However, there are many different reasons why people believe that Jesus is YHWH. For instance some note, that some of the same names and titles that are applied to God are also applied to Jesus. Others will turn to the classic “I AM” statement in John 8:58, or to Jesus’ statement in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one,” as proof that Jesus claimed to be YHWH. John 1 is also a common text used to argue that Jesus is YHWH, God incarnate: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…” (John 1:1-2, 14). One might also contend that since Jesus did the works of God–he performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, forgave sinners, and cast out demons–that he must have been God. Surely, it is a closed case: no ordinary human could be called by the titles of God, perform the works of God, and claim to be one with God, so the only possible conclusion is that Jesus is truly YHWH incarnate, the Almighty God made flesh.

Those that believe Jesus is YHWH were right about one thing – no ordinary human could do the things that Jesus did, but then again, Jesus was no ordinary human! However, to understand how Jesus could be called by the titles of the only true God, perform the works of God, and claim to be one with the Father, one must understand Jesus’ role as the servant of YHWH.

Traditionally, Jewish rabbis have believed the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 to be the promised Redeemer, the Messiah. The Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish teachings based on the Hebrew Bible, demonstrates this connection: “‘The Messiah – what is his name?’… And our Rabbis said, ‘the pale one… is his name,’ as it is written ‘Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows – yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted’” (b. Sanh. 98b). Though these Jews did not know the identity of the promised Messiah, it has now become evident that Jesus is the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Peter, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, confirmed this fact when he quoted Isaiah 53:9, as a reference to Jesus, writing: “For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth” (1 Pet 2:21-22). He most certainly recognized that Jesus was YHWH’s servant.

Though Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is perhaps the most familiar reference to the Suffering Servant, there are several other “Suffering Servant Songs” which are found in Isaiah, particularly Isaiah 42, 49, and 50. These Suffering Servant Songs are of immeasurable consequence for those who believe that Jesus is YHWH, for they clearly demonstrate that YHWH’s Servant is a separate person from YHWH Himself. In the Songs, YHWH’s Servant says of himself that “Yahweh…formed me in the womb to be his servant…” and “…called me when I was in the womb” (Is 49:1,5) Furthermore, YHWH has empowered His Servant by His spirit and declares that through His Servant He will manifest His glory (Is 42:1, 49:3).  This Servant is addressed by YHWH, given tasks to accomplish by YHWH, and is upheld and helped by YHWH (Is 42:5-7, 49:7, 50:7,9). He was given a “disciple’s tongue” by YHWH and He “opened” his ear (Is 50:4-5). Isaiah writes that YHWH’s Servant was thought to be “struck with affliction by God,” for “Yahweh brought the acts of rebellion of all of us to bear on him” for “it was Yahweh’s good pleasure to crush him with pain” so that “through him Yahweh’s good pleasure will be done” (Is 53:4,6,10). These verses demonstrate that YHWH’s servant is not YHWH Himself, but rather “Yahweh’s arm” – His agent through which He is accomplishing His will (Is 53:1).

Not only is it revealed that YHWH’s Servant is a separate individual from YHWH Himself, but also that YHWH’s servant has a God – a fact which strikes a devastating blow to the belief that Jesus, the Suffering Servant, is God, YHWH incarnate. In Isaiah 49:4-5, the Servant relates his frustration over the seeming futility of his work, but expresses his trust in his God, YHWH:

“…Yet all the while my cause was with Yahweh and my reward with my God. And now Yahweh has spoken, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him and to re-unite Israel to him;-I shall be honoured in Yahweh’s eyes, and my God has been my strength…” (Is 49:4-5).

The facts are inescapable: this Servant, who been identified as Jesus the Messiah, has a God whose name is YHWH. Therefore, Jesus is certainly not God, and he is certainly not YHWH! It cannot be made anymore plain: The one sent is not the sender, and if the sender is YHWH, the one sent is not YHWH.

These conclusions are consistent with New Testament evidence as well, in particular the words of Jesus. Jesus makes a distinction between the person of YHWH, his Father, and himself in his prayer in John 17:3, where he says: “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent–Jesus Christ.” In this verse, Jesus acknowledges the Father, YHWH, as the only true God and Jesus as the one whom He has sent. Furthermore, Jesus affirms that he has a God, not once but several times in the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. He says that he has the same God and Father as the Jewish woman, Mary Magdalene: “‘Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God’” (John 20:17). This evidence presents a solid case against the belief that Jesus is YHWH, the Lord God Almighty.

But how then, if Jesus was not YHWH, was he able to speak as God, be called by the same titles as YHWH, and perform the works of God? To understand this, one must also be familiar with the Hebraic concept of agency. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion says the following about the law of agency:

“Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, ‘a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself’ (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability.”[2]

Therefore, an agent sent in the name of his master was to be received as the master himself, as though it were the master himself who was speaking and acting. Aubrey Johnson, author of The One and Many in the Israelite Conception of God, clarifies this concept:

“In Hebrew thought a patriarch’s personality extended through his entire household to his wives, his sons and their wives, his daughters, servants in his household and even in some sense his property…In a specialized sense when the patriarch as lord of his household deputized his trusted servant as his malak (his messenger or angel) the man was endowed with the authority and resources of his lord to represent him fully and transact business in his name. In Semitic thought this messenger-representative was conceived of as being personally – and in his very words – the presence of the sender.”[3]

It is from this Jewish perspective that one must understand Jesus, the man who “comes in the name of the LORD” whom God sent to accomplish His works.

As God’s agent, Jesus is authorized to share some of the same titles as YHWH, though not all. In Isaiah 45:21, YHWH says “…there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none except Me.” Without an understanding of the law of agency, it is easy to see why one might be tempted to believe that Jesus is YHWH. Both Isaiah and many of the New Testament writers refer to God as the only Savior. Jesus Christ is also frequently referred to as our Savior in the New Testament. Therefore it is reasoned that since there is only one Savior, it is Jesus Christ and he is God. However, Acts 13:23 clarifies the whole matter, for it declares that “…according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus.” So clearly it may be seen that Jesus is given the title “Savior,” not because he is the Almighty God, YHWH, but rather because he is the agent through whom God is accomplishing His salvation. It is in this light, that the names and titles that are shared by both Jesus and YHWH must be understood.

