hebrews 1:7, which says:

“In speaking of the angels he says, He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire.” (Hebrews 1:7 NIV)

Other than the fact that angels are identified as servants, this passage bears no relativity to the surrounding context whatsoever.

After identifying the angels as “servants” in Hebrews 1:7, the writer then immediately contrasts their subservient status with Christ’s position as a ruler, saying:

“In speaking of the angels he says, He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne isGod for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:7-8)

This clearly shows that God established Christ as ruler rather than the an-gels. And the author of Hebrews repeats this point when he goes on to say:

“But to which of the angels said he at any time, sit on my right hand, until I (God) make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all serving spirits, sent forth to serve them who shall be heirs of salva-tion?” (Hebrews 1:13-14)

And he again contrasts the position of Christ as ruler with the position of the angels as servants when he afterwards says:

“For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him … Thou didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.” (Hebrews 2:5-8)

195


The man whom God has “put all things in subjection under” is Christ (1Corinthians 15:27); therefore, again, the point being made was that God es-tablished Christ as ruler rather than the angels.

God established Christ’s throne and therefore God is his throne.

“To the Son he saith, Thy throne is God … But to which of the an-gels said he at any time, ‘Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool’?” (Hebrews 1:8, 13)

God is shown to be the one who establishes Christ’s rulership by these words, “Sit on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” (He-brews 1:13) And thus the translation “Thy throne is God” is perfectly in line with the context.

Hebrews 1:10-12 Is Not Addressed To The Son

Trinitarians assert that Hebrews 1:10 depicts Christ being addressed by the Father as Jehovah.

Hebrews 1:8-12 says:

“(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne is God for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (9) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (10) And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (11) They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; (12) And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” (Hebrews 1:8-12)

Trinitarians say that Hebrews 1:10 (like Hebrews 1:8) quotes the Father’s words spoken to the Son, but that is not the case. Hebrews 1:10-12 contains a direct quotation from Psalms 102:24-27. When we look at the context in Psalms 102 then it becomes supremely evident that the Father is not speaking to the Son therein.

Psalms 102:24-27 (which is partially quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12) reads as follows in the KJV:

“I said, O my God,129 take me not away in the midst of my days:thy years are throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thy hands.

196

Hebrews Chapter One

They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old as a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shalt be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years have no end.” (Psalms 102:24-27 KJV)

This does not show the Father addressing the Son by the words, “O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all gen-erations.” Hence, the quotation in Hebrews 1:10-12 that is taken from this text does not show the Father speaking to the Son either.

Furthermore, the quote from Psalms 102 is not introduced within Hebrews 1:10-12 in such a way that would make it applicable to the addressee of He-brews 1:8-9. In the New Testament, whenever two or more Old Testament quotations are applied successively to the same subject matter, and the intro-duction to the subsequent quotation(s) does not contain any divergent quali-fying statement(s),130 then the Greek word (“again”) is always used to link the subsequent quotations to the subject matter of the first quotation in the series.

“That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again ( ), He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.” (John 12:38-40)

“For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again ( ) another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.” (John 19:36-37)

“And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And again ( ) he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again ( ), Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again ( ), Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.” (Romans 15:9-12)

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again ( ), The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.” (1Corinthians 3:19-20)

197


These examples clearly demonstrate how two scriptures, when quoted in succession and applied to the same subject matter (as stated above), are al-ways joined by the word “again” ( ). The author of the epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates this same style as well:

“For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again ( ), I will put my trust in him. And again ( ), Behold I and the children which God hath given me.” (Hebrews 2:11-13)

“For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again ( ), The Lord shall judge his people.” (Hebrews 10:30)

In light of this principle, let’s observe its application in Hebrews chapter one:

Hebrews 1:5-6 says:

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again ( ), I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again ( ), when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” (Hebrews 1:5-6)

These three Old Testament texts are all quoted as statements that point to the Son’s position. Do you see how the word “again” ( ) is used to show that the scriptures being quoted all refer to a common topic? Yet, when the subject matter is changed from the Son’s position (Hebrews 1:5-6) to the an-gels’ position (Hebrews 1:7) the writer does not use the word “again” ( ), he merely says “and”( ):

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time; Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And ( ) again ( ), I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And ( ) again ( ), when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And ( ) to the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” (Hebrews 1:5-7)

When the subject matter changed in those verses from what was said regard-ing the Son to what was said regarding the angels, the word “again” ( )was dropped. Similarly, Hebrews 1:8-12 goes on to say:

198

Hebrews Chapter One

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne is God for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And ( ), Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a gar-ment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” (He-brews 1:8-12)

The reason why the writer does not include the word “again” ( ) in He-brews 1:10 is because he is not applying the scripture quoted therein to the same subject matter of Hebrews 1:8-9. If the purpose of quoting Psalms 45:6 (in Hebrews 1:8) actually were to show that Christ is God, and Psalms 102:24-27 was successively quoted in reference to the same topic (Christ be-ing God), then the author would have included the word “again” ( )within the introduction to the second quotation, but he did not. Instead, the Son is the addressee of the quotation in Hebrews 1:8-9, and the Father is the addressee of the quotation in Hebrews 1:10 (as was also proven by the con-text of Psalms 102).

Why Is Psalms 102:24-27 Quoted In Hebrews 1:10-12?

Why then did the author of the epistle to the Hebrews quote a statement made to the Father? How is such a quotation applicable in the context of this epistle? The reason why Psalms 102:24-27 is quoted in Hebrews 1:10-12 is not to identify the addressee of the quotation, but rather to point out the factsstated within the quotation.

Look at what it says:

“Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth;and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” (Hebrews 1:10-12)

The content of this quotation describes how the current heavens and the cur-rent earth will be destroyed and subsequently made new (i.e., “changed”). Since the earth in its current state shall not endure forever, but Hebrews 1:8 speaks of Christ’s kingdom as something that will endure forever, then Christ’s eternal kingdom must pertain to the world to come (which cannot be

199


shaken, c.f. Hebrews 12:26-27). The author of Hebrews goes on to speak of these things in Hebrews 2:5, saying:

“For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.” (Hebrews 2:5)

Notice that he says, “the world to come whereof we speak.” He was previ-ously referring to Christ’s eternal kingdom in the world to come when he said:

“Thy throne is God for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” (Hebrews 1:8)

But lest the Jews should think that the Messiah was to come and reign for-ever in this present world (which was the expectation of many Jews), the writer goes on, after showing that the Messiah’s kingdom is eternal, to also show that this present world is not eternal, saying:

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne is God for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shallperish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail … For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, say-ing, What is man, that thou art mindful of him … Thou didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. …But now he (God) hath promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also the heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving akingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 1:8-12, 2:5-8, 12:26-29)

Hence, the eternal kingdom pertains to the world to come, and that is pre-cisely the point being conveyed by the writer’s use of Psalms 102:24-27.

200

RestoringChristianity.com

APPENDIX A Usage of Firstborn in the

Old Testament

Trinitarians often refer to five Old Testament texts in an attempt to assert a non-literal definition for the word firstborn. However, all of these passages actually do retain the literal meaning of the word (as we shall show herein); and therefore the primary argument used to combat the genuine meaning of Colossians 1:15 is not a scriptural reality.

Note: We should remember that there are one hundred and sixteen instances in the Bible (KJV) wherein the word firstborn is used, and the following fiveinstances represent the texts out of this number that are the most difficult to understand (hence many Trinitarians have found it necessary to redefine words to “explain” them). Seeing that they are somewhat difficult, we should be patient in our examination, taking the necessary time to consider the relative factors carefully.

Exodus 4:22 – Those who deny the creation of Christ sometimes cite this verse as presenting a non-literal definition for the word firstborn.

“And thou (Moses) shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Is-rael is my son, even my firstborn.” (Exodus 4:22)

God is speaking to Moses in this particular passage about telling Pharaoh to let the Israelites go free … Notice what God says:

“Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” (Exo-dus 4:22)

If God says that Israel is his “son” and his “firstborn” then what does this say about Christ? Was the preincarnate Christ not God’s Son during this time as well? And if firstborn means first in rank within this passage (which is the foremost Trinitarian scapegoat definition of firstborn) then does this mean that Israel is the son with the ranking authority over all of God’s other sons?

203


Well then, was Israel God’s “firstborn son” over Christ as well? Not at all! How then does the fabricated definition of first in rank apply here? It can’t. So then should we just make up another non-literal definition for the word firstborn that we feel would fit in this passage? No, that is not necessary, be-cause, as we shall see, the word retains its literal meaning in this passage as well.

The category that is referred to in Exodus 4:22 is literally God’s “firstborn son.” This is evident because God immediately follows his statement regard-ing Israel being his firstborn son by saying:

“And I (God) say unto thee (Pharaoh), Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thyson, even thy firstborn.” (Exodus 4:23)

If Pharaoh did not free God’s firstborn son then God would slay Pharaoh’sfirstborn son. It was literally Pharaoh’s son that God slew . . . Pharaoh’s firstborn son (Exodus 11:4-7). God didn’t slay Pharaoh’s highest-ranking official, but he rather slew that son of Pharaoh that was born first. The term firstborn did not take on some foreign and non-literal meaning when God said that he would slay Pharaoh’s firstborn (Exodus 4:23), so why should we say that it took on a non-literal definition when God used the term of his own firstborn in the previous verse (Exodus 4:22)? Yet, how can Israel truly be God’s firstborn if Christ is God’s firstborn? This is an important question.

Some might think that Israel was called God’s firstborn son because Israel prophetically symbolized Christ. This principle is valid and can be seen in the following example where God speaks of Israel, saying:

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” (Hosea 11:1 RSV)

However, the scriptures also speak of this same passage as being fulfilled in Christ, saying:

“And [Joseph] arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.” (Matthew 2:14-15)

So we see Israel called out of Egypt in the days of Moses, and we also see Christ called out of Egypt at a much later date, yet both of these events are referred to when God says, “Out of Egypt I called my Son.” (Hosea 11:1 RSV) The fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Christ does not nullify the fact that it was also true of Israel. The Old Testament is full of symbolism

204

Appendix A

that represents a shadow of the New Testament fulfillment (Hebrews 10:1, Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 4:24-29, Romans 2:28-29). Therefore, it couldbe that Israel was referred to as God’s firstborn son in a symbolic sense––as a type of God’s true firstborn (even as the Mosaic Passover lamb served as a type of the true and coming Passover lamb, etc.). This does not present a new definition for the word firstborn, but simply applies the literal definition in an allegorical sense, because Israel prophetically represented God’s true firstborn.

Although the type/fulfillment principle is itself valid, I do not believe that this is necessarily the reason why Israel is referred to as God’s firstborn son in Exodus 4:22. There are also other explanations (firstborn in the sense that Israel was the first nation of people established by God, or, God was simply expressing the magnitude of his bond with Israel using familiar terminology), but I do not think they express the meaning intended in Exodus 4:22.

Unlike the previous explanations, I believe that Israel was probably counted as God’s firstborn son even as Christ is God’s firstborn Son, because they were included in the positional sonship of Christ. This may sound strange, but it is based upon biblical principles. Consider the following:

In the book of Galatians, Paul says:

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16)

This verse shows that the promises of God were not made unto many seeds, but only one seed. The promises were made to only one of Abraham’s de-scendents, and that sole promissory descendent is Christ (the one seed). Yet, we too partake of those promises made only to Christ.

After stating that the promises were made only to Abraham and Christ (Abraham’s seed), Paul went on to say:

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Je-sus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:27-29)

Now, when Paul says, “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed,” the Greek word here for “seed” is singular, but both of the words translated as “ye” are plural. So then, Christ is the seed (singular) of Abraham to whom the promises were made; and if we (plural) are in Christ then we (plural) are

205


counted as Abraham’s seed (singular). The promises are made to Christ. By being baptized into Christ we are made partakers of those promises as well.

Are we thus included in Christ? Yes. The Bible describes Christians as “members of Christ’s body.”

“Now ye (plural) are the body (singular) of Christ and members in particular.” (1Corinthians 12:27)

We partake of the promises that apply only to Christ by being included inChrist.

This is why the Bible says:

“For all the promises of God in him (Christ) are yea, and in himAmen, unto the glory of God by us.” (2Corinthians 1:20)

If we are in Christ then we are members of Christ’s body; and since we are counted as members of his body then we are also made partakers of the promises that apply to him alone.

As was shown, the Bible teaches that Christ is Abraham’s seed (singular) to whom the promises were made. It is by being baptized into Christ and be-coming members of Christ’s body that we are also counted as Abraham’s seed and are thereby made heirs of the promises made only to Christ. Fol-lowing that same train of thought, it is not only the promises that are imputed to us by our inclusion in Christ, but it is also Christ’s position as God’s Son:

Christ is the one promissory seed of Abraham, but when we are in Christ we too are also counted as that seed.

Christ is the firstborn Son of God, but when we are in Christ we too are also counted as God’s firstborn son.

This same principle applied to Israel as well. I believe that this may explain why God did not say:

“The Israelites are my sons (plural), even my firstborns (plural)”

Instead, God says:

“Israel is my son (singular), even my firstborn (singular).” (Exodus 4:22)

God calls Israel his “firstborn son” even though this position belongs to Christ alone. When another (besides Christ) is called God’s firstborn it is only because they are included in Christ. Yet, in order to prevent any mis-

206

Appendix A

conceptions, let’s briefly define our inclusion in Christ in a more precise manner. The Bible says that when a man is joined to a woman the two be-come one flesh (i.e., one body):

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

Paul speaks of this principle as well when he says:

“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” (Ephesians 5:28-29)

So then, Paul spoke of how a man and his wife were one flesh, even saying that “he that loveth his wife loveth himself.” By saying these things, Paul shows that a woman is (to some extent) included in, and counted as her hus-band. Paul also went on to apply this same principle to how the church is (to some extent) included in, and counted as Christ, saying:

“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: Forwe are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mys-tery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Ephesians 5:28-32)

The Bible teaches that we are one with Christ in a similar way that a wife is one with her husband (1Corinthians 6:15-17, Ephesians 5:28-32). When a husband and a wife become one flesh, some of the effects are:

the wife takes on the name of her husband

the wife becomes a member of the husband’s family

the wife becomes a partaker of those things that the husband possesses

The husband and wife are no more two, but the two have instead become oneflesh (c.f. Matthew 19:4-6). The wife does not partake of those things that are the husbands because they are fundamentally her own. The family in-heritance might belong to the husband alone, and he may even be the only child of his father, but once the wife is joined to the husband then she is in-cluded as an heir of his inheritance and also as a child of the husband’s father

207


as well. Nevertheless, the wife does not become her husband, no matter how much she is included in those things that are applicable to her husband alone.Similarly, we never become Christ, even though we are included in him.

This principle is clearly and beautifully expressed in the example Jesus gives in John 15, saying:

“I am the vine, ye are the branches…” (John 15:5)

Christ is the vine; Christians are the branches. Now, if we take a plant (a tree for example) and tear off one of the branches and destroy only that branch then we cannot say that we have destroyed the tree as well. The tree still ex-ists apart from the branch. Likewise, if we tear off a single branch and af-terwards destroy the rest of the tree then we cannot say that the tree remains, because the branch is not counted as a tree in itself. Nevertheless, even though the branch is not the tree in itself, for as long as the branch remains attached to the tree then it is included in and counted as the tree. When you speak of the tree, you are inclusively speaking of all of the attached branches as well.

In the same way, Christ truly exists as the vine apart from us, but if we are attached to him then we are included in that vine as well. If we are removed from him131 then this does not mean that the vine ceases to be, it just means that we are no longer included in the vine. The vine continues to exist with or without its branches. Christ is the vine. We are the branches. As long as we abide in Christ then we are counted as the vine (c.f. John 15:1-6).

This same principle applied to Israel. Paul describes the Israelites as “branches” that were removed from the “root” (Christ), saying:

“If the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches (Israelites) be broken off, and thou (Gentiles), being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root (Christ), but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, se-verity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by na-

208

Appendix A

ture, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?” (Romans 11:16-24)

Like the example of the vine (Christ) and the branches (Christians), Paul shows that the Israelites (the natural branches) were included in Christ (the root) as well. Thus God could speak of Israel and say that they were his firstborn (because while they were in Christ they were members of Christ, who is himself the firstborn of God). Hence, the word firstborn retains its literal meaning in Exodus 4:22, because Christ is truly God’s firstborn.

Job 18:13 – This text is also sometimes used by Trinitarians who assert that the word firstborn doesn’t always literally mean first-born.

“It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of deathshall devour his strength.” (Job 18:13)

Those who deny the creation of Christ say that the “firstborn of death” refers to the worst thing that death could throw at you. By this they attempt to re-define “firstborn” as “supreme one.” However, the “supreme one of death” is not what is being described within this passage.

In Job 18:13, Bildad the Shuhite was speaking his mind to Job regarding how a wicked man’s life would come to an end. Notice what he says:

“His strength shall be hungerbitten, and destruction shall be ready at his side. It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the first-born of death shall devour his strength.” (Job 18:12-13)

When Bildad says that destruction is “ready” (i.e., waiting) at the wicked man’s side he was speaking of how the wicked man’s time to die was ap-proaching. Then, in continuation of this thought, he says:

“It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of deathshall devour his strength.” (Job 18:13)

Bildad was not speaking of the worst disease imaginable, but he was instead referring to the first signs or first symptoms of death. The destruction that was waiting at his side comes upon the wicked, and the first product of that destruction is what Bildad refers to as “the firstborn of death.”

Anyone or anything that is firstborn is produced (i.e., born) out of a certain category and is always included in and among that category. This means that the firstborn of death is included in the category of death (as in the dying

209


process). This is clearly seen in the context of Job 18, where we see (1) the destruction waiting at his side, (2) the first product of death come upon him, and (3) the final fulfillment of that dying process.

“His strength shall be hungerbitten, and destruction shall be ready at his side. It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of death shall devour his strength. His confidence shall be rooted out of his tabernacle, and it shall bring him to the king of terrors. It shall dwell in his tabernacle, because it is none of his: brimstone shall be scattered upon his habitation. His roots shall be dried up beneath, and above shall his branch be cut off. His remembrance shall perish from the earth, and he shall have no name in the street. He shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world.” (Job 18:12-18)

When Job 18:13 refers to “the firstborn of death” this is describing the firstoffspring or first product of death in the wicked man’s life. Hence, the word firstborn retains its literal meaning in Job 18:13 as well.

Psalms 89:27 – Psalm 89 speaks of “David,” and then God says, “I will make him my firstborn.” Those who say that firstborn means something other than first-born probably cite this passage of scripture more than any other as a “proof text” for their argument.

Psalm 89 records these words from God:

“I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him. And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him. But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.” (Psalms 89:20-27)

Those who have sought to invent a new meaning for the word firstborn look at this passage of scripture and say:

“It is obvious that David was not the firstborn of God, nor the first-born of Jesse (David’s father), so God was referring to David’s rankrather than the order in which he was born.”

210

Appendix A

However, the literal meaning of the word firstborn remains intact in this pas-sage as well, because God used the name David in reference to Christ (who was the seed of David). God is speaking of Christ in this passage rather than of David himself. Am I making this up, or do the scriptures prove this? God also calls Christ by the name “David” in Ezekiel 34:23 as well, saying:

“And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.” (Ezekiel 34:23)

John Wesley comments accurately on this passage in Ezekiel, saying:

Ezekiel 34:23 One shepherd – Christ, the great, good, chief, only shepherd, that laid down his life for his sheep. My servant David – The seed of David, the beloved one, who was typified by David, and is in other places called by his name, as [in] Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel37:24.132

If God calls Christ by the name of “David” in other passages of the Bible (Ezekiel 34:23, 37:24, Jeremiah 30:9) then why can’t Christ be referred to as “David” in Psalms 89:27 as well? Indeed he can be, and indeed he is.

Matthew Henry agrees with this conclusion, saying:

Psalm 89:19-37 – The covenant God made with David and his seed was mentioned before (v. 3, 4); but in these verses it is enlarged upon, and pleaded with God, for favour to the royal family, now al-most sunk and ruined; yet certainly it looks at Christ, and has its ac-complishment in him much more than in David; nay, some passages here are scarcely applicable at all to David, but must be understood of Christ only (who is therefore called David our king, Hosea 3:5) …I will make him my firstborn. I see not how this can be applied to David.133

God speaks of Christ as “David” several times within Old Testament prophe-cies, so it should not seem strange that God would do the same in Psalms 89:27 as well. Sometimes people in the Bible are called by the name of the one from whom they have descended (hence the descendents of Israel are called “Israel,” etc.), and sometimes the promises made to the forefather are passed on to his descendent(s) as well.134

Someone might also inquire how God could speak of the future, after Christ was already God’s firstborn, and say, “I will make him my firstborn”? This statement is to be understood in the same way as some of God’s other state-

211


ments, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” and, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a Son” (Hebrews 1:5). These things are discussed in chapter seven, under the heading, “Christ Begotten Completely at the Resurrection.”

Isaiah 14:30 – This scripture has also been referred to as if it redefines the word firstborn:

“And the firstborn of the poor shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in safety: and I will kill thy root with famine, and he shall slay thy remnant.” (Isaiah 14:30)

Those who deny that Christ was created say that this gives a non-literal meaning for the word firstborn because (according to them) the firstborn of the poor is referring to the poorest of the poor. However, that is not what is being said here at all.

The context clearly presents God telling Philistia not to rejoice because of the fact that their oppressor has died, because God was going to kill “all” of the Philistines as well:

“In the year that King Ahaz died came this oracle: Rejoice not, O Philistia, all of you, that the rod which smote you is broken, for from the serpent’s root will come forth an adder, and its fruit will be a fly-ing serpent. And the first-born of the poor will feed, and the needy lie down in safety; but I will kill your root with famine, and yourremnant I will slay.” (Isaiah 14:28-30 RSV)

The Philistines were going to be slain by God, even their remnant, until there were no more Philistines left. Thus the continuation of the Philistine genera-tions was about to come to an end. This, however, was contrasted with the fact that (during the time that the Philistine generations were being cut off) even the firstborn of the poor would be cared for (the firstborn son was the initial guarantee that the family name would be continued). God was not de-scribing the poorest of the poor when he referred to “the firstborn of the poor,” but he was instead literally referring to the firstborn of the poor. The meaning of the passage is simply this: Even the poor man’s bloodline would continue, but there would be no continuation of the Philistine generations, because God said that he would destroy their remnant.

It is noteworthy that the word firstborn does not even appear in the Septua-gint translation of this passage, which says:

“And the poor shall feed by him, and poor men shall rest in peace:

212

Appendix A

but he shall destroy thy seed with hunger, and shall destroy thy rem-nant.” (Isaiah 14:30 LXX)

Notice how the Septuagint says God will destroy the Philistines’ “seed.” This gives further proof that God was contrasting how the children of the poor would live on, but he would cut off the children (the seed) of the Philis-tines (thus discontinue their generations). And God did this very thing, which is why the Philistines are no longer around.

Jeremiah 31:9 – As in Exodus 4:22, God speaks of Israel in this passage as well, saying:

“They shall come with weeping; and with petitions will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I am a father to Israel, and Eph-raim is my firstborn.” (Jeremiah 31:9)

In order to grasp why Israel is referred to as “Ephraim,” we must briefly look at some of Israel’s history. There was a time when the nation of Israel was divided into two kingdoms: a northern kingdom which consisted of ten tribes, and a southern kingdom that consisted only of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The northern kingdom retained the name Israel while the south-ern kingdom was called Judah.

Smith’s Bible Dictionary says:

Israel – It became the national name of the twelve tribes collec-tively. They are so called in (Exodus 3:16) and afterward. It is used in a narrower sense, excluding Judah (1 Samuel 11:8; 2 Samuel 20:1;1 Kings 12:16). Thenceforth it was assumed and accepted as the name of the northern kingdom.135

During the time that Israel was divided into two kingdoms, the northern kingdom, which retained the name Israel, was also known as Ephraim(2Chronicles 25:7). The Nave’s Topical Bible lists numerous examples where the northern kingdom was referred to as Ephraim, saying:

Ephraim – Name of, applied to the ten tribes: 2 Chronicles 17:2; 25:6,7;Isaiah 7:8,9; 11:12,13; 17:3; Jeremiah 31:18,20; Hosea 4:17; 5:3,5;6:4,10; 8:11; 12:14.136

Ronald Day comments on Jeremiah 31:9 and the application of the name Ephraim, saying:

213


We should note that Ephraim, as used here, stands for the entire northern kingdom of Israel, and not to the one tribe. (2Chronicles 25:7; Jeremiah 7:15)

Smith’s Bible Dictionary also shows why the names Ephraim and Israel be-gan to be used synonymously, saying:

After the revolt of Jeroboam the history of Ephraim is the history of the kingdom of Israel, since not only did the tribe become a king-dom, but the kingdom embraced little besides the tribe.137

Israel was divided into a northern kingdom (Israel/Ephraim) and a southern kingdom (Judah).

God’s prophet to the northern kingdom was Jeremiah. When God spoke through Jeremiah and said, “Israel is my son, and Ephraim is my firstborn,” he was referring to the northern kingdom (known both as Israel and Eph-raim). Thus, since Israel was in view, the same understanding which applied to the previous study on Exodus 4:22 is applicable here as well.

214

APPENDIX BRevelation 3:14 –

Although, “beginning of the creation of God,” clearly means that Christ is God’s first creation, there are a couple of “alternative translations” that have been proposed by Trinitarians in an attempt to avoid the literal meaning of this phrase.

They say that:

1. The Greek word arche in Revelation 3:14 should not be translated as “beginning,” but as “source” (NRSV).

2. The Greek word arche in Revelation 3:14 should not be translated as “beginning,” but as “ruler” (NIV).

The first proposed alternate translation of the word arche in Revelation 3:14, which presents Christ as “the source” of creation, is not supported by a single shred of biblical evidence. There is not a single passage within the entire Bi-ble (the Greek Septuagint or the Greek New Testament) which presents the Greek word arche as the source (or beginner) of a thing. With absolutely zero biblical justification for such attempts, it is clearly extreme bias that fu-els the Trinitarian efforts to replace “beginning of the creation of God” with an unattested to “beginner of the creation of God.”