Jesus’ authoritative words and miraculous works must also be understood in light of the Jewish concept of agency. As the agent or servant of YHWH, Jesus was given the authority and power of his Father, YHWH, to speak and act in His name. This is in accordance with the prophecy given to Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18, where YHWH says to Moses: “I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” Jesus is identified as this prophet in Acts 3:22. Jesus himself claims “…I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak” and “…the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish — the very works that I do –testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 12:49, 5:36). He also admits that “the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19). This is why Jesus’ statement “…He who has seen Me has seen the Father…” was not a claim to be YHWH incarnate. Instead, it showed that Jesus clearly understood his role YHWH’s Servant, by speaking and acting as God as His representative, just like Moses was God’s agent and acted “as God” to Pharaoh in Exodus 7:1 (John 14:19). It is for this reason that Jesus could claim that “I and the Father are one,” for he was one with the Father in the sense that both he and the Father worked as a unit with the same purposes and goals in mind.[4]

The Scriptures are unmistakably clear: YHWH is the only true God and Jesus Christ is YHWH’s Servant, the Messiah. If one is to acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah, it is impossible to then say that Jesus is YHWH, for the two are mutually exclusive. According to its biblical usage, one may use the title messiah, literally meaning “anointed one,” to refer to a prophet, a priest or a king who was consecrated for service to God.[5] As author Greg Deuble notes, “The Hebrews believed that when God anointed that person, he or she was equipped to do God’s work because he/she received a measure of the Holy Spirit…There is no hint that the title messiah designates the Deity. To be messiah is to be an agent of the one God.”[6] Therefore, since Jesus is identified as the Messiah, the Servant of YHWH, Jesus is not YHWH. YHWH, who is recognized by Isaiah as “our Father,” definitively says of Himself: “I am Yahweh, and there is no other; there is no God but Me” (Is 63:16, 45:5). It is time that we return to this simple truth.

” Dear —-,

Just finished up my evangelism class last week, and it has really got me realizing the seriousness of the things that God has said and how unprepared the Episcopal Church had left me, and I presume you and M— as well. It seems to me that it is easy to have a false assurance of salvation in that church, because of certain doctrines and practices they uphold. For instance, the church practices infant baptism. This practice usually connotes that an infant is eternally saved and a part of the church after they are dunked in water. However, the Bible does not support this notion. In the Bible, one is only baptized after repenting of their sin and believing the gospel message about the kingdom of God, Jesus’ atoning death, and his resurrection. It is only after believing Jesus’ gospel message and responding to it by obedient faith that one receives forgiveness of sin, the gift of the holy spirit, and reconciliation with God. Baptism then, is response of faith to the gospel message (and a command from Jesus for all those who believe); the mere act is not a source of salvation by works. In other words it requires an intelligent confession of faith and repentance from our sin.  Baptism symbolizes the believer dying to his old self, his sinful ways, and being spiritually reborn as a child of God. So infant baptism clearly isn’t biblical, and I am concerned because it can lead to a false assurance of salvation by nullifying the necessity of personal repentance, belief in the gospel message, and obedience to Jesus as spelled out in the Bible.

Another thing that I don’t think is wholly made clear, at least from my limited recollection, is the idea that faithfully going to church and “being a good person” will not be enough when we stand before a just and holy God on judgment day. Just think of a person who has been caught in the act of robbery and is being brought before the court. They are standing in front of the judge, who asks him if he has anything to stay for himself. So they robber says, “Judge, I know that I robbed a bank but I really am a good person so you should let me go. I tithe my earnings faithfully and have gone to church every week. Really, I am a good person.” But is the judge going to let the robber off the hook? No! Any human court would send that robber to prison for his crime, regardless of the good things he had done. And that’s the way that it will be before God, for God is just and holy. We cannot stand on our own good deeds, we are being tried for our rebellion against Him! All the good works in the world cannot eliminate our sin.

So then, if our good works, our righteousness is considered as “filthy rags” before God, how can we be made right with Him? Fortunately God, in His great love for us has made a way for us to be reconciled to Him. We can be reborn again spiritually through the gospel. You know that part of the gospel, namely that Jesus died and took the punishment for our sins so that we could be cleansed from our unrighteousness. He made us righteous, reconciled to God.  But the other part of the gospel seems to be lacking, the gospel of the kingdom. During his ministry Jesus proclaimed the message of the coming kingdom of God and gave people a “taste” of the kingdom through the miracles, healings, and exorcisms he performed. The kingdom of God concept has its roots in the Old Testament. It is the restoration of the world to the way God intended it to be, just like in the beginning of the Bible. In the beginning, God created mankind to dwell with him and reign over the earth. But mankind rebelled and was separated from God. But God set in motion a plan of redemption for mankind and a plan for the restoration of the earth, which is being fulfilled and will be fulfilled through Jesus. His sacrificial death has cleansed us from our sin so that we might have entrance into the kingdom of God, for no one unclean or sinful may enter in. But this isn’t the end of the story. Jesus will be coming back on the Day of the LORD and all of those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of His Son will be destroyed. Those who believed the gospel and obeyed Jesus will be raised from the dead, just as Jesus was! Jesus will then establish his kingdom on the earth and will rule the world as God’s anointed King, with justice and righteousness. Jesus’ follower’s will reign with him and be kings and priests to God. After a millennium, Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire never to be released again, and the kingdom will be handed over to God. In God’s kingdom there will be no more pain, death, or sorrow. There will be peace, righteousness, and justice throughout the world. And God will dwell with his people forever. What a wonderful future for God’s children.

Jesus calls us to live our lives in light of this coming kingdom of God. By believing his gospel message, we are swearing our allegiance to God, through Jesus our King. And this requires living out a life of obedience to God. We are to learn Jesus’ commands and live them out in our daily lives. The Bible says in Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” So this is a serious matter! We must learn what the will of God is, and do it! Hebrews 5:9 says that Jesus “became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.” Eternal life is a gift to those who obey Jesus. That is why we really do need to follow Jesus, learn what he said, and do it.

God desires that we come to know Him and have an intimate relationship with Him because He loves us so much. We are literally, in His eyes, to die for. Jesus knew God as “Abba” or “Daddy,” and God wants us to have that same kind of intimate relationship with Him. And we can. Through the blood of Jesus, we are made right with God. We then can come to God and get to know Him through prayer and studying and our everyday life experiences. He wants us to be alive to Him in every aspect of our lives, to love Him and be loved by Him. He wants to be our Dad. So I just wanted to encourage you to seek to know Him more intimately, for He says that when we search for Him with all of our heart, all of our being, that we will find Him. God wants us to find Him. And I want to encourage you to follow Jesus and apply his teachings to your life, because it is only in him that we have eternal life.

Hope you’ve enjoyed just a taste of what I’ve been studying!

Love,

Beth

According to the Hebrew prophets, one day the God of heaven will set up a kingdom on this world, restoring it back to its original glory. Instead of shucking off the body like a husk so the soul can ascend, the biblical teaching about humanity’s destiny is rather fleshy. God designed humans to live on earth in the beginning, and he will resurrect his people on the last day, healing them of all their ailments and imparting to them immortality. The picture is a beautiful one, with people living in peace, confidently planting and harvesting without fear of intruders. Rather than rampant economic injustice, one will wear out the work of his own hands. This grand age is to begin with a banquet at which the resurrected saints will enjoy fine wine and rich meat, celebrating the victory of God. Although this terrestrial hope coursed through the veins of Jews for centuries, it had reached a fever pitch by the time of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, he based his entire ministry on the proclamation and enactment of the coming of God’s kingdom.

However, as Christianity spread outside the borders of Judea and the Galilee, it encountered people for whom this kingdom idea was quite foreign. As more and more Gentiles came into the faith, suspicions about living in a resurrected body forever manifested in cities like Corinth and Colossae. By the second century, many converts brought their ascetic idealism into the faith and the result was a general disparaging of the body and especially bodily pleasures. Over time, as high powered intellectuals like Origen and Augustine worked to synthesize biblical theology with the philosophy of their own time, the kingdom and resurrection were reimagined along more “spiritual” lines of thought. However, many Christians like Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Victorinus, and Lactantius—just to name a few—retained their faith in a this-worldly hope. The battle waged for centuries until finally the old millenarian hope fell by the way side and a heavenly disembodied eschaton took its place.

In what follows I intend to trace this development to some degree. I begin by establishing the biblical teaching about bodily pleasure before showing that many Christians rebuffed the kingdom gospel as hedonistic. In order to better grasp the wild world of ascetic idealism, I briefly survey philosophical thought about the body from Plato to Porphyry. This cultural back drop is important to understand why Christianity took an ascetic turn in the early Christian era. Lastly I show how the anti-pleasure bias of the age resulted in the rejection of the kingdom of God idea before making some concluding remarks about how this all relates to us today.

Garden of Pleasure
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and put the two first humans in a garden. After surveying his creation and declaring it good repeatedly, the first fact that displeased God was that Adam was alone. “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen 2.18). Once the Lord formed Eve and Adam calls her “woman,” the Genesis narrative states:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (Gen 2.25).

God’s mandates in the Garden of Eden (Eden means pleasure, by the way) were not “remain celibate,” “eat only tasteless grains,” and “submit.” Rather, God’s commands were “be fruitful” “eat freely,” and “have dominion.” God so loved his first two humans that he wanted them to reproduce and fill the new world with many more people. The earth was not an exercise in testing people for some other realm, but a home for his own crowning achievements to delight in and rule over. Although he forbade eating from one tree in the garden, the rest of them were for their enjoyment—their pleasure.

The God of Genesis is more an Epicurean than a Stoic. He does not design bodies without pleasure sensors, but instead squeezes onto the human tongue 10,000 taste buds. He does not make reproduction an onerous or bland affair, but loads human genitals with thousands of erotogenic nerve endings. In his extravagant kindness, he engineered eating and intercourse to give us pleasure and then commanded his first two humans to engage in both. It’s no wonder the first two chapters of Genesis declare creation “good” seven times over. The second chapter of the Bible concludes with two humans, in a garden of Pleasure, totally naked, who are commanded to have sex, eat fruit, and rule the world.

Not only does God’s design of the body shout to us that he engineered us to experience pleasure, but the Law he gave Israel on Sinai likewise indicates his penchant for enjoyment. Consider the holy days built into the Law of Moses: the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Although the Day of Atonement was a single day of fasting and repentance, the rest of these were multi-day celebrations or festivals. The Feast of Unleavened bread followed on the heels of the Passover meal when families roasted lambs, enjoyed wine, and told stories of God’s deliverance from Egypt. The rule for the rest of the week was no working other than preparing food. The Feast of Weeks commemorated the first fruits of the harvest. According to the Mishnah the festival was “accompanied by a large celebration, in which pilgrims gather in the towns of their district and go as a group with their ripe produce to Jerusalem. There they are greeted by Levitical singing and celebration.”¹ The Law of Moses was for an agrarian society, and built into the rhythm of the farmer’s calendar times of worship that coincided with times of rejoicing. Although sometimes Christian misinterpret the Law as some terrible straightjacket strapped onto the people of God until Christ could free them from it, in reality, it was a way God provided to connect with him by taking time out from the monotony of their toil. In antiquity most people worked every day, but God’s chosen ones worked only six days a week. The seventh day they took off to rest and enjoy the fact that they were no longer slaves in Egypt when they had to labor relentlessly. The Sabbath was a day separated off from the rest of the week to take a break and connect to the Creator.

Beyond the created order and the holy days instituted in the Mosaic Law, the Scriptures contain quite a few statements endorsing pleasure. Although the Bible is sometimes stereotyped as prudish or anti-sex, it does not shy away from the topic, nor does it prohibit physical pleasures. The following texts ably illustrate this point:

Prov. 5:18-19 Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. May her breasts satisfy you at all times; may you be intoxicated always by her love.

Eccl. 9:7-9 7 Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has long ago approved what you do. 8 Let your garments always be white; do not let oil be lacking on your head. 9 Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that are given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun.

Eccl. 3:12-13 12 I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long as they live; 13 moreover, it is God’s gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil.

Sex, eating, drinking, and work are for our pleasure. Proverbs encourages young married couples to enjoy each other’s bodies. After all, finding a wife is not a curse, but a gift from God (Prov 18.22). Far from forbidding alcohol, Ecclesiastes flatly affirms the goodness of drinking alcohol and eating food. Furthermore, it shows that even work itself is good: “It is God’s gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil” (Ecc 3.13; see also 8.15). The Law of Moses, once again, bears out these facts when it legislated the rules for military participation. The first year of marriage qualified a soldier for exemption from service, so that he may “be happy with the wife whom he has married” (Deut 24.5). Furthermore, if someone had just planted a vineyard he was likewise excused from duty until he could enjoy its fruit (Deut 20.6). Wealth itself is not seen as inherently evil, but a blessing from God (Ecc 5.18-19). Even in the coming age, Isaiah speaks about a banquet involving fine wine and prime meat (Is 25.6; see also Mat 8.11; 13.29).

Perhaps the best book to look at on the subject of pleasure is the Song of Solomon. This elaborate collection of poems brims with sexual imagery. It does not disparage but extols sexual union and all the attendant buildup leading up to it. The book opens up unapologetically with the words, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine” (Song 1.2). For the author wine is an obvious good, but the kisses of his lover are better still. By the time we reach the fourth verse we read, “Draw me after you, let us make haste. The king has brought me into his chambers” (Song 1.4).

In one riveting scene, the woman awakes in the middle of the night with an intense desire to find her lover. She gets out of bed and begins searching through the city streets and squares. She encounters the night watchmen and inquires where he might be, but they are no help.

“Scarcely had I left them when I found him whom my soul loves; I held on to him and would not let him go until I had brought him to my mother’s house, and into the room of her who conceived me” (Song 3.4).

Later on we encounter romantic poetic descriptions of Solomon’s lover.

Song 7.7-12
You are stately as a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
I say I will climb the palm tree
and lay hold of its branches.
Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,
and the scent of your breath like apples,
and your kisses like the best wine
that goes down smoothly,
gliding over lips and teeth.

I am my beloved’s,
and his desire is for me.
Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the fields,
and lodge in the villages;
let us go out early to the vineyards,
and see whether the vines have budded,
whether the grape blossoms have opened
and the pomegranates are in bloom.
There I will give you my love.