Trinitarian Albert Barnes rejected the source interpretation of Revelation 3:14, saying:

The beginning of the creation of God - [to say] that he is the author of the creation, and in that sense the beginning – though expressing a scriptural doctrine, is not in accordance with the proper meaning of the word used here - arche. The word properly refers to the “commencement” of a thing, not its “authorship.”138

The Greek word arche (in its various forms) is translated in the KJV New

215


Testament as follows:

beginning (x38) – Matthew 19:4, 8, 24:8, Mark 1:1, 10:6, 13:19, Luke 1:2, John 1:1, 1:2, 2:11, 6:64, 8:25, 8:44, 15:27, 16:4, Acts 11:15, Philip-pians 4:15, Colossians 1:18, 2Thessalonians 2:13, Hebrews 1:10, 3:14, 7:3, 2Peter 3:4, 1John 1:1, 2:7(x2), 13, 14, 24(x2), 3:8, 11, 2John 5, 6, Revelation 1:8, 3:14, 21:6, 22:13

beginnings (x1) – Mark 13:8

principality (x2) – Ephesians 1:21, Colossians 2:10

principalities (x6) – Romans 8:38, Ephesians 3:10, 6:12, Colossians 1:16, 2:15, Titus 3:1

principles (x2) – Hebrews 5:12, 6:1

corners (x2) – Acts 10:11, 11:5

power (x1) – Luke 20:20

magistrates (x1) – Luke 12:11

rule (x1) – 1Corinthians 15:24

at the first (x1) – Hebrews 2:3

the first (x1) – Acts 26:4

first estate (x1) – Jude 6

As you can see arche is never translated as source/beginner/author in the Greek New Testament. The vast majority of the passages in which the word arche is used bear reference to the beginning of a thing.

But what about those other places in New Testament Greek where the word arche is translated as “principality”? And what about the instance in Luke 20:20 where arche is translated as “power”? How do we know that one of those meanings is not represented by arche in Revelation 3:14 as well? And doesn’t this justify the NIV translation, “the ruler of the creation of God”? Let’s consider the factors.

Firstly, all of those passages in the New Testament where arche does refer to authority (i.e., principality or power) clearly imply this meaning within the immediate context every time. Yet, there is nothing to suggest any other meaning than that which is principally inherent to the word arche within the

216

Appendix B

context of Revelation 3:14. Well then, apart from the contextual considera-tions, is the NIV translation, “the ruler of the creation of God,” grammati-cally possible? No, I do not believe that it is grammatically possible in Revelation 3:14, because the evidence simply will not allow it.

It is based upon an unwarranted neglect of the primary meaning of

Every time that is followed by a genitive phrase then it is always a member of the category that follows, without exception

Also, John (who wrote Revelation) always uses the word arche to signify beginning (John 1:1, 1:2, 2:11, 6:64, 8:25, 8:44, 15:27, 16:4, 1John 1:1, 2:7(x2), 13, 14, 24(x2), 3:8, 11, 2John 5, 6, Revelation 1:8, 3:14, 21:6, 22:13). Indeed, in John’s writings the word arche is uniformly translated as “beginning” (KJV) all twenty-three times that it is used. Hence, to translate John’s usage of arche as anything other than “beginning” in Revelation 3:14 is contrary to his own expressive writing style (a common objection to this point will be refuted at the end of this appendix).

It is also very significant that when John does refer to Christ elsewhere as ruler, he does not use the word arche to do so.

The NIV translates Revelation 3:14 as:

“These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.” (Revelation 3:14 NIV)

Notice how the NIV also renders Revelation 1:5 similarly:

“Christ… who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 1:5 NIV)

The NIV translates both Revelation 3:14 and Revelation 1:5 as “ruler.” However, the Greek word that the NIV translates as “ruler” in Revelation 1:5 is not the same Greek word that the NIV translates as “ruler” in Revelation 3:14. In Revelation 1:5, the NIV translates the word “ruler” from the mascu-line Greek word (arkown) (Strong’s #758). This is the correct Greek word for ruler. However, the Greek word that the NIV translates as “ruler” in Revelation 3:14 is not arkown, but it is rather (arche) (Strong’s #746), which is in the feminine gender and is referring to a beginning ratherthan a male ruler. If the meaning that was intended by John in Revelation 3:14 was ruler then why wouldn’t John have simply repeated the masculine word for ruler (arkown) that he previously used in Revelation 1:5? Why would he use two different words in Revelation 1:5 and Revelation 3:14 to refer to the exact same thing?

217


Someone might suggest that the difference is due to the fact that John was writing in his own personal style in Revelation 1:5, but was quoting Christ inRevelation 3:14. By this reasoning such a one might assert that John’s style of writing is not an applicable standard by which the meaning of Revelation 3:14 can be discerned. Notwithstanding the fact that such an objection still has zero positive evidence in favor of translating Christ’s words as anything other than “the beginning of the creation of God,” there is really no basis for such an objection to begin with. Why would Christ want John to quote him using terminology that was not harmonious with John’s own writing style? Especially in light of the fact that the alleged “alternative” expression for ruler uses language that undeniably favors a created Christ? Wouldn’t this promote confusion rather than “revelation”? Trinitarians actually show the confusion that any translation other than “beginning of the creation of God” produces by their continued inability to decide between which translation they prefer––Will it be “source of the creation of God” or “ruler of the crea-tion of God”? They are constantly asserting one or the other. Many Trini-tarians even say that both meanings are intended in Revelation 3:14. Perhaps they believe that the combination of two very improbable definitions will form a singularly plausible substitution for that one meaning which is unde-niably obvious. The reality of the matter is that translating arche as anything other than “beginning” in Revelation 3:14 is simply unjustifiable. It is for theological considerations, not considerations of grammar, that the primary and principle definition of the word arche is abandoned by Trinitarians in Revelation 3:14.

Some people say that John does not always use the word arche to signify be-ginning in his writings. They base this objection upon a proclamation in the book of Revelation (written by John) where God says:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” (Revelation 21:6)

And again God says:

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” (Revelation 22:13)

Surely God was not saying that he is the beginning of creation! Indeed he was not, and the context in which these statements are made do not in any way imply such a thing.

The fact of the matter is that God refers to himself in both of these passages using two idiomatic expressions that are parallel in meaning––“Alpha and

218

Appendix B

Omega” and “the beginning and the end.” We should not look at “Alpha” and “Omega” as two individual epithets, but rather as two parts of one uni-fied appellation. “Alpha” is literally the first letter of the Greek alphabet,but it takes on an idiomatic meaning when presented in unison with “Omega” (otherwise God is literally referring to himself as two letters of the Greek alphabet). Just as we cannot separate “Alpha” from “Omega” when seeking to understand the contextual implications of “Alpha,” neither can we remove “the beginning” from “the end” in an attempt to discover an alternate meaning for the word arche. Since the parallel appellation, “the beginning and the end,” is in structural agreement with “Alpha and Omega” then this presents a wholly different context that is distinct from that of Revelation 3:14. The phrases “Alpha and Omega” and “the beginning and the end” are idioms.

Among the Jewish Rabbins, it was common to use the first and the last letters of the Hebrew alphabet to denote the whole of anything, from beginning to end.139

In our modern vernacular we have a similar idiom, Everything from A to Z.Just as we use this idiomatic expression in order to express a principle that has absolutely no literal correlation with either the letters A or Z, the same holds true for the idiomatic expressions “Alpha and Omega” and “the begin-ning and the end.” God was not defining himself as literally being either Al-pha or Omega, nor was he defining himself as either a beginning or an end. These are idiomatic expressions that are not to be broken down and taken separately when being defined. Hence, we would be imprudent to base our understanding of arche in Revelation 3:14 on the figurative idiomatic ex-pressions found in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13. God was using an idiomatic expression; Christ was not.

If someone desires to be ignorant of idiomatic principles then (despite the fact that they are implying that God is literally the first letter in the Greek al-phabet) they should understand that arche does not lose its meaning in those “beginning and the end” passages. Instead, arche is clearly presented as the opposite of “the end,” which is, manifestly, “the beginning.”

Trinitarians like to read “of the creation” into God’s statements in an attempt to parallel “the beginning [of the creation] and the end [of the creation],” with Christ’s words, “the beginning of the creation of God.” (Revelation 3:14) Yet, if the text is allowed to speak for itself then no such parallel ex-ists. If we were to ignore the idiomatic element of the phrase, “the beginning and the end,” then all this does is prove that “beginning” is the opposite of

219


“end.” The exact signification of what God is the beginning of and the end of would not be presented in the text and would therefore be conjectural. However, what Christ is the beginning of is stated in the text––he is “the be-ginning of the creation of God.”

Trinitarians also sometimes refer to the Septuagint reading of Job 40:14 (Job 40:19 in the Masoretic text) as a proof text showing that arche can also refer to a ruler of creation. Job 40:14 (LXX) refers to the Behemoth as the archeof the creation of God, saying:

This is [a] beginning of the formation of the Lord (Job 40:14 LXX)

Christ is the first “creation” but Behemoth is a first “formation.” Behemoth is a creature “formed” from the dust of the earth. The word that is used here is from the Greek root word , which refers to molding (as from clay) (c.f. Romans 9:20-21). The word used in regards to Christ in Revelation 3:14 is , which properly refers to creation in general. An-other notable fact regarding the Behemoth passage is that the Septuagint text does not include a direct article before the word (arche) when it says:

This is [a] beginning of the formation of the Lord (Job 41:14 LXX)

The absence of a direct article before the word allows this to denote abeginning in a broader sense rather than to the beginning. Contrariwise, Christ does employ the direct article when he refers to himself as “the begin-ning of the creation of God,” saying:

the beginning of the creation of the God (Revelation 3:14)

Christ is the precise beginning of God’s creation. The Behemoth on the other hand was formed subsequent to Christ as one of God’s first earthen formations. In the context of Job 40:10-19, God is relaying several facts re-garding Behemoth (which I believe is a Brontosaurus type of an animal): He eats grass like an ox (Job 40:10 LXX); his tail is like a cypress tree (Job 40:12 LXX), etc. Among these facts regarding the Behemoth, God also states that this type of animal is among his first formations. The immediate context in the Septuagint refers to the origin of Behemoth: “This is a begin-ning of the formation of the Lord; made to be played with by his angels.” (Job 40:14 LXX) It is also noteworthy that (according to the extant Hebrew Old Testament) the word translated as in the Septuagint is the Hebrew word re’shiyth, which does not mean chief (although the KJV translates it as

220

Appendix B

such). Hence we see Young’s Literal Translation translate re’shiyth as, “a beginning,” saying:

“He is a beginning of the ways of God, his maker bringeth nigh his sword.” (Job 40:19 YLT)

Re’shiyth is the exact same Hebrew word used in Genesis 1:1, which says: “In the beginning (re’shiyth) God created the heaven and the earth.” (Gene-sis 1:1)

Some people may also think that arche is not included as a member of the group that is specified within the partitive genitive construction of Proverbs 9:10 (LXX), which says:

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning ( ) of wisdom.” (Prov-erbs 9:10 LXX)

However, since the fear of the LORD is wisdom (in the sense that it is the first part of the wisdom being described), then this is not an exception to the rule on the partitive genitive construction. In fact, some manuscripts of Job even state forthrightly that the fear of the LORD is wisdom, saying:

“Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.” (Job 28:28 KJV)

Notice that this text also says, “to depart from evil is understanding.” This clearly refers to how applied understanding = departing from evil. Likewise, applied wisdom (even the initial part) = fearing God. The same holds true for the passage that refers to the fear of the LORD as “the beginning of knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7) Applied knowledge (even the initial part) = fear-ing God.

221

APPENDIX CColossians 1:15-20

Colossians 1:15-20 says:

“[Christ] who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or do-minions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might [be the first]. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.” (Colossians 1:15-20 ASV)

Many people have long misunderstood this passage of scripture. Let’s briefly look at some of the statements that are made therein:

(v.15) who is … the firstborn of all creation – Christ is the first to be born of all of God’s creation (This passage was discussed in depth in chapter two under the heading, “Colossians 1:15 – Firstborn of All Crea-tion.”)

(v.16) for in him were all things created – All things were originally created and found pleasing to God “in Christ.”

all things have been created through him – God created all things through Christ.

and unto him – The word translated here as “unto” in the ASV is (eis) for which the Strong’s Concordance gives the following definition:

223


eis - a primary prep.; to or into (indicating the point reached or en-tered), of place, time, or (fig.) purpose (result, etc.)” (– Strong’s #1519)

The word eis can mean both unto (sometimes translated as “for”) as well as into. Paul does not use eis in this passage regarding motion, but pur-pose. All creation was created with the intent that it should subsist in Christ.

(v.17) and he is before all things – Christ was created first. Paul did not need to say, “He is before all things, but when I say all things I am not saying that he was before himself.” Such a fact is obvious. Christ is an understood exception.

and in him all things consist – The word that is here translated as “con-sist” is the Greek word (sunistao), for which the Strong’s Concordance gives the following definition:

sunistao - to set together, i.e. (by impl.) to introduce (favorably), or (fig.) to exhibit; intr. to stand near, or (fig.) to constitute: – approve, commend, consist, make, stand (with). (– Strong’s #4921)

I do not believe that the Greek word sunistao should be translated as “consist” in Colossians 1:17. Instead, it should be translated to show that, by abiding in Christ, all things are presented favorably unto God. (See its usage in Romans 16:1, 2Corinthians 3:1, 4:2, 7:11, 12:11)

(v.19) For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell – Unlike Colossians 2:9, this passage is not referring to “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwelling in Christ (c.f. Ephesians 3:19). The context is speaking of all the fullness of creation being in Christ, and how such a thing pleased God.