Such words as these would never be allowed in a Bible that was at its core against pleasure. Throughout the Bible marriage is the norm. Sure eunuchs and prophets like John the Babptist remained celibate, but these are exceptions not the rule. The Bible celebrates weddings right from creation onwards. When Jesus went to a wedding they ran out of wine. Rather than scolding them for their merriment, Jesus turned 120 gallons of water into wine—not just any wine—quality wine (John 2.1-11). Even so, the Bible does place clear boundaries on bodily pleasures. Sex is limited to the marriage bed; eating is regulated by bodily needs; alcohol is consumed in moderation. Take any of these outside of their boundaries and we fall into adultery, gluttony, and drunkenness. Thus, unlike bacchic hedonism or the lechery of Mardi Gras, God reigns in the pleasures his people should indulge in to safeguard from ruin. Many Scriptures² convey the importance of restraining the flesh from its lustful drive, but too often these New Testament texts are taken to the extreme of asceticism. When members of the church at Colossae fell into asceticism, Paul corrected them with the following words:

Col. 2:18-23 18 Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling on visions, puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God. 20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”? 22 All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence.

Furthermore, when some Christians in Corinth likewise began advocating celibacy, even within marriage, the apostle addressed them as follows:

1 Cor. 7:1-5 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Paul takes for granted that people are sexual beings who will fall into illicit behaviors if they cannot enjoy sex within marriage.

Now that we have seen some of the biblical evidence for this important subject we turn now to see how some Christians in the first few centuries of Christianity criticized other Christ-followers for holding to a kingdom hope. Interestingly, these verbal assaults found their strength in the claim that kingdom believers were really hedonists in disguise whose wanton fleshly passions determined their eschatology.

Millenarianism Considered Hedonistic
Anti-millenarian writers often attacked their opponents on the charge of hedonism. One of the earliest apologists for a celestial eschatology was the early second century writer Gaius. According to Eusebius, Gaius accused Cerinthus of writing the biblical book of Revelation in order to promote his own crass theology.³ Gaius was appalled at Cerinthus’ belief “that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be on earth and that again the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will be subject to desires and pleasures” (H.E. 3.28). Note his subtle polemic interlaced with his description of Cerinthus. He chooses “flesh” rather than “body,” and he devalues it by noting how “it will be subject to desires and pleasures.” He goes on to call Cerinthus “an enemy of the Scriptures” for his deceptive belief that “the period of the marriage feast will be a thousand years.” Although Cerinthus remains somewhat of an enigma for patristic scholars, my interest here is not what he believed, but rather how Gaius combatted his apparent millenarianism. For Gaius, the jugular vein of Cerinthus’ eschatology was hedonism.

A century later, Origen likewise took great offense at the idea of experiencing bodily pleasure in the eschaton. “The Christianity of Origen’s time,” Trigg points out, “taught its followers to despise the fundamental cravings for comfort, sex, and the continuation of life itself that tie us to the world.”⁴ Origen, himself an ascetic, had no tolerance for pleasure seekers. He wrote the following while describing the nature of eternal life:
Now some men, who reject the labour of thinking and seek after the outward and literal meaning of the law, or rather give way to their own desires and lusts, disciples of the mere letter, consider that the promises of the future are to be looked for in the form of pleasure and bodily luxury. And chiefly on this account they desire after the resurrection to have flesh of such a sort that they will never lack the power to eat and drink and to do all things that pertain to flesh and blood, not following the teaching of the apostle Paul about the resurrection of a ‘spiritual body’. Consequently they go on to say that even after the resurrection there will be engagements to marry and the procreation of children, for they picture to themselves the earthly city of Jerusalem. (Princ. 2.11.1-2).⁵

Origen’s polemic flouted millenarianism because it appeared hedonistic, a notion unworthy of God. In essence he accused those who believed in an earthly embodied eschatology of theological Epicureanism.

A generation later, Origen’s admirer, Bishop Dionysius, also opposed a physical hope. Like Gaius before him, Dionysius attacked Cerinthus on the charge of eschatological hedonism. According to Eusebius, Dionysius criticized Cerinthus for believing:

the kingdom of Christ would be on the earth, and he dreamed that it would be made up of those things which he himself desired—since he was a lover of the body and quite carnal—the full satisfaction of the belly and of things below the belly, that is, feasts and drinking bouts and marriages, and, as a means of providing these under a better name, festivals and sacrifices and slaying of victims. (H.E. 7.25)

Again, whether or not Cerinthus actually believed any of this is not germane to our present inquiry, I am interested in how Dionysius refuted Cerinthus’ millenarianism. He equated desire with loving the body and carnality. As with Gaius and Origen, Dionysius fixated on eating, drinking, and sex as seriously objectionable activities that obviously (at least to him) had no place in the Christian’s final destiny.

Jerome, the early fifth century polemicist par excellence, likewise added his voice in opposition to the millenarians. After noting some of the well-known Christians who held to this perspective including Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius, and Irenaeus, he went on to express some concern about how his spiritual interpretation of Revelation would be received since “a great multitude” both of Apolinnarians and Catholics held to a more literal interpretation. Jerome knew that “the anger of many will be aroused” against him and needed to make as strong of a case as possible. After mentioning Dionysius refutation, “mocking the tale of the millennium,” he ridiculed the belief himself by carefully calling attention to unpalatable millenarian elements (Commentary to Isaiah, Prologue to Book 18).⁶ He concluded by writing, “I do not envy them, if they love the earth so much, that they desire earthly things in the kingdom of Christ, and if after an abundance of foods and the gluttony of their gullet and belly, they seek that which is below the belly” (ibid.). His polemic ends with his strongest point: millenarians are motivated by hedonism as symbolized by their belly and what is below the belly.

Augustine, who, as I have already mentioned had been a chiliast in his early years, noted in his City of God why their view was objectionable:

But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of meat and drink such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal. They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians (City of God 20.7.1).

Once again, as we have seen repeatedly, the “spiritual” rejected the “carnal” on the basis of hedonism, typically construed of in terms of bodily pleasures like eating and drinking. In this regard, Augustine himself was heir to a long tradition that had already developed this notion considerably.

In order to understand why the millenarian notion of an embodied enjoyment of earthly pleasures so grated on these Christian authors, we must first observe how educated people in antiquity thought about the body in general and bodily pleasures in particular.