(v.20) and through him to reconcile all things unto himself – This por-tion should instead say, “and through him to reconcile all things into( ) him ( ).” Through Christ’s cross all things140 are brought back into Christ.

having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens – All things in the new heaven and the new earth shall abide in Christ.

224

APPENDIX DHow Did Moses

See God?

Whenever someone hears that no man has ever seen God (1John 4:12) they might inquire how it was then that Moses saw the “back parts” of God on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 33:23).

Exodus 33:12-23 says:

“And Moses said unto the LORD, … Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, show me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people. … And he (Moses) said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory. And he (God) said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And he (God) said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by,that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thoushalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:12-23)

Notice that Moses’ request to God was not, “Show me you.” Moses did not ask God to show him a visible and literal appearance of himself. Instead, Moses says:

“Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found favor in thy sight, show me now thy ways, that I may know thee.” (Exodus 33:13 RSV)

And he also said:

225


“I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.” (Exodus 33:18)

So it was the “way” and the “glory” of God that Moses asked to see.

What did Moses mean when he said, “Show me thy way”? The word “way” in Exodus 33:13 is translated from the Hebrew word derek, which has this definition in the Strong’s Concordance:

deh'-rek - a road (as trodden); figuratively a course of life or mode of action, often adverbially: - along, away, because of, + by, conver-sation, custom, [east-] ward, journey, manner, passenger, through, toward, [high-] [path-] way [-side], whither [-soever]. (– Strong’s #1870)

When Moses said, “Show me now thy way,” he was simply asking for God to reveal his ways to him; and thus Moses finished his request by adding:

“Show me now thy way, that I may know thee.” (Exodus 33:13)

This was not a request to see God visibly, but it was rather a request to learn about God’s ways.

We can also learn more about what Moses was requesting by examiningGod’s response to that request.

Look how God responds to Moses:

“I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee.” (Exodus 33:19)

When Moses asked to see God’s “way” and “glory” God responded by tell-ing Moses that all of his “goodness” would pass by, and that the name of the LORD would be proclaimed.

We should not assume that God ignored Moses’ request. Therefore, God’s response actually sheds further light on what Moses’ request was. God an-swered Moses’ request to the extent that Moses could bear. Moses asked to see God’s way and his glory and that is exactly what God showed him.

The scriptures say:

“And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniq-uity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon

226

Appendix D

the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped.” (Exodus 34:6-8)

Now, I do not believe that this passage of scripture is referring to an outward verbal proclamation that Moses heard, but rather it is describing an inwardrevelation of God’s ways that Moses received. Those who know God, through Christ, understand that his character is revealed in more ways than just outwardly. God sometimes makes himself known to us through spiritual revelation more so than by verbal communications.

Notice what Moses says after this encounter on the mountain:

“And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, ac-cording as thou hast spoken, saying, The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.” (Numbers 14:17-18)

Notice how this is not an exact quotation of the proclamation made to Moses on the mountain. It does succeed in relaying the same message in general, but why didn’t Moses quote verbatim what God said? Can it be that what God said was not outward and verbal, but that the proclamation was instead a spiritual revelation of God’s ways? I believe so. In fact, I believe that Moses seeing God’s “back parts” is also a reference to this kind of spiritual revelation as well.

God told Moses:

“Thou canst not see my face.” (Exodus 33:20)

And when God was describing the way in which he would reveal himself to Moses, he also said:

“It shall come to pass that while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: and I will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shalt not be seen.” (Exodus 33:22-23)

If looked at in a natural sense it would appear that God was saying he would literally cover Moses with a material hand, visibly pass in front of Moses, and Moses would actually visibly see God’s back. Is this truly what hap-pened? No, it isn’t. How could such a thing be an appropriate response to Moses’ request to know God’s ways? And how would it be possible for “all” of God’s goodness to be presented as something visible?

227


God said:

“I will make all my goodness pass before thee.” (Exodus 33:19)

So then, to interpret God’s revelation to Moses as something visible seems inappropriate in light of both Moses’ request and God’s response.

I do not say that there was not a visible representation present (probably the angel/messenger of the LORD), however that visible representation of God is not the focus of this event. When the Bible says that the LORD passed by Moses it simply is not referring exclusively to a visible representation of God floating past Moses.

The scriptures give us this description of what happened when the LORD passed by:

“And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him(Moses) there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. And theLORD passed before him, and proclaimed, ‘The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth…” (Exodus 34:5-6)

Now in a natural sense it appears that the LORD came down and stood by Moses while he proclaimed his name, and then afterwards the LORD also passed by Moses and proclaimed something a second time:

“And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him(Moses) there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. And theLORD passed before him, and proclaimed…” (Exodus 34:5-6)

However, I do not believe that that is an appropriate understanding of what happened. This passage is instead speaking of how God revealed the fullness of his glory while Moses was covered by God’s hand. That fullness passed before him and was afterwards subsiding when God removed his hand from Moses, allowing Moses to experience the remainder of that full revelation which had come but was at that time beginning to withdraw:

“And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there [covering Moses with his hand in a spiritual sense], and proclaimed the name of the LORD [proclaiming the name of the LORD here re-fers to the full revelation of the glory of God being made manifest and all of God’s goodness being presented while Moses was still covered by God’s hand]. And the LORD passed before him [the full manifestation of God’s glory that was previously revealed while Moses was covered by God’s hand began to subside], and pro-

228

Appendix D

claimed [this proclamation was the remaining spiritual revelation af-ter the full revelation subsides and God removes his hand], ‘The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth’ [this was not the full manifestation of God’s ways (God’s face), but it was the remainder (the back parts) of the full manifestation which was now residing].” (Exodus 34:5-6)

The above explanation shows that God’s face, hand, and back parts are not references to things that are physical and visible, but rather to things spiri-tual.

A full revelation of God’s goodness would have killed Moses. I believe that when Exodus 33:20 speaks of God’s “face” it is referring to the full spiritual revelation of God’s goodness (which is why God said that Moses could not see his face and live). However, there is an entirely different meaning to the word “face” when the scriptures say:

“And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face.” (Exodus 33:11)

Moses could not see God’s “face” (Exodus 33:20) and yet the Bible says that Moses spoke to God “face to face.” (Exodus 33:11) Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The context shows that God was speaking to Moses face to face through his representative.

The “angel” (messenger) of the LORD was present with the Israelites during their journeys (Exodus 14:19). Though Moses could not see God himself, he could see the messenger of the LORD. And by seeing the messenger of God, he also saw God by expression. I believe that the messenger of God is the one who spoke with Moses “face to face.”

God showed that Moses spoke with the messenger of the LORD when he said:

“My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold:wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (Numbers 12:7-8)

Here, the Hebrew word translated as “similitude” is temoonaw, for which the Strong’s Concordance gives the following definition:

tem-oo-naw - something portioned (i.e., fashioned) out, as a shape, i.e. (indef.) phantom, or (spec.) embodiment, or (fig.) manifestation (of favor): - image, likeness, similitude. (– Strong’s #8544)

229


It was the similitude, or image of God that Moses beheld. God spoke face to face (i.e., “mouth to mouth”) with Moses by the means of the image of God.

Deuteronomy 4:15-19 also uses the Hebrew word temoonaw when it says:

“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude (temoonaw) of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.” (Deuteronomy 4:15-19)

The children of Israel, to whom Moses was speaking in this passage, did not see any visible image of God, yet Moses did. Therefore, God spoke of Moses seeing his image as something that distinguished Moses from others, saying:

“My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: where-fore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (Numbers 12:7-8)

Moses spoke to God face to face, and that was through means of the simili-tude of God. The Israelites never saw the similitude of God, and they, hav-ing never seen God, were commanded not to make any man-made image to represent God.

However, when the Israelites did make an image or similitude as a represen-tation of God, do the scriptures refer to it as “a similitude,” or is it instead called by the name of what it was a similitude of? The latter no doubt.

God spoke of the proposed similitude that the Israelites made, saying:

“They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have wor-shiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, ‘This is your god (elo-hiym), O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 32:8 NASB)

230

Appendix D

That which is here called a “calf” was actually a similitude of a calf. There-fore, the image of a calf is called a “calf.”

And look at what God also told Moses regarding the cherubs that he was to make:

“And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cheru-bims be.” (Exodus 25:18-20)

Again, can you see how the similitude of a cherub is called “a cherub”? And these representations of cherubs are even said to have faces? You could stand face to face with a cherub by standing face to face with a representa-tion of a true cherub. Even though they are only images of cherubim the scriptures clearly refer to them as cherubim. In the same way, the similitude of God is also called God, and Moses spoke face to face with God by stand-ing face to face with the similitude of God. This does not mean that the si-militude of God is God himself any more than the similitude of a cherub is actually a true cherub.

A cherub is a great living creature (2Samuel 22:11), so we should not think of a cherub as a lifeless model of gold; and neither should we think of God as a man, or as an angel, or as any other created thing. Just as the representa-tions of a cherub is called a “cherub,” so also the representation of God is called “God.”

231

APPENDIX EThe Holy Spirit

In Ephesians 4:4, Paul refers to the one Spirit that is common to all Chris-tians, saying:

“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Fa-ther of all.” (Ephesians 4:3-6)

This one Spirit that all Christians partake of is the Spirit of Christ.

“God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6)

Notice that it is the Spirit of Christ (God’s Son) that cries “Abba, Father.” Since the attributes of Christ are revealed through Christ’s Spirit, and Christ’s Spirit is in us, then the attributes of Christ are revealed through us as well. That is why the scriptures also say:

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Fa-ther.” (Romans 8:15)

It is the Spirit of God’s Son that cries “Abba, Father,” yet as that Spirit is re-vealed in us we also cry “Abba, Father” as well (Romans 8:15). In this way, it is Christ who has the communication with the Father, but we are made par-takers of that communication as the Spirit of Christ is revealed in us.

“For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Fa-ther.” (Ephesians 2:18) (c.f. Ephesians 3:12)

Since it is the Spirit of Christ that cries to God through us, then it is in re-sponse to that same Spirit that God answers. This does not mean that Christ

233


is in need of the things that we are in need of when we pray, but it rather means that the Spirit of Christ is interceding unto God on our behalf (Ro-mans 8:26-27).

“And in like manner the Spirit joins also its help to our weakness;for we do not know what we should pray for as is fitting, but the Spirit itself makes intercession with groanings which cannot be ut-tered.” (Romans 8:26 Darby)

There is a certain sharing and union that occurs between our spirits and Christ’s when Christ’s Spirit is revealed in us. Christ helps us, but it is as if the help that he gives to us does not simply come in the form of advice on how we should do a thing, but it instead comes in the form of Christ’s own characteristics and attributes being revealed through us. It is like we are needy vessels, and Christ inhabits us by his Spirit so that we can share in what is his.

Christ’s Spirit is so intricately joined to the spirit of a Christian that Paul says:

“But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” (1Corinthians 6:16-17)

That is not to say that our spirit is Christ’s Spirit,141 but rather that there is such a union and a sharing between the two spirits that the things of Christ’s Spirit have become interwoven into the Christian’s spirit. This results in the attributes of Christ being revealed through the one who is joined unto him as their own spirits are brought into subjection to the leading of the Spirit of Christ. Thus, it is Christ who is revealed in us (because the Spirit of Christ reveals Christ), and we are vessels through whom he is revealed (i.e., mem-bers of his body). This is what Paul referred to when he said:

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” (Galatians 2:20)

He did not say, “I became Christ,” because Paul continued to remain an indi-vidual soul, as did Christ. What Paul said was, “Christ lives in me.”

Paul said, “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” (Galatians 2:20)

Christ said, “The words I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10).

Just as we partake of the attributes of Christ, so also Christ partakes of the at-tributes of God. In a similar way that we are “one Spirit” with Christ, so also

234

Appendix E

God and Christ may be said to be “one Spirit” as well.

Imagine that we have three glasses, and the first glass is the only one with water in it. Now, if we pour the water from glass one into glass two, and then pour the water from glass two into glass three, we can say that the water that glass three receives proceeded from glass one. And yet it is also the wa-ter of glass two as well in an intermediate sense. Again, suppose that glass two had a few drops of blue food coloring in it. When the water from glass one is poured into glass two, then the water from glass one would take on the blue color of the liquid that was already in glass two. When the water in glass two is then poured into glass three, then the water would contain both what proceeded from glass one and also what pertained to glass two. Like-wise, the Spirit of God proceeds from God, but since it is sent through Christ then the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God are joined. Hence the Spirit that we receive is the Spirit that is of God and also of Christ. And just as the drops of blue food coloring from glass two could not have filled up glass three if it had not been combined with the water of glass one, so also the Spirit of Christ could not fill us all without being joined to the Spirit of God. It is only by the omnipresent ability of the Spirit of God in Christ that the Spirit of Christ (which has been united to the Spirit of God) may now in-dwell us all.142 Hence, while it is true that Christ sent forth the Spirit that proceeds from the Father (John 15:26), it is also true that “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son.” (Galatians 4:6)

God sent his own Spirit (revealing his own attributes) into Christ. The inter-twining of the Spirit of God and of Christ produces “one Spirit” in the same way that “he that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit.” (1Corinthians 6:17) This “one Spirit” consists of both the attributes of God and of Christ. The Holy Spirit that we receive is of God originally, but it is also of Christ inter-mediately. The attributes of God are revealed in Christ, and the attributes of Christ are revealed in us.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1Timothy 2:5)

Christ receives the things of God, and we receive the things of Christ (John 17:22). In this way the things of God that we receive are also of Christ, be-ing sent to us through Christ. This is why Jesus prayed to God for all Chris-tians, saying:

“The glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” (John 17:22-23)

235


This understanding also makes perfect sense of Christ’s statements in John 14 – 16 as well: 143

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that it may abide with you for ever.” (John 14:16)

“The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, which the Father will send in my name, it shall teach you all things.” (John 14:26)

“But when the Comforter is come, which I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, it shall testify of me.” (John 15:26)

“[The Comforter] shall glorify me: for it shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that it shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:14-15)

The point of this last statement was to show that the things of God have been given to Christ, and thus the Spirit can reveal the things of God by revealing what is Christ’s.

“For God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him (Christ). The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” (John 3:34-35)

It is the Spirit of God, sent in Christ’s name, by which both Christ and God indwell every Christian (John 14:23).

236

NOTESScripture Index

*The citations from the Ante Nicene Fathers are taken from The Ante Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; repr. 10 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994). However, the contemporary readings of those citations are taken from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (ed. David W. Bercot; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994). I have indicated the page numbers from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs in brackets.

1 I do not agree with some of Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton’s translations of vari-ous Septuagint passages and have therefore offered what I believe to be a more accu-rate translation of certain Septuagint texts discussed within this book.

2 Arius’ teachings coincide with these things, and were described as follows: “[Arius teaches that] there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word.” (– Athanasius, Discourses against the Arians, 1.5)

3 In our English versions this word is translated as “angel” rather than as “mes-senger.” However, both the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated as “angel” do not exclusively refer to angels in the sense that we think of them. In New Testa-ment Greek (and in the Greek Septuagint) the word translated as “angel” is angelos( ), for which the Strong’s Concordance gives the following definition: an-gelos – a messenger; especially an “angel”; by implication a pastor: - angel, mes-senger. (– Strong’s #32) The Greek word angelos should not be (and is not) translated as “angel” every time it appears in the New Testament. John the Baptist is referred to as God’s angelos (“messenger”) in Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27; John’s disciples are referred to in the plural form of angelos (“messengers”) in Luke 7:24; Jesus’ disciples are referred to in the plural form of angelos (“messengers”) in Luke 9:52; The spies sent to Jericho are referred to in the plural form of angelos(“messengers”) in James 2:25. These examples clearly demonstrate the fact that an-gelos does not always refer to an angel per se. The same is true for the Old Testa-ment Hebrew word for angel, mal-awk, which has this definition in the Strong’s:

237


mal-awk – from an unused root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; a messenger; spe-cifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger. (– Strong’s #4397) The Hebrew and Greek words that are usually translated as angel oftentimes refer to a non-angelic messenger as well. Hence, whether or not a scripture is referring to a literal angel or to a non-angelic messenger must be determined by the context and not by the presence of the words alone. The point is this: Just because a word that can refer to an angel is used within the Bible this does not mean that a literal angel is meant in every instance. When-ever those words for angel are used in reference to Christ I do not believe that those references should be translated as “angel,” because Hebrews 1:1-14 and Hebrews 2:5-9 seem to show that Christ is not an angel. Thus when we see such references, and the context shows that Christ is the referent, we should translate the word as re-ferring to a messenger instead of an angel. The Webster’s Dictionary gives the fol-lowing definition for the word messenger: “A person who carries a message or does an errand for another person or company.” Now, Christ undoubtedly fits this de-scription in regards to his role as God’s messenger: God surely sent Christ (John 8:16), Christ surely proclaimed the words of God (John 3:34), and Christ surely was sent here to accomplish the will of the Father (John 5:36). Why else do you think Hebrews 3:1 calls Christ an apostle (which means sent)? So then Christ is perfectly a messenger without dispute. Christ is clearly referred to as angelos (messenger) in the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah 9:6, which says: “For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called Messenger ( ) of great counsel.” (Isaiah 9:6 LXX) So there is at leastone definite place where Christ is specifically called angelos (“messenger”) within the Septuagint.

4 Origen, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 9, pg. 308-310 [*pg. 696] 5 See note #3. 6 Philo, The Works of Philo, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., pg. 293, section 205 7 Adolph E. Knoch, Christ Compared with Deity, Concordant Publishing Con-

cern8 The only reason that the Greek word translated as “God” looks differently in

John 1:1b and John 1:1c is because one (John 1:1b) is in the accusative case (the ob-ject of the sentence) and the other (John 1:1c) is in the nominative case (the subject of the sentence).

9 Origen, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 9, pg.323 [*pg. 127] 10 Ronald Day, http://reslight.net/jesbeg.html. Ronald Day cites Paul Johnson

as his authority regarding the partitive genitive construction. 11 ibid. Apparently someone has brought up an objection to Ronald Day that is

based upon the singular tense of the word creation, because he writes the following: [Argument] Someone objects that when prototokos (the Greek word translated first-born in Colossians 1:15) is one of the class referred to, the class is plural, as in Co-lossians 1:18 and Romans 8:29. [Response] The Greek singular of creation is often used by Paul and others to denote the collective whole of creation. See: Mark 10:6; 13:19; Romans 1:20; 8:19,20,21,22; Revelation 3:14.

12 In reality, the Greek word for firstborn, (prototokos), cannot

238

Notes

accurately be translated to mean anything other than firstborn. Prototokos is actu-ally a composite word formed from two smaller Greek words: (protos) – first and (tikto) – be born. Prototokos literally means first-born, and it retains this definition every single time that it is used within the Bible.

13 John MacArthur Jr., transcribed from the tape GC 1301-A, titled Bible Ques-tions and Answers Part 3.

14 Yet, if Paul truly wanted to assert that Christ was a created being then why did he say that Christ was the firstborn of all creation rather than the first-created of all creation? Paul uses the word firstborn in order to signify that Christ was the first of all creation to have been spiritually born of God. There are several reasons why I believe that Paul was referring to Christ being the first to be spiritually born of God in Colossians 1:15. The most profound support for this understanding is found in Romans 8:29, which says: “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” Since Christ is here said to be the first to be born among many brothers then we can look at how Christ’s brothers were born after him and understand Christ to have also been born in that same way first. All that needs to be asked in order to find out the manner in which Christ was the firstborn among his brothers is this: In what way were his brothers born after him? Just as we are created initially, and then in another way we are “born of the Spirit,” (John 3:5-8) so also the same is applica-ble to Christ. The meaning of being “born of God” (1John 3:9) is discussed thor-oughly in chapter three. Christ’s brothers are created and born of God; Christ was created and born of God as well. Christ is the firstborn among many brethren (Ro-mans 8:29); he is the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15).

15 Colossians 1:15 says, “firstborn of all creation,” but Colossians 1:18 says, “firstborn from of the dead”; this is because Christ came out from the category of “the dead” (i.e., he was raised from the dead). He ceased to be included among the dead, but he did not cease to be included among creation. The difference in structure does not give a new meaning to whatsoever. Biblical examples of par-titive genitive constructions could go on and on. Christ could not have been “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1Corinthians 15:20) if he had not slept himself, etc. Likewise, Christ could not have been “the firstborn of all creation” if he was not cre-ated.

16 Origen, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 4, pg. 246 [*pg. 688] 17 Eusebius of Caesarea, in accordance with the rules of Greek grammar, uses

feminine pronouns in grammatical correlation with the feminine antecedent (wisdom). I have translated the pronouns as “himself” rather than “herself”

within this passage in order to clarify the text’s translation into English. “We must not regard Wisdom and Righteousness as females, simply because of their feminine name and grammatical gender. For these things are in our view the Son of God.” (– Origen, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 4, pg. 561 [*pg. 688]).

18 Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, pg. 7 19 Alexander, Encyclical Epistle20 Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D., The Creeds and Biblical Interpretation, sub-

239


heading: “The Literal Sense Comes First” (http://www.rsanders.org/portal/modules/ news/article.php?storyid=131)

21 Brenton’s LXX says , but some texts read . It is the same word, just written differently.

22 The Hebrew Masoretic text also declares that this Wisdom was created. Yet, the King James Version (like many other English versions) renders the Hebrew text of Proverbs 8:22 as, “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before the works of old.” Though the KJV does not present it as so, the Hebrew verb qanah, which is here translated as “possessed,” actually carries the meaning of cre-ated. The Strong’s Concordance defines qanah as, “a primary root; to erect, i.e. create; by extens. to procure, espec. by purchase (caus. sell); by impl. to own” (– Strong’s #7069)

23 The Hebrew word olam, that is translated here in the KJV as “everlasting,” can be (and oftentimes is) translated as “of old” as well (c.f. Deuteronomy 32:7, 1Samuel 27:8). The word olam simply denotes a very ancient time, but eternity pastis not in any way an exclusive definition for this word. Since the Wisdom says that he was created in Proverbs 8:22, we should be consistent and translate the word olam as “of old” in Proverbs 8:23 (because anything that was created is not from eternity past).

24 Some Trinitarians, realizing that this passage does teach that the Wisdom was created, have asserted that this Wisdom is not Christ. They instead say that this is merely a literary personification of wisdom, or wisdom personified in a figurative way. However, this scripture cannot simply be speaking about God’s own imper-sonal wisdom, because the wisdom in Proverbs 8 was created as the beginning of the LORD’s way. Since God is eternal, and since he has always been wise, then his wisdom has eternally existed. God’s own wisdom was never “created” as this Wis-dom in Proverbs 8 was. Likewise, Proverbs 8 cannot simply be speaking of wisdom in the abstract, because wisdom does not exist apart from a consciousness capable of possessing and reflecting it; and so where there is wisdom there must also be the be-ing in whom that wisdom exists. In summary, Proverbs 8 cannot be speaking of God’s own wisdom, because God’s own wisdom is not created; and it cannot be de-scribing wisdom as an abstract personification, because wisdom cannot exist apart from one who is conscious.

25 Henry A. Alford, Alford’s Greek New Testament, entry for Revelation 3:14 26 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for Revelation 3:14 27 “God is not a man that he should lie.” (Numbers 23:19) Jesus wasn’t saying

that God was a man, but rather that “if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.” (1John 5:9)

28 “be the first” is my own translation of this passage. In an attempt to assert that rank rather than order is the focus of Colossians 1:15 some people point out that Colossians 1:18, in the King James Version, says that in all things Christ has the “preeminence.” However, the Greek word (proteuo), which the KJV translates as “have the preeminence,” would most literally be translated as “be the first.” The word proteuo simply adds the meaning of to be to the Greek root word

240

Notes

(protos). The Greek root word protos (as in prototype, etc.) can refer to be-ing first in various ways (in order, in rank, in time, etc.). The word can be referring to Christ as first in rank, but it can instead be referring to Christ as first in orderwithout stretching the word’s meaning whatsoever. Many English versions havetranslated proteuo as “the first” (NLT, NASB, YLT, etc.). The context determines the way in which Christ was first. It is undeniably the order that is being addressed in Colossians 1:18, where Paul says, “And he is the head of the body, the assembly; who is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that he might have the firstplace in all things.” (Colossians 1:18 Darby) Also, “the beginning” in Colossians 1:18 is not an idiomatic expression like those found in Revelation 21:6 & 22:13.

29 If you look up the Greek word translated as “appointed,” in the Strong’s Concordance then you will see the Greek root word (poieo) (Strong’s #4160). This root word primarily denotes to make rather than to appoint. Although appointcan be a secondary meaning of the word poieo, it only takes on such a meaning when the passage contains additional words that qualify or restrict the verb’s mean-ing. Without qualification, the phrase in Hebrews 3:2, which literally states that God made Christ, simply means just that––God made Christ.

30 To anyone who wants to study this verse further: The word “faithful” (the first one, the second is not in the Greek), the word “Moses,” and the phrase, “in all his house,” are part of a quote from Numbers 12:7.

31 It should not strike us as strange that John does not say the Word was cre-ated in the beginning. The reason why John does not say, “In the beginning the Word became,” is because Christ is the very first reality other than God. What I mean is this: If we could go back in time to the precise moment when the beginning began, we would not be able to watch some void in space for a few seconds and then afterwards see Christ come into existence. When the beginning begins, Christ is there. He is preceded by nothing, and before his existence became there was no be-ginning. His existence is omintemporal with every beginning there has ever been.

32 Some interesting grammatical Greek structures comparable to John 1:1a can be found in Mark 5:5, Luke 21:37, John 2:1, 2:23, 18:13

33 The Syriac – The New Testament was translated into the Syriac language around the middle of the 2nd century. The ancient copies that have come down to us in Syriac are now referred to as the Syriac.