Standard Anthropology Privileged Asceticism
As with universe, so with the body, Plato played a massively influential role in setting the intellectual climate for discussions about anthropology in the imperial period. Although he does speak positively about the body in the Timaeus, he does so in a restrained manner owing to the body’s participation in this lower realm of transience. Nevertheless, he calls the stomach, “a creature which, though savage, they must necessarily keep joined to the rest and feed,” though it is “housed as far away as possible from the counseling part, and creating the least possible turmoil and din,” so that the head can “take counsel in peace” (Tim. 70e).⁷ Plato’s most devastating critique of the body, however, is in his Phaedo, the account of Socrates last moments before death.⁸ At a certain moment Socrates asks if a philosopher ought to care for various pleasures including eating and drinking, costly raiment, and bodily adornments. His interlocutor, Simmias, unequivocally replies in the negative. A true philosopher despises “anything more than nature needs” and should be “entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body” endeavoring as much as possible “to be quit of the body and turn to the soul” (Phaedo 64d-e, henceforth Phd.). One should not fear death, which is merely the separation of the soul from the body, but embrace it since it is the means by which one finally gains freedom (Phd. 64c). The body is imperfect and contaminated since it constantly “provides us with innumerable distractions in the pursuit of its necessary sustenance” (Phd. 66b). It constantly prevents philosophers from accomplishing much meaningful contemplation because it is always “interrupting, disturbing, distracting, and preventing us from getting a glimpse of the truth” (Phd. 66d). Furthermore, it fills with “loves and desires and fears” so that “we literally never get an opportunity to think at all about anything” (Phd. 66c). He even went so far as to blame the body for armed conflict since wars are undertaken to acquire wealth the only use for which relates to the body. Until the time of death we should “instead of allowing ourselves to become infected with its nature, purify ourselves…by keeping ourselves uncontaminated by the follies of the body” (Phd. 67a). Thus, the true seeker of wisdom should undergo a “purification” by which one isolates the soul, endeavoring to be “freed from the chains of our body” in anticipation of death (Phd. 67c).

Philo likewise disparaged the body, considering it a major impediment to clear thinking. According to him, the human mind “is entangled among and embarrassed by so great a multitude of the external senses” (Laws 4.188).⁹ These distractors do not aid contemplation but instead “seduce and deceive it by false opinions.” He called the body a tomb for the soul and compared the stomach to swine (Laws 1.148). In his book, On the Contemplative Life, Philo describes a community of ascetics called the Therapeutae who live simply, spend all day in the training (ἄσκησις) of philosophy, and allegorize Scripture. By observing how Philo portrayed this idealized community we gain insight into his view of the body and bodily pleasure. These ascetic champions remain in isolation for six days of the week and come together for a modest gathering only on the Sabbath. “None of them would touch food or drink before sunset” since such matters belong to the body and are not worthy of daylight (On the Contemplative Life 4.34).¹⁰ Some of them become so transfixed in contemplation that they transcend their corporeal limitations, going up to three days forgetting to eat. When they do eat they consume “only plain bread, with salt as seasoning” and “their drink is spring water” (ibid., 4.37). At their banquets, “wine is not brought in …but only the clearest water” along with “loaves of wheaten bread, seasoned with salt” since “wine is a drug of madness, and costly meat inflames the most insatiable of wild beasts, desire” (ibid., 9.73-74). Philo’s influence on Christianity is well-known, but what is less known is that Eusebius was so impressed by Philo’s Thereapeutae that he wrote a lengthy apology, defending that they were early Christians (H.E. 2.17). His proof was grounded in the fact that they were ascetics, which for Eusebius was incontrovertible evidence that they followed “the customs handed down from the beginning by the apostles” (H.E. 2.17.24).

In the first century, the Cynic Pseudo-Crates advised his disciples, “Practice [ασκέω] needing little, for this is nearest to God…”¹¹ Pseudo-Diogenes in an epistle urged a follower, “But you, continue in your training [ἄσκησις], just as you began it, and be eager to oppose in equal measure pleasure and toil…”¹² Odysseus, in contrast to Diogenes, “succumbed to sleep as well as food.”¹³ Writing in the latter half of the first century, Musonius Rufus (as reported by Lucius) advised training (ἄσκησις) the body and soul to “adapt to cold, heat, thirst, hunger, plain food, a hard bed, abstinence from pleasure, and endurance of strenuous labor.”¹⁴ In so doing the body is hardened and the soul is trained “by abstinence from pleasure toward self-control.”¹⁵

Second century sensibilities were little different in this regard. For example, Celsus, in his True Doctrine, railed on the Christians, deriding their belief that some “will arise from the earth clothed with the self-same flesh” as a hope “which might be cherished by worms.” Celsus was befuddled by the notion that “a human soul…would still long for a body that had been subject to corruption.” “Dead bodies” he wrote, are “more worthless than dung.” The flesh “is full of those things which it is not even honourable to mention” and so to assert that God would re-embody departed souls is beyond foolish since it blasphemes God by applying an action to him that is “contrary to all reason” and thus “contrary to himself” (Against Celsus 5.14).¹⁶ In addition the Gnostics denigrated the body. According to Layton, they called the body a bond, bondage, a fetter, and a prison of the soul, which it merely wore as a garment. Layton writes, “The realm of matter, to which the body belongs and to which it will return, is ‘shadow,’ a ‘cave,’ a realm of ‘sleep.’”¹⁷

In the third century, Plotinus, himself not a thoroughgoing ascetic, retained a dubious attitude toward the body. According to his biographer, Porphyry, he was ashamed to be in the flesh and refused to speak about his ancestors, his homeland, or even sit for a painter or sculptor (Life of Plotinus 1). For Plotinus, the soul was “essentially a stranger” to the body that needed to be purified by being alone without looking to external realities. Instead it should turn away from entertaining alien thoughts “towards the exact contrary of earthly things” (En. 3.6.5). The soul is by nature “bound to the flesh by the chains of sensuality and of multiplicity” and must subdue the body (ibid.). In fact, “The understanding of beauty is not given except to a nature scorning the delight of the body” (En. 2.9.15). For Plotinus, the emotion of anger was tied to the body not the soul and resulted from an unbalanced physiology that produced too much bile and blood (En. 4.4.28). Desire causes the person “whether it resists or follows and procures” to be “necessarily thrown out of equilibrium” (En. 4.4.17). This same “disturbance” is likewise caused by “the needs of the body.” The task of reasoning and intellect “is not accomplished by means of the body which in fact is detrimental to any thinking on which it is allowed to intrude” (En. 4.2.19). The virtuous soul should never allow “the passions of the body to affect it” (En. 1.2.3).

Plotinus’ student, Porphyry of Tyre, who lived into the early fourth century, also lauded the ascetic ideal. His desire, according to Anitra Kolenkow, “is to endure events of the day, dissolve the perturbations of the soul, and realize fidelity and constancy of friendship..living with frugality—no wine, little food, small, hard bed, little sleep…to allow the ascent of the soul.”¹⁸ In commenting on those who make a fuss about what is proper to eat, Porphyry, the vegetarian, retorts, “if it were possible, we should abstain from all food,” but since it is not we should content ourselves, “granting to nature what is necessary, and this of a light quality.” Through strict moderation, eating “more slender food” one will be able to “reject whatever exceeds this, as only contributing to pleasure” (On Abstinence from Animal Food 1.38).¹⁹ Referencing Plato, Porphyry called sense-perception “a nail by which the soul is fastened to bodies, through the agglutination of the passions, and the enjoyment of corporeal delight” (ibid.). In contrast the soul is “pure energy” impeded whose embodiment he called “a thing of a dire nature” (ibid.).