34 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for Hebrews 7:3 35 Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1960,

pg.157 36 Tertullian, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 3, pg. 604 [*pg. 458] 37 Paul rightfully said that there are false apostles who teach “another Jesus,

whom we have not preached.” (2Corinthians 11:4) Whenever you see passages in the Bible that refer to believing in Jesus then it is the real Jesus who is in view. When a person believes in the real Jesus then they stop sinning. This is why John could say, “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God,” (1John 5:1) without contradicting his previous statement, “Whosoever is begotten of God doth not commit sin.” (1John 3:9) There are Christians who believe in the Trinity out of ignorance, but there is not such a thing as a Christian who commits sin.

241


38 Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, entry for 1John 2:29 39 There is also another scripture within the KJV that says Christ “proceeded

forth” from God: “I (Jesus) proceeded forth and came from God, neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” (John 8:42) The Greek word translated here as “proceeded forth” ( ) is not the same Greek word translated as “proceedeth” ( ) in reference to the Holy Spirit coming from God (John 15:26). The KJV translation is potentially misleading in this regard. A better translation of this passage from John 8:42 is found in the NIV, which says: “I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.” (John 8:42 NIV) One other scripture that has been misunderstood is John 17:8, where (according to the KJV) Christ says the following while praying to God: “[They] have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.” (John 17:8 KJV) This translation in the KJV seems to suggest the possibility that Christ came out of God’s substance. A better translation of John 17:7-8 can be found in the RSV, which says: “[They] know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me.” (John 17:7-8 RSV) The reality of the matter is that all of the verses translated to present Christ coming “out of” God in the KJV can also be (and have been) translated to show that God sent Christ.

40 Arius, Letter to Alexander of Alexandria, 320 AD 41 The Greek word (monogenes) carries the meaning only begotten,

which does not specify how one is begotten, but rather how many are begotten (i.e., one).

42 I have translated the masculine pronouns to reflect the neuter gender of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not an individual person, it is actually a part of God (Luke 11:20/Matthew 12:28). The only time that the Holy Spirit is referred to in the masculine gender (“he”), rather than the usual neuter gender (“it”), is when it is de-scribed as a “Comforter” in John chapters 14 – 16. Although it is true that the Greek word translated as “Comforter” is masculine in gender, this is only because of the fact that the Greek language contains gender specific nouns that are neither male nor female. In the Greek, masculine nouns are not always male and feminine nouns are not always female. Whenever a stated noun is the referent of subsequent pronouns, those subsequent pronouns always appear in the same gender as the antecedent. Since the gender of the antecedent does not always express the actual gender of the subject, and since the pronouns always match the gender of the antecedent, we should not assume that the Holy Spirit is a literal “he” simply because masculine pronouns were used for it in John 14 – 16 in order to match the masculine gender of the antecedent “Comforter.”

43 Origen, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 9, pg. 328 [*pg. 118] 44 Although P66 is the most ancient manuscript containing John 1:3, I would

not say for certain that it represents the original reading (due to the vast amount of reliable manuscripts that say otherwise). Hence, I say that it “may have been changed.” It is noteworthy that John 1:3 is the only place (to my knowledge) where the phrase is used anywhere in the New Testament. There are also passages (like 1Corinthians 6:5) where its sister phrase, , has been fabricated by the

242

Notes

addition of a second to the word . Also, since is simply the masculine equivalent of the neuter word then the fact that has obvious exceptions allows for to have exceptions as well. Romans 3:10 says, “There is none righteous, no, not ( ) one ( ).” God and Christ are obviously excepted from this category.

45 John 1:10 contains a similar structure to that of John 1:3 and should be trans-lated as it is within the NIV, “...the world was made through him.”

46 see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan Pub-lishing House, 1997, pg. 368

47 Hebrews 2:10 effectively demonstrates how the meaning conveyed by the word (dia) is relative to whether the noun that follows it is genitive or accusa-tive.

48 The last phrase in this passage, “by myself,” is referring to God being alone, not to God creating the earth by means of his own power (though he did do just that).

49 Origen, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 4, pg. 433 [*pg. 119] 50 There are many false teachers these days “who cannot cease from sin”

(2Peter 2:14). Most of the mainstream preachers are actually teaching a false salva-tion by declaring that a person who has accepted Christ as savior during some point in his or her past will continue to be a Christian no matter what sin(s) they might commit thereafter. These preachers try to support this false doctrine by taking a few scriptures out of context and explaining them in such a way that is contrary to the Bible as a whole. For example: They ignore the fact that John used the present tense in regards to past events (see chapter five, under the heading John 3:13-19 – Who is Speaking?); hence when John described how we must all confess our sins in order to become Christians initially, saying, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive our-selves,” (1John 1:8) these false teachers say that John was actually referring to a pre-sent continuance in sin. The Greek word translated here as “have” is (echomen) which never refers to an action, but rather to possession without action. John was referring to the confession of our past sins, not a present continuance in sin. In fact, John goes on to say, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.” (1John 3:9) Yet, those false preachers (2Corinthians 11:13-15) misinterpret John’s words in order to say that everyone will keep sinning even after they become Chris-tians. By such reasoning those men allocate sin into the category of expected norm,and therefore make it out to be an excusable action that inevitably cannot be avoided. All men who teach such things are wrong and are misrepresenting God Almighty. O that these men would fear God enough to consider their ways (Proverbs 16:6). Many people would abandon their sins if they believed that they needed to do so, but these false teachers assure them that their eternal destiny is secure no matter what they do (2Peter 2:19, Jeremiah 23:17, 22). The truth is that Christ died for our “past” sins (Romans 3:25) and once we accept that sacrifice we are immediately freed from sin’s power (Romans 6:2-6). Jesus said we must be born of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven (John 3:5). The Holy Spirit reveals the righteousness of God within us, by which we can overcome all sinful temptations (Romans 8:13, 1John 3:6-9). If a person commits sin after becoming a Christian, then that sin will

243


be the product of his or her own choice rather than the product of depravity (1Corinthians 10:13). As long as we “yield” ourselves to obey the righteousness of God working in us, through the faith of Christ, then we will be counted as righteous (Romans 6:16). “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteous-ness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” (1John 3:7) Hebrews 10:26-29 shows that a person who “was” (past tense) sanctified (i.e., made holy) by the blood of Christ can fall into judgment again by returning to sin. Yes, even after a person is under grace the wages of sin is still death (Romans 6:15-16). Yet, just as Satan told Eve that she would not die if she disobeyed God, so also he now does the same to those who will listen. Jesus said, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:23-24) (See also John 15:10, 1John 2:3-5, Hebrews 5:9, James 2:24, Galatians 5:19-24)

51 Some Trinitarians have tried to say that the term Son of man is a messianic title that is applicable only to Christ (and some have even said that it “points to his divinity”). Such assertions are not true. The phrase Son of man simply refers to adescendent of man. It is not an exclusive title for Christ. It is applied to men other than Christ numerous times throughout the Old Testament (Numbers 23:19, Job 25:6, Psalms 146:3, Isaiah 51:12, Daniel 8:17, etc.) In fact, it is applied to Ezekiel almost 100 times in the book of Ezekiel alone. It is also used in the plural as well, sons of men (Psalms 33:13, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Jeremiah 32:19, Mark 3:28, Ephesians 3:5). Christ applied the phrase to himself in order to emphasize his own humanity, not his (alleged) divinity.

52 Joseph, Mary’s husband, has his own genealogy listed in Matthew 1:2-16, but he is included in Mary’s genealogy by marriage. Luke 3:23-38 shows Mary’s genealogy, but Matthew 1:2-16 is Joseph’s. That is why the genealogy in Luke and Matthew are different from one another and list different names.

53 Aristides, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 9, pg. 265 [*pg. 355] 54 Irenaeus, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, pg. 454 [*pg. 355] 55 Tertullian, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 3, pg. 539 [*pg. 357] 56 Hippolytus, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 5, pg. 230 [*pg. 357] 57 Hippolytus, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 5, pg. 152 [*pg. 357] 58 Origen, Alexandrian Christianity, ed. Henry Chadwick, Westminster Press,

1977, pg. 445, 448 59 The reading found in the Textus Receptus (KJV) is “... we are members of

his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” (Ephesians 5:30) Although the most an-cient Greek manuscripts do not contain “of his flesh, and of his bones,” all of the manuscripts do read, “we are members of his body ... shall be one flesh ... I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Ephesians 30-32)

60 Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985, entry for John 3:15

61 The earliest manuscripts containing John 3:13 (P66 & P75) do not include the phrase, “which is in heaven.” The phrase is also excluded in several English translations (RSV, NIV, etc.)

62 Tatian’s Diatessaron (140 AD) 63 The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, 1995, introduction to

244

Notes

John’s gospel, under the subheading, “Date,” pg. 1588 64 Mark 8:31 & Mark 9:9 65 John often used the word flesh to describe the physical nature that Christ

took on via the incarnation (c.f. 1John 4:2, 2John 7). John usually did this when re-futing the Docetic heresy of his day (which said that Christ did not have true flesh but instead only appeared to have a body). John may have very well used the word flesh in John 1:14 for that selfsame reason.

66 The other places in the Greek NT where the word appears are as fol-lows: Luke 6:44, Romans 8:32, 1Corinthians 7:4 (x2), 1Corinthians 7:37, 1Timothy 3:4, 1Timothy 3:5, 2Peter 3:17. The word always appears before the noun that it modifies.

67 The NIV Study Bible, note on Acts 20:28 68 John Darby, The Darby Translation, 1961 edition, note on Acts 20:28 69 Even those who do not have written commandments have the testimony of

God within their conscience. Hence, they too, upon learning right and wrong, dis-obeyed God even apart from the Law of Moses, being a law to themselves (Romans 2:14-16). In this way, men sinned even before the Law of Moses was given (c.f. Genesis 18:20, etc.).

70 Paul says that he was alive once before he knew the commands of God, but it was when he sinned that he died (Romans 7:9-11). Since he obviously did not die physically at that time, he was referring to a spiritual death instead.

71 Jesus spoke of how he always did what pleased the Father, saying: “And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” (John 8:29) It was through faith that Christ pleased God, because “without faith it is impossible to please God.” (Hebrews 11:6 / Matthew 17:5)

72 Though we all may have had some measure of faith before coming to Christ, it was not the measure or type of faith needed to receive the righteousness of God (James 2:19). By looking to Christ, through that measure of faith we did have, we became partakers of the greater type of faith that is found in Christ alone. Hence, it is only by believing in Christ that we in turn received Christ’s greater faith that en-ables us to receive the righteousness of God.

73 See note #50. 74 Just as our bodies are “the temple of God” because the Spirit of God resides

in us (1Corinthians 6:19, 2Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:21-22), so also the fact that “God was in Christ” (2Corinthians 5:19) made Christ’s body the “temple” of God as well. This is also why Christ’s “flesh” is called “the veil” in Hebrews 10:20 (which is a reference to the veil of the temple).

75 The Old Testament prophets would often say, “Thus saith the LORD,” prior to reciting God’s words in the first person narrative. They did this in order to ac-knowledge God as the source of those words. Although Christ is not on record as having said, “Thus saith the LORD,” he did acknowledge God as the source of his words in other ways (see John 8:26, 28, 38, 40, 14:10, 24, etc.). Christ openly de-clared that he “came in his Father’s name” rather than his own name (John 5:43, 17:6, 26). These declarations serve the same purpose as an Old Testament prophet’s,

245


“Thus saith the LORD.” Nevertheless, I do believe that the revelation of God was more spontaneous and innate through Christ than it was in the prophets of old (John 3:34, Revelation 19:10). I also believe that the only way that the Old Testament prophets received the words of God was through the Spirit of Christ (1Peter 1:10-12). God spoke through both Christ and the prophets, but Christ served as mediator between God and the others. God is revealed in Christ, and we are made partakers of that singular revelation.

76 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for John 2:22 77 ibid., entry for John 10:11 78 The KJV says, “No man taketh it from me,” but the word “man” is not in the

Greek text. 79 Some English translations read, “No one takes it,” (present tense) but the

original Greek word (in the first aorist active indicative) refers to a past event, and thus it should be translated in the past tense as it is in John 5:9 (took), etc. Archibald Robertson confirms the past tense translation of this passage in Robert-son’s Word Pictures of the New Testament.

80 This reading is in agreement with the translation found in the NASB, but I have translated as “liberty” rather than the NASB’s “authority.”

81 Yet, just because Jesus was commanded to lay down his life for the sheep does not mean that he did so only out of obedience to God. Just as God commands us to give to the poor and yet we are willing to do so out of love for them, so also God commanded Jesus to lay down his life for us and he was willing to do so out of his love for us as well. Nevertheless, God did command Christ to lay down his life in this world, and Christ obeyed God in doing so.

82 I am not saying that it was possible for Christ to sin, because God already declared through the Old Testament that Christ would not sin. Nevertheless, that did not nullify Christ’s freewill. Consider the antichrist; he will do all that God has said he will do, yet that does not mean that the antichrist will not exercise a freewill while making the decisions to do those things. Or, consider the time when Christ told Pe-ter that he would deny him three times, etc. God does not choose for anyone, nor did he choose for Christ, but he knew in advance what Christ would do. If Christ would have chose to sin then he too would have been lost like everyone else.