Of course, examples of a general trend towards asceticism could easily be multiplied ad nauseum by looking at the Neo-Pythagoreans, the Stoa, and many other eclectic philosophers that flourished in the Roman empire. Furthermore, “In Greek and Latin Christianity,” Vincent Wimbush points out, “long before the beginnings of communal monasticism in the early fourth century, many held renunciation of sexual relations and abstemiousness in food, drink, and sleep as ideals.”²⁰ In fact, one early critic of Christianity, Galen the physician, wrote,

For they include not only men but also women who refrain from cohabiting all through their lives; and they also number individuals who, in self-discipline and self-control in matters of food and drink, and in their keen pursuit of justice, have attained a pitch not inferior to that of genuine philosophers.²¹

Examples of Christian asceticism are plenteous and generally well-known. Second century documents like, The Proto-Gospel of James and The Acts of Thecla, and The Acts of John are rife with what Bart Ehrman calls, a “[r]azor-sharp…contrast between ascetic virtue and lustful vice.”²² Furthermore the apologists like Athenagoras and Justin Martyr were quick to point out how many Christian women and men committed themselves to lifelong celibacy.²³

Another important example is the late second century theologian, Clement of Alexandria, because he appears to be a moderate in that he fought against both hedonism and extreme asceticism.²⁴ Perhaps his view is best summed up with the words:

“We must aim for moderation in all things…in every thing and every place we should not live for pleasure nor for immorality; neither should we go to the other extreme. We should, instead, choose a course of life in between, well-balanced, temperate, and free from either evil: extravagance or parsimony” (Educator 3.10, henceforth Ed.)²⁵

He admires “those who have adopted an austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine of temperance, and flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the danger of fire” (Ed. 2.2). Although he approves sexual intercourse within marriage, he is careful to say, “Pleasure sought for its own sake, even within the marriage bonds, is a sin and contrary both to law and to reason” (Ed. 2.10).²⁶ In his more esoteric work, Stromateis, Clement says a Christian “tastes not the good things that are in the world, entertaining a noble contempt for all things here” (Stromateis 7.12).²⁷ He despises all money and dominion and “hates the inordinate affections of the flesh, which possess the powerful spell of pleasure.” One should hold a “noble contempt” for “all that belongs to the creation and nutriment of the flesh” (ibid.)²⁸. In short, his view is summarized nicely in the statement, “It is absolutely impossible at the same time to be a man of understanding and not to be ashamed to gratify the body” (Stromateis 3.43).

It is hard to disagree with James Goehring when he says, “The ascetic ideal, to varying degrees, was part of most early Christian theology.”²⁹ The third and fourth centuries boast many ascetics like Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome just to name a few, not to mention the explosion of desert fathers and mothers like Anthony. My goal here is not to survey the entire patristic period on their view of the body and asceticism, but merely to demonstrate that the body was suspect owing to its susceptibility to desire and therefore was to be controlled and subdued so as to avoid hedonism at all costs. This sentiment was common in the Greco-Roman world and thus was the default mind-set for educated Christians and non-Christians alike. This created a general sense among Christians in the Roman Empire that pleasure should be shunned in favor of asceticism, even if most did not pursue strict asceticism.

Asceticism Resulted in Rejecting the Kingdom
Although Christians tended to have a higher view of the body than their elite pagan contemporaries (owing to their belief in the resurrection), they remained suspicious of bodily pleasure, especially eating, drinking, and sexual relations (even within a monogamous marriage). This all relates to eschatology because the end one hopes for is usually tied to one’s ideals in the present. So Christians like Origen, who limited his sleep, refused to use a bed, endured extreme poverty, walked without shoes, etc., and Jerome who thought the only benefit of marriage was the production of more virgins,³⁰ found the millenarian hope, which featured a messianic banquet replete with choice pieces of meat and refined wine, singularly unpalatable. No, the ideal instead, was a radically reconfigured resurrection body, completely impervious to fleshly and carnal desires.

Christians took a variety of strategies to deal with what Georges Florovsky called “a flagrant conflict in anthropology between the Christian message and the Greek wisdom.”³¹ Although some Christians adamantly insisted on the resurrection of the flesh along the lines of millenarianism others, others like Origen “decarnated” the resurrected body. Origen’s vision of an “exceedingly refined and pure and splendid body” is, Brian Daley notes, “perfectly suited to the environment of a spiritual world.”³² According to him, the rational being, once free from the flesh grows successively, increasing in mind and intelligence, since it is “no longer hindered by its former carnal senses” but now develops its intellectual power with the end goal of “the pure and gazing ‘face to face’” (Princ. 2.11.7). Trigg notes, “Origen insisted that his teaching on the resurrection of the body upheld the church’s teaching against heretics who denied the resurrection altogether and against simple Christians whose grossly materialistic interpretation exposed the church to ridicule by propagating ideas unworthy of God.”³³ Augustine, along with many others, alleged the resurrection body would be like the angels. He consents that “the flesh will rise again” but then quickly adds that God will transform it into “a celestial and angelic body” (Serm. 264.6). For Augustine, only the wicked will be raised in the same body in “that flesh which was buried, that flesh which dies; that which is seen, which is felt, which needs to eat and drink if it is to continue; which grows ill, which suffers pain” to undergo everlasting punishment. Thus with such interpretations available for understanding the resurrected body, the millenarian anthropology was rejected as base and hedonistic, a vision of the future unworthy of God.

Conclusion
Drawing together the threads of this investigation the following story emerges. The Hebrew background, informed by the Old Testament, held a high view of the body owing to its august origin. The Jews did not disparage bodily pleasures such as eating, drinking, sex, and hard work, but accepted them as God-ordained so long as they remained with his appointed boundaries. The New Testament documents do not challenge or innovate on this basic understanding. In fact, the Gospels portray Jesus as someone who attended dinner parties often, consumed alcohol, and discouraged fasting. That his enemies called him a drunkard and a glutton is unthinkable if he was an ascetic. As Christianity spread beyond the thought-world of Judaism into the Greco-Roman matrix, new converts to Christianity in Colossae and Corinth advocated a much more ascetic attitude towards the body. Paul confronted these issues head on, advocating a balanced perspective that shunned hedonism, on the one hand, and asceticism, on the other. As more and more Gentiles became Christ-followers, the typical dubious attitude towards bodily pleasures spread. By the second and third centuries, key Christian thinkers find themselves embarrassed by the kingdom hope, especially bodily resurrection, since it militated against conventional wisdom. As a result they rejected and mutated the Christian hope of embodied humans living in paradise by imagining a new, less corporeal, resurrection body in a new, less terrestrial, ultimate reality.

Although, Christians today are generally not influenced by the ascetic impulse of the classical age, we often react so strongly against the lasciviousness and lewdness of our own time that we tend to fall back into anti-social restrictions that ultimately besmirch our witness and exclude us from evangelistic opportunities. Rather than promoting Christianity as a holistic, fulfilling, joyous, and satisfying experience, we sell it short by portraying it as a restrictive religion that evacuates fun and enjoyment from the human experience. Christians don’t dance, don’t smoke, and don’t tell jokes. We feel guilty about eating fillet mignon, going on vacation, or living in a nice house. We abstain from sex unless for procreation, alcohol unless for communion, and film unless it supports a Christian agenda. To top it all off we preach a gospel of disembodied heavenly worship, wherein we spend eternity locked in a tractor beam gaze staring at a white glow without sleep, without change, without individuality. Is it any wonder that outsiders take one look at us and run the other way?

This is not to say that biblical Christianity is licentious; we certainly do have boundaries and limitations that hem us in. God has graciously put these in place to protect us and to encourage human flourishing, not stifle it. Imagine a tomato plant in the wild. It can only grow so tall before it bends over on itself. But, if a farmer comes along and steaks it—essentially limiting its direction for growth—the plant flourishes, growing much bigger and producing much more fruit. We have rules, but they are not to suppress us, they are to help us grow.

Although the patristic age fancied the kingdom hedonistic due to their excessive ascetic idealism, our age is just the opposite. Rather than calling the beautiful idea of a world restored to its original glory hedonistic, many people would reject it on the grounds of not being enough “fun.” In a time such as this we are tasked with presenting the gospel to our own generation in a way that is maximally palatable without succumbing to the seductive temptation to reimagine it to make it into a theme park or a debauched soirée.

There are many commentaries that lend support the notion that the speaker in Revelation 1:8 is Jesus, the view put forth by the editors of the New American Standard Bible. The commentary titled Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary recognizes that “the expression who is and who was and who is to come has previously been used of God the Father,” citing verse four of Revelation, but believes that “the expression fits equally well when applied to Christ.”[1] The editor believes that expressions which are clearly applied to God the Father, like “Alpha and the Omega” and “the Beginning and the End,” seem to refer to Jesus in Revelation 22:13. Therefore, he asserts, that Jesus may be called the “Almighty” in verse eight, because Revelation “attributes to Jesus Christ titles uniquely attributed to the LORD in the Old Testament.” The Matthew Henry’s Commentary, with even less justification, writes simply that verse eight of Revelation refers to Jesus: “Here our Lord Jesus justly challenges the same honour and power that is ascribed to the Father, Rev. 1:4. He is the beginning and the end; all things are from him and for him; he is the Almighty; he is the same eternal and unchangeable one.”[2]

However, there are many other commentators which would disagree with the interpretation put forth by the Revelation, Four Views: Parallel Commentary and the Matthew Henry’s Commentary. Some, Like the Tyndale New Testament Commentary: Revelation of St. John, believe that the speaker of Revelation 1:8 is the Father. The author, Reverend Canon Leon Morris, writes “The Lord is most often used in the New Testament of Jesus, a usage which is found in Revelation (xi. 8, xxii. 20 etc.). But more often it refers in this book to the Father, as it does here.”[3] The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible states the following about verse eight:

“him which is . . . was . . . is to come–a periphrasis for the incommunicable name JEHOVAH, the self-existing One, unchangeable. In Greek the indeclinability of the designation here implies His unchangeableness. Perhaps the reason why “He which is to come” is used, instead of “He that shall be,” is because the grand theme of Revelation is the Lord’s coming (Revelation 1:7). Still it is THE FATHER as distinguished from “Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:5) who is here meant. But so one are the Father and Son that the designation, “which is to come,” more immediately applicable to Christ, is used here of the Father.”[4]

Clearly it may be seen here that there are a number of commentators who would disagree with the red-letter highlighting applied to Revelation 1:8 by the editors of the New American Standard Bible.

Unsurprisingly, there are still other commentators who at such a loss over the identity of the speaker in Revelation 1:8, that they are unable to make any sort of positive identification. The authors of Revelation Commentary, write the following:

“1. The use of the phrase, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” has led to a debate. Is God the Father or God the Son referred to in verse 8? In the parallel passages of Rev. 1:17; 21:6; 22:1, Christ is equated with Almighty God. Yet, the Father is consistently identified with the same titles. Trying to decide which member of the Godhead is identified in verse 8 is impossible.”[5]

In the end, the commentators conclude that “It is as if both members are speaking at the same time. This may be closer to the truth John intends. This prophecy stands as the unanimous consent of God the Father and God the Son.”[6]

With all of the conflicting interpretations and explanations that are floating around the theological world, one must ask the question: What is the truth, who is the speaker of Revelation 1:8? The magnitude of this question must not be understated, for the answer impacts our understanding of the nature and identity of the Lord God, the Almighty. Tradition and Greek philosophy have taken a great toll on Christian “orthodoxy,” but there is still truth to be found through careful study of the authoritative words of the Scriptures. The controversy over the speaker of Revelation 1:8 may be easily cleared up if the Bible is allowed to speak for itself, without the bias of tradition and philosophy that has corrupted the doctrine of the church.

In the book of Revelation, God and Jesus are portrayed as two separate individuals, capable of interacting with each other. In Revelation 5, John records the scene of the opening of the book sealed with the seven seals. John sees the book “in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne” and is greatly upset when “no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or look into it” (Rev 5:1,3). However, he is reassured that “the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals” (Rev 5:5). And he looks and sees a “Lamb standing, as if slain” between the throne and the elders…who “came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne” (Rev 5:5-7). This passage demonstrates that the person on the throne is someone other than Jesus, the Lamb who was slain. Revelation 7:10 leaves no doubt in the mind of the reader who it is who sits on the throne: “…Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (Rev 7:10). Clearly, it may be seen that Revelation makes a definite distinction between God, who sits on the throne, and Jesus, which would dispel any notion that God is a single person expressing Himself in three “modes.”

It has been proved that Jesus is identified in the book of Revelation as an individual who is separate from, and capable of interacting with, God. But does Revelation demonstrate that Jesus is God, perhaps the second member of the “Godhead?” There are several passages that would suggest that both Jesus and John thought otherwise. In Revelation 1:6, John writes that he, speaking of Jesus, “…has made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father…” (Rev 1:6). So apparently, John though that Jesus had a God, whom he identified as the Father! But what did Jesus think; did he ever make any claims to be God? On the contrary! In fact, Jesus claimed that he had a God, not once, but five times! In Revelation 3:2, he sternly warns the church at Sardis: “Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God” (Rev 3:2). Ten verses later, Jesus encourages the church at Philadelphia, saying “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name” (Rev 3:12). Clearly, Jesus is not God, for one cannot be the Almighty God while having a God!

All of this evidence suggests that Revelation 1:8 cannot possibly be referring to Jesus, because it identifies the speaker as the “Lord God,” the “Almighty.” A reading of this verse in its original context will confirm the fact that the speaker of Revelation is in fact not Jesus, but God the Father. John starts off his message to the seven churches with the following greeting:

“John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen” (Rev 1:4-7).

In this greeting, the one “who is and who was and who is to come” is the one who sits on the throne. This individual has been identified in Revelation 7:10 as God. Jesus is mentioned here separately from God, and is said to have a God, the Father. So God, the Father, is the individual on the throne who is identified as the one “who is and who was and who is to come.” Immediately following John’s greeting is the controversial verse, which states “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev 1:8). God the Father, the one who is identified in verse four as the one “who is and who was and who is to come,” is identified by the same expression in verse eight. The book of Revelation lends itself to no other possibilities – the Father is the Lord God, the Almighty, the only true God.