83 Some people have tried to say that Paul was describing the nature of Christ’s flesh in Romans 1:3 and that he was describing the nature of Christ’s Spirit in Ro-mans 1:4. However, that is not the case. Paul was speaking of how Christ was “made” in regards to the flesh in Romans 1:3, but Romans 1:4 is describing how Christ was “marked out” (YLT) to be the Son of God in power, according to the Holy Spirit, from his resurrection from the dead. One refers to his body’s pre-resurrection “origin” and the other refers to his body’s post-resurrection “condition,” when his body was changed.

84 ibid. 85 John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, entry for Acts 13:33 86 I believe this is why the resurrected body is called “a spiritual body” in

1Corinthians 15:44. This does not refer to an immaterial body, but rather to how the resurrected body is in compliance with the Spirit.

246

Notes

87 The fact that our English translations do not capitalize the “L” in “lord” when Sarah calls Abraham (Lord) is only a matter of preference on the part of the English translator. The only time that the Greek text capitalizes a letter is when it is at the beginning of a proper name, the beginning of a quotation, or the be-ginning of a new paragraph. The original Greek has the same capitalization when both Christ and Abraham are called “Lord.”

88 kyrios is the same Greek word as kurios. The two different spellings are just based on varying English pronunciations of the same Greek word .

89 The NIV Study Bible, note on Romans 10:9 90 This is the rendering found in the KJV, except for the fact that I have cor-

rected the KJV mistranslation of the Greek word from “by” to “through.” 91 The false pagan gods that Paul was contrasting the Father within

1Corinthians 8:4-6 were usually thought to be both gods and rulers over the people, but we acknowledge the fact that the true God, the Father, has given the position of ruler (Lord) over us to Christ.

92 God made Jesus both Lord and Christ––the way that God made Jesus the Christ, which means the anointed one, is not only confined to one event. The pre-existent Son of God was already anointed with the Spirit of God, and therefore he was already the Christ (Luke 2:11). However, in regards to being anointed for his earthly ministry, this occurred when he was baptized by John (Acts 10:37-38, Luke 4:18); and there is also another kind of anointing that has to do with becoming king (1Samuel 15:17, 16:1), etc. Someone who is anointed can still be anointed for vari-ous reasons. Likewise, Jesus was Lord already, but this application took on a differ-ent kind of meaning when he ascended to the right hand of God (Ephesians 1:20-22, Acts 2:34-36).

93 Lactantius, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 7, pg. 124-126 [*pg. 360] 94 The Bible gives us an example of how there can be more than one ruler over

a kingdom saying: “The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spoke, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” (Daniel 5:7) How would that individual become third rulerin the kingdom? The facts about the above scripture show that Nabonidus was actu-ally the king who was first in charge and had left the kingdom in Belshazzar’s hands while he pursued other matters. Belshazzer (who spoke the words just quoted) was ruling as second in command, and he was offering someone a position as third in command, if they could interpret the writing on the wall of the palace. So then, more than one person can rule a kingdom at the same time.

95 Archibald Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament, en-try for 2Peter 3:15

96 Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, entry for 2Peter 3:14 97 “according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you – mean-

ing not all his epistles, as being written for the general good of all the saints, as well as for those particular churches or men to whom they were sent; for what Peter

247


speaks of is what was particularly written to them, and is distinguished in 2Peter 3:16 from the rest of Paul's epistles; nor does he intend the epistle of Paul to the Ro-mans, for the longsuffering of God spoken of in that, as in Romans 2:4 (9:22), is his longsuffering to the wicked, which issues in their destruction, and not his longsuffer-ing to his elect, which is salvation, as here; but he seems manifestly to have in view the epistle to the Hebrews, for Peter wrote both his first and second epistles to Jews; wherefore, since none of Paul's epistles but that were written particularly to them, it should seem that that is designed, and serves to confirm his being the author of it; in which he writes to the Hebrews concerning the coming of Christ, and of the defer-ring of it a little while, and of the need they had of patience to wait for it (Hebrews 10:36-37).” (–John Gill, John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, entry for 2Peter 3:15)

98 When Peter says that Paul writes of the longsuffering of our Lord in all his epistles we must take this as something that is inferred therein, rather than something that is stated forthrightly. Paul does not refer specifically to either the longsuffering of God or of Christ in “all” of his epistles. Paul only specifically mentions to the “longsuffering” of Christ in 1Timothy 1:16. And he only mentions the “longsuffer-ing” of God in Romans 2:4 and Romans 9:22. It is also noteworthy that the longsuf-fering of God is revealed in Christ, because Christ is the express image of God’s person; therefore the longsuffering of Christ and the longsuffering of God are some-what synonymous. See note #101.

99 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for 2Peter 3:15 100 The Greek-English New Testament, pg. 621, published by The Iverson-

Norman Associates, 1975 101 Christ will, according to the authority that God has given him, make the

choice when to return to the earth, but that choice will be in agreement with the fore-knowledge, set time, and purpose of God. We must remember that God is revealed in Christ, so when the will of God is that Christ return then Christ shall make the conscious decision to do just that.

102 A similar phrase is applied to Christ in Revelation 17:14 as well, the order is just reversed from, “King of kings and Lord of lords,” to, “Lord of lords and King of kings.”

103 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for Daniel 2:37 104 Nebuchadnezzar is not called lord of lords, but the title lord of lords simply

means ruler of rulers and is therefore similar to king of kings. A ruler is someone in a general position of authority while a king is someone in a specific position of au-thority.

105 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for Matthew 11:14 106 Although future events may not be seen visibly, they can be “seen” by faith,

prophetic revelation, or by vision. (Hebrews 11:13, 27, Revelation 20:11-15, etc.) 107 Jesus is quoting the prophecy text, not identifying himself as the one who

was speaking therein. 108 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for John 12:40 109 Although there are other passages of scripture that speak of God blinding

the minds of the unbelievers, Isaiah 6:9-10 is referring to Christ rather than to God. Nevertheless, it can be said that God blinded the people through Christ’s teachings.

248

Notes

Christ went on to say in John 12:49: “For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.” (John 12:49 NIV) Since God commanded Christ to say what he said, then both Christ and God took part in blinding the eyes of the people.

110 A time is coming when all of the Jews, although they will be a remnant, will understand the truth concerning Christ and accept him as the Messiah (Romans 11:25-26).

111 The quotation from Isaiah 53:1, “To whom is the arm of the LORD re-vealed,” also speaks of how God worked miracles through Christ. See Isaiah 52:10, Luke 11:20, Acts 2:22

112 The oldest manuscripts containing John 12:37-41 (P66 & P75, etc.) say: “These things said Isaiah because ( ) he saw his glory, and spake of him.” (John 12:41) Hence, many of the newer English translations also read, “because he saw his glory,” (NIV, NLT, NASB, RSV, Darby, ASV) rather than, “when he saw his glory” (KJV).

113 Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, entry for 2Corinthians 4:4 114 Justin Martyr, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, pg. 249 [*pg. 115] 115 Origen, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 4, pg. 548 [*pg. 118] 116 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for Revelation 3:9 117 Even though some of the English translations don’t translate the word as

“worship” in some of these verses, it is the same Greek word (in the Septuagint) as is used when referring to the “worship” of God in the New Testament (proskuneo).

118 The NIV Study Bible, note on Acts 10:26 119 By serving one another we are serving God who commands us to do so. 120 Much of this information regarding the Hebrew word shachah has come

from Ronald Day’s online article regarding this subject (reslight.net). 121 Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses,

Harvest House Publishers, 1993, pg.93 122 Some try to disprove the translation, “Thy throne is God,” by pointing to the

fact that there is no word in the Greek text of Hebrews 1:8 that can be translated as “is” (“Thy throne is God”). It is odd, however, that by such an objection they think to advance the alternate translation (“Thy throne, O God, is for ever”) which also re-quires an understood verb that isn’t stated in the corresponding Greek text. Without the inclusion of an understood linking verb, none of the English translations would have any verb at all.

123 Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, entry for Hebrews 1:8

124 He often quotes passages that coincide with the Septuagint text which do not match the reading of the Hebrew text. Example: Deuteronomy 32:43 is quoted in Hebrews 1:6 as it reads in the LXX as opposed to the reading found in the extant Hebrew OT, etc.

125 The reason why Psalms 45 is Psalms 44 in the LXX is because the Septua-gint does not contain Psalms 10.

126 Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses,pg. 96

249


127 The Septuagint with Apocrypha, ed. Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, Hendrickson Publishers, 2001, pg. 724

128 B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1892, pg. 25, 26 129 The Septuagint says “Lord” instead of “God” in Psalms 101:24 (LXX),

agreeing with the quotation found in Hebrews 1:10. 130 This occurs only three times in the entire New Testament: (1) Romans 9:25-

27, where the divergence is the introduction of a new source (from Hosea to Elijah); (2) Romans 9:29, where the divergent statement is “Esias said before”; and (3) He-brews 5:5-6, where the divergent statement is “He saith also in another place.”

131 Jesus said, “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he (the Father) taketh away ... If any man remain not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:2, 6)

132 John Wesley, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, entry for Ezekiel 34

133 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, entry for Psalms 89 (this segment is not found in the Matthew Henry Concise Commentary)

134 The reason why the same promises that God already made to David also ap-ply to Christ in Psalm 89 is because the things that God promised to David were passed on to Christ. A good example of this is found in Acts 13:34-37, where Paul says: “And as concerning that he (God) raised him (Christ) up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.” (Acts 13:34-37) Now the only reason why Paul quoted God’s words, “I will give you the sure mercies of David,” was be-cause he was showing how those things that God promised to David were passed onto Christ. This is similar to how the promises made to Abraham were passed on to Isaac, and to Jacob, and even unto David (Genesis 22:17, 26:4, 28:14, Jeremiah 33:22). So let no man say that God’s promises to David could not be passed on to Christ, because the very opposite of this is true.

135 William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, entry for Israel.136 Orville J. Nave, Nave’s Topical Bible, entry for Ephraim.137 William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, entry for Ephraim138 Albert Barnes, Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, entry for Revelation 3:14 139 ibid., entry for Revelation 1:8 140 None of these things teach Universalism. Any doctrine that says all men

will eventually be saved is false (Matthew 12:31-32, Hebrews 6:4-6, Revelation 14:11, 20:10). “All things” being brought into Christ refers to those things “both which are in heaven, and which are on the earth.” (Ephesians 1:10) Satan and all who sin will be thrown into the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:10, 21:8) and thus they will not have a place in the heaven nor on the earth that is being spo-ken of.

141 The Bible speaks of how a man and a woman will become one flesh (not one spirit or soul), as Jesus said: “He which made them at the beginning made them

250

Notes

male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6) So, Christ says that a man and a woman are no longer two, but one flesh after they are joined. This is not to say that a husband and a wife are no longer distinct from one another, but instead it emphasizes the bond and unionthat exists between the two. In a somewhat similar way, the Bible also says: “What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” (1Corinthians 6:16-17)

142 This is according to the will of God. God’s Spirit operates in each of us as God sees fit. “There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons ... But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” (1Corinthians 12:6, 11)

143 See note #42.

251

Scripture Index Genesis

1:1 38, 221 1:26 661:27 662:7 12 2:24 207 3:8 16 3:19 123:20 576:4 39 18:20 245 19:1 174 22:17 250 23:7, 12 179 26:4 250 27:29 179 28:14 250

Exodus

3:16 213 4:16 150 4:22 25, 203 4:23 204 5:1-3 150 7:1 149 8:25-29 150 11:4-7 204 13:17-18 6414:19 229 20:3, 5 180 24:9-10 152 25:18-20 231 32:8 230 32:34 64 33:11 229 33:12-23 225 34:5-6 228 34:6-8 227 34:14 174, 180

Numbers

12:7 241 12:7-8 229, 230 14:17-18 227 23:19 240, 244

Deuteronomy

4:15-19 230 6:4 149 11:12 31 18:17-19 98, 150 32:3-4 4732:7 39, 40, 240 32:9-12 64 32:18 46 32:43 249 33:27 193

Judges

6:11-18 164 7:19 3113:16-17 165 13:21-22 148, 165

1Samuel

11:8 213 14:4, 22, 33 179 15:17 24715:30 178 16:1 247 24:8 179 25:23 174, 179, 181 25:41 174, 179 27:8 39, 240

2Samuel

6:6 38:4 3

9:6 179 14:4 181 14:22 181 20:1 213 22:11 231 24:13 1

1Kings

12:16 213

1Chronicles

13:9 316:25-26 161 18:4 321:12 129:20 151, 177, 181

2Chronicles

17:2 213 25:6-7 213 25:7 214

Ezra

4:15, 19 39 7:12 140

Job

1:6 72 18:12-13 209 18:12-18 210 18:13 25 22:15 3925:6 244 28:28 221 38:4-7 6438:7 7240:10-19 220

253


Psalms

2:1-8 112 2:7 10216:5 193 16:10 102 22:1-10 95 27:8 7733:13 244 40:6 340:7-8 188 45:2-4 190 45:5-6 191 45:6 188, 19968:18 80 71:3 193, 194 77:20 64 89 250 89:20-27 210 89:27 25, 211 90:1 193 90:4 133 91:1-2, 9 193 102:24 250 102:24-27 196, 199 104:4 195 118:14 194 132:11 75 146:3 244

Proverbs

1:7 221 8:12-31 27 8:21-22 34 8:22 27, 240 8:23 29, 240 8:27-31 65 9:10 221 16:6 243 23:10 39 30:2 190

Ecclesiastes

2:3 244

Isaiah

1:2 47 6:1, 5 152, 154 6:9-10 101, 154, 159,

160, 249 7:8-9 213 7:16 929:6 238 9:7 115 11:12-13 213 12:2 194 13:9 133 14:28-30 212 14:30 25 17:3 213 26:4 193 41:2 140 43:10 21 44:6 2144:6-24 63 44:8 21, 65 44:24 63 45:12 65 49:20-21 50 51:9 3951:12 244 52:10 249 53:1 154, 249 53:2-3 190 53:10 50 55:4 33, 139 58:12 39 61:4 3963:9,11 39 65:17 68, 132 65:17, 25 69

Jeremiah

6:16 397:15 214 18:15 39 23:17, 22 243 27:6-8 140 28:8 39

30:9 211 31:9 25, 213 31:18, 20 213 32:19 244 33:22 250

Ezekiel

1:26-28 153 18:1-4 9218:5-9 9334:23 211 37:24 211

Daniel

2:21 141 2:37 140 2:37-38 141 2:38 140 4:17 141 4:24-25 141 4:31 141 4:36 141 5:7 247 7:9-13 152 7:9-14 158 7:13-14 115, 123, 140 7:14 128 7:18 128 7:27 128 8:17 244

Hosea

1:1 15 3:5 211 4:17 213 5:3, 5 213 6:4, 10 213 8:11 213 11:1 204 12:14 213

254

Scripture Index

Joel

2:31 133

Obadiah

15 133

Jonah

2:6 39

Micah

5:2 38, 39 7:14 39

Zechariah

1:7-9 15

Malachi

3:4 39 4:5-6 148

Matthew

1:1 74 1:2-16 41, 244 2:1-2 175 2:14-15 204 4:8-9 159 4:9 177 4:10 176 5:14 145:34 193 5:44-45 51 6:24 120 10:8 9710:39 108 11:10 237 11:13-14 148 11:27 13, 124 12:26-28 147 12:28 65, 242

12:31-32 250 12:32 14 13:13-15 155, 160 13:27 120 13:40 30 13:49 30 13:54 99 13:57 99 15:27 120 16:13 74 16:23 147 17:5 245 18:26 151, 175, 181 19:4 3819:4-6 207, 251 20:21 138 20:23 139 21:11 9921:30 120 23:9 5023:9-10 134 23:15 51 25:41 251 26:50-56 109 26:53 10926:75 827:46 187, 189 27:63 120 28:18 135

Mark

1:1 31 1:2 237 2:27 603:28 126, 244 4:10-12 156, 160 4:34 156 9:37 145 10:6 238 10:17-20 166 10:18 166 13:19 29, 238 13:32 138 15:34 189

Luke

1:2 33 1:17 148 1:30-35 73 1:31-32 74 1:32-33 115 1:35 711:70 302:11 247 2:52 853:8 88 3:23-38 74 3:38 72, 88 4:18 247 6:1 61 7:16 997:24 237 7:27 237 9:52 237 11:20 65, 242, 249 12:11 216 13:2 5813:23-24 244 13:31-33 99 14:10 5, 151, 173 16:13 120, 135 19:11-18 129 19:33 120 20:20 216 20:36 25 22:28-30 129 22:42 144 22:61 823:50 167 24:19 98

John

1:1 7, 37, 147, 151, 238, 241

1:1-2 71, 217 1:1, 3 38 1:2 17 1:3 55, 56, 58, 60,

242, 243

255


1:9-11 801:10 243 1:11 901:12 801:12-13 53 1:14 80, 83 1:16-18 80 1:18 21, 80, 153 1:21 148 2:11 31, 158, 217 2:19 98, 100 2:22 101 2:23 802:24 101 3:2 157 3:5-8 239, 243 3:13 81, 82, 244 3:13-21 79 3:34 100, 239, 246 3:34-35 236 3:35 135 4:19 99, 121 4:22 174 4:23 177 4:24 187 4:52 435:9 246 5:16-18 168 5:19 145, 170 5:19-20 171 5:21, 26 975:22 124, 135 5:22, 27 126 5:23 163 5:30 98, 125, 145 5:36 238 5:41 164, 165 5:43 245 6:50-51 76 6:51 786:53 796:54 76, 78 6:57-58 78 6:62 80, 82 6:63 796:64 217

6:60 766:66 766:70 147 7:16-17 144 7:37-39 79 8:12 148:15 125 8:16 238 8:17-18 33 8:25 217 8:26 245 8:28 144, 245 8:29 108, 245 8:37 508:38 245 8:39-44 50 8:40 14, 245 8:41 169 8:42 242 8:42-44 169 8:44 217 8:56 509:3-4 168 9:32 3010:11 166 10:11-12 105 10:14-18 106 10:17-18 104 10:18 107 11:4 158 11:40 158 12:17 97 12:21 120, 121 12:25 109 12:33-34 115 12:37-41 80, 154, 249 12:37-43 157, 158 12:38-40 197 12:39-40 101 12:40 160 12:41 154 12:44 145 12:49 99, 249 12:49-50 108, 144 13:3 1714-16 242

14:6 1414:7-9 145 14:9 21, 145 14:10 234, 245 14:16 236 14:23 236 14:24 245 14:26 236 14:28 17015:1-6 208 15:1-8 170 15:2, 6 250 15:10 108, 244 15:19 90 15:26 235, 236 15:27 33, 217 16:4 217 16:14-15 53, 236 16:27 51 16:28 51 16:32 65 17:3 1, 21, 66, 122 17:6 246 17:7-8 242 17:22-23 236 17:23 53 17:26 246 18:37 14 19:36-37 197 20:1-9 8120:15 121 20:17 80, 81

Acts

1:2 125 1:7 138 1:8 13 1:21-22 33 2:22 61, 98, 249 2:25-31 102 2:26-27 103 2:30 742:31-36 113 2:34 802:34-36 247

256

Scripture Index

2:36 123, 135, 139 3:15 103 3:20-26 99, 150 4:10 103 4:24 174:24-28 112 8:32-33 107 10:25-26 176 10:34 187 10:37-38 247 10:40 104 10:42 141 12:5 1713:10 51 13:27-29 112 13:30 104 13:30-35 111 13:33 47, 102, 112,

117 13:34-37 250 13:35-37 102 14:11-15 176 16:16 120 16:19 120 16:30 120 17:30-31 127 17:31 133 20:28 8824:16 17 26:22-23 26 28:25-27 100

Romans

1:3 74 1:3-4 246 1:4 110 1:17 951:20 238 1:28 161 2:4 248 2:14-16 245 2:28-29 205 3:10 243 3:22 963:23 92

3:25 243 5:1 17 5:6 13, 92 5:18-19 94 6:2-6 243 6:15-16 244 6:16 244 6:23 937:9-11 93, 245 8:7-8 117 8:11 104, 111 8:12-14 117 8:13 118, 244 8:14 118 8:15 233 8:19, 20, 21, 22 238 8:23 116 8:26-27 234 8:29 238, 239 8:32 908:38 216 9:20-21 220 9:22 248 9:25-27 250 9:29 250 10:1 1810:9 104, 120 11:8-10 160 11:16-24 208 11:25-26 249 11:36 61 13:1 141 13:14 35 15:9-12 198 15:17 18 15:30 18 16:1 224

1Corinthians

1:9 62 1:24 271:30 272:9-12 103:19-20 198 4:15 48

4:15-16 49 5:5 133 6:5 242 6:15-17 207 6:16-17 78, 234, 251 6:17 235 6:19 245 7:22 136 8:4-6 161, 247 8:5 121 8:6 21, 55, 62, 66,

122, 135 8:29 239 10:13 244 11:3 119 12:13 79 12:27 206 15:8 138 15:15 104 15:17 115 15:20 239 15:20-23 26, 118 15:22 94 15:24 216 15:24-26 130 15:24-28 125, 128 15:27 57, 60, 123,

196 15:42-44 110 15:42-53 26 15:44 247 15:51-54 130

2Corinthians

1:20 206 3:1 224 3:4 18, 95 3:15 148 4:2 224 4:4 19, 66, 145, 146,

159 4:14 104 4:16 765:1-8 12 5:17 69

257


5:19 245 6:16 245 7:11 224 11:4 241 11:13-15 24312:6 251 12:11 224, 251 13:1 3313:4 111 13:7 18

Galatians

1:1 104 2:20 95, 234 3:10-13 93 3:16 75, 205 3:27-28 34 3:27-29 205 4:4 71 4:6 233, 235 4:24-29 205 5:13 178 5:16-21 92 5:17 117 5:19-24 244

Ephesians

1:5 53 1:10 68, 251 1:18 771:20-22 247 1:21 216 2:10 692:18 233 3:5 126, 244 3:10 216 3:12 233 3:16 763:19 224 3:21-22 245 4:3-6 233 4:4-6 135 4:8-10 805:27 134

5:28-32 2075:29-32 77 5:30 78, 244 6:5 120 6:5-9 136 6:9 120 6:12 216 6:13-17 10 6:17 8

Philippians

1:6 133 1:10 133 2:8 94 3:20-21 111 4:6 18 4:9 49

Colossians

1:15 19, 21, 23, 57, 59, 152, 153, 203, 238, 239, 240

1:15-20 223 1:16 56, 67, 216 1:18 25, 34, 118, 238,

239, 240 2:9 224 2:10 216 2:12 104 2:15 216 2:16-17 205 3:9-11 343:22 120 4:1 120, 121

1Thessalonians

1:8 18 1:9 18 1:9-10 104 5:23 11

2Thessalonians

2:3-4 151 2:10-12 160

1Timothy

1:16 248 1:17 21, 152 2:5 13, 124, 235 4:3 29 6:14-15 137 6:15 139 6:15-16 1386:16 21, 152, 153

2Timothy

2:8 74

Titus

3:1 216

Philemon

10 48

Hebrews

1:1 67 1:1-2 100 1:1-14 238 1:2 56, 62 1:3 19, 144, 183 1:5 47, 72, 212 1:5-7 198 1:6 249 1:7-8 195 1:8 184, 2491:8-9 197 1:8-12 199 1:10 38, 250 1:10-12 196 1:13-14 195 2:5 200

258

Scripture Index

2:5-8 196, 201 2:5-9 238 2:8 57, 60 2:10 61, 243 2:11 502:11-13 198 2:14 872:17 18, 76, 117, 1272:18 873:1-2 36, 238 3:2 35, 241 3:14 183 4:15 117, 127 5:1 18 5:5 36, 47 5:5-6 115, 250 5:7 103 5:8-9 94 5:9 244 6:4-6 250 6:20-7:24 427:3 40 7:17-25 115 9:12 899:24 8010:1 205 10:5 3, 83 10:5-7 7110:7 188 10:20 245 10:26-29 244 10:30 198 10:36-37 248 11:6 245 11:13 248 11:27 21, 248 12:26-27 200 12:26-29 201 12:29 187 13:8 4213:12 89 13:16 187

James

1:1 125

1:18 692:19 245 2:24 244 2:25 237

1Peter

1:10-12 246 1:21 95, 104 2:21-22 127 3:4 76 3:6 119 3:22 80

2Peter

1:2 134 1:8 134 1:11 134 1:13-14 12 1:14 135 1:16 135 2:14 243 2:19 243 2:20 132 3:2 132 3:3-4 133 3:4 31, 134 3:8-9 133, 134 3:10 133 3:10-13 68 3:12-14 133 3:15 132 3:15-16 134 3:16 248 3:18 135

1John

1:1 217 1:5 14 1:6 80 1:7 90 1:8 243 2:3-5 244 2:6 96, 127

2:7 217 2:13-14 217 2:24 217 2:29 47, 49, 95 3:2 116 3:5-6 69 3:6-9 244 3:7-10 49, 95, 118 3:8 38, 217 3:9 47, 96, 239, 241,

243 3:11 217 3:16 105 3:17-18 105 3:21 184:2 245 4:7 47 4:9 80 4:12 21, 138, 153,

154, 225 4:17 127 5:1 47, 53, 241 5:4 47 5:6 14 5:9 241 5:13 805:18 47

2John

5-6 217 7 245

3John

11 167

Jude

4 125 6 216

Revelation

1:1 13 1:5 217

259


1:8 217 1:13 822:7 77 3:9 151, 174, 181 3:14 30, 57, 58, 59,

60, 215, 217, 238

3:21 127 4:2-3 153 4:2-5:7 158 4:8-5:7 133 4:11 1315:1, 7 153 6:6-17 133 7:14 120 8:2 130 8:6-9:14 130 10:6 2910:7 130 11:15 130 11:16-18 133 12:5 1813:6 1814:7 3614:11 250 14:14 82 15:4 174 17:14 121, 140, 248 19:10 175, 246 19:13 16 19:13-15 133 19:16 139 20:10 250, 251 20:11-15 248 21:6 217, 218, 241 21:8 5, 251 22:8 174, 175 22:8-9 175 22:13 217, 218, 241

260

restoring the biblical christ (vol.1)

Documents