Revelation is not presenting any new theology or Christology, and the conclusion that has been drawn is consistent with the rest of the Bible. The Bible presents the Father as the only true God and Jesus as His uniquely born human son. The Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, Israel’s monotheistic creed, states “Hear O Israel, Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The book of Isaiah clearly demonstrates that Yahweh is the Father and the only God: “… you, Yahweh, are our Father, ‘Our Redeemer’ is your name from of old” and “I am Yahweh, and there is no other; there is no God but Me” (Isaiah 63:16b; Isaiah 45:5). The New Testament reaffirms this information. In his prayer addressed to the Father in John 17, Jesus says: “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent–Jesus Christ” (John 17:3). It could not be any more obvious: Jesus believes that the Father is the only true God and that he himself is the one whom God the Father has sent, the Messiah. Paul reiterates this same concept in 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the manChrist Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). For Paul, the Father was the only true God and Jesus was his human son, who was the appointed Messiah, the future king of Israel. Clearly, it may be seen that the red-letter highlighting of Revelation 1:8 is incorrect; perhaps a mistake or possibly evidence of a Trinitarian bias on the part of the editors. In any case, it should serve as a warning to every Bible student to not rely on the editors of their Bibles, and rather to carefully test and examine the Scriptures to seek truth.

So why is there more competition between Christian denominations than there is in the Superbowl playoffs?

I believe the problem is a failure to understand what church is, stemming from an emphasis on buildings and institutions rather than people. Many people believe church buildings are special, holy places, and whenever they walk into a church building they immediately feel closer to God. Some people even think that they can only communicate with God inside of that one building. And yet the same God who feels so present to us in church on Sunday morning is equally present with us on Monday morning. The same God who feels so present in a cathedral is equally present in a landfill. He never leaves us or forsakes us, but we so easily take our focus off of Him.

For many, church is only a building. If they don’t like one, they can go to another. Church becomes a fad, even a form of entertainment. They can “shop” for various churches without ever becoming committed or building relationships with any specific group of believers. This church-shopping mentality fuels competition between denominations rather than uniting them in the common purpose of Christ.

In the Bible, the word “church” is translated from the Greek word ekklēsia (Strong’s 1577), meaning a community of people called by God. In the Bible, church is not a building, but a group of people who make up the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:15-16; 1 Corinthians 12) by being Christ’s hands and feet in the world.

The people are the church, not the building. If you are a believer in Jesus Christ, church is not a place you go to once a week, but a commitment to follow Christ that you live out each and every day. You are the church!

One Body

There are many manmade “denominations” in the world, but there is only one Body of Christ. Every individual who follows Jesus as Lord is a member of the Body of Christ, regardless of their denomination, location, age, race, gender, nationality, language, or culture. Jesus is building up a Kingdom of people from “every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). He is doing away with all ethnic, linguistic, and cultural barriers by uniting his followers into one Body. And yet we still allow the smallest things to divide us.

I can only imagine how much it grieves the Lord Jesus Christ when petty arguments over theology cause division in his church, and when minor disagreements cause believers to cut off relationships with one another, and even hate one another.

Part of Paul’s message in 1 Corinthians 12 is that every member of the Body is important. He writes, “The eye cannot say unto the hand, ‘I have no need of thee,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’” Every member of the Body is vitally important. And yet, the global Body of Christ currently lies fractured in a million pieces over theological quibbles.

With ten fingers, I can accomplish a difficult task.

If I’m missing even one finger, I will struggle.

If I’m missing several fingers, it may be almost impossible.

Just as I need all ten fingers in order to work most effectively, so the Body of Christ needs all of its members in order to carry out the work of Christ most effectively. It is vitally important for all members of the Body to work together in unity. And when Paul talks about unity in the Body, he isn’t just talking about unity among individual believers, but also, in a broader sense, unity between different church congregations. Even the first century believers had differences and disagreements over theology. And yet, they recognized that the core gospel message they held in common was far more important than any minor difference in theory or practice.

Iron Sharpens Iron

Certainly, correct doctrine is important, and we should openly discuss biblical and theological matters in a spirit of good fellowship, “as iron sharpens iron.” And yet, how many denominations have split over the most trivial issues? Doctrinal disagreements divide the Body, often inhibiting or even destroying the work of Christ. Our focus should be on the core truths we hold in common, not the less important issues we might disagree about.

I once heard a true story about a group of Christian missionaries who traveled to a third world country together on a missions trip. They came from very different denominations, and during the plane ride they got into a major theological argument. This argument was so bad that they felt certain they would not be able to work together once the plane landed.

But when the plane landed, they discovered the situation on the ground was much worse than they had anticipated. There had been a major flood and many people had lost their homes. The missionaries immediately jumped in and began working together to help build shelter for the homeless, provide food for the hungry, and get medical attention for the injured.

As soon as they got busy doing the work of Christ, their theological differences no longer seemed to matter.

We have the luxury of spending a lot of time in theological discussions. Most Christians in the world do not have this luxury. We have the luxury of spending a lot of time studying the Word of God, which is a good thing, but we too easily forget that many Christians around the world still lack access to the Bible, or do not even know how to read.

Your average Christian lives in Africa or Asia. Many live in dire poverty and suffer persecution. While we have the luxury of “armchair theology,” Christian leaders in many parts of the world must do “theology on the run.” They don’t have time to worry about minor theological issues when they are too busy serving the Lord, ministering to those in urgent need of help by healing the sick, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and visiting those in prison.

Is it any surprise that most miracles happen in third world countries, and not in the West where we have become comfortable with “church as usual”? If we spent less time in endless theological debate and more time actively doing the work of Christ, what miracles would we see?

Surely there is great urgency in the times in which we live. The world is changing faster and faster, and new technology allows us to reach the ends of the earth in ways previously unimaginable. This is the moment in which the Body of Christ will either make disciples of all nations, or fail because the Body is not working together. Satan’s strategy to defeat the church is “divide and conquer!”

We cannot afford to let petty disagreements divide the Body. The church around the world must unite for the common purpose of continuing Christ’s work in the world. I pray we see the day when our different church congregations and denominations are actively working together, hand in hand, in a united effort to reach our communities and the world for Christ.

Thursday
7:30 Dan Gill “The Torah of Messiah”

Friday
9:15 Dale Tuggy “The Lost Early History of Unitarian Christianity”
10:30 Joe Martin “God by the Book: Names, Titles and Numbers”
1:30 Dustin Smith “An Inquiry into the Identity and Meaning of the Devil and Demons”
3:00 Faith Stories
7:00 Kirk Walden “Turning Our Culture Upside Down: A Biblical Unitarian’s Journey in the Pro-Life Movement”

Saturday
9:15 Sean Finnegan: “Eschatological Hedonism: How Asceticism Predisposed Ancient Christians to Reject the Kingdom Hope”
10:30 Kermit Zarley “Did Jesus Say He Would Return Soon?”
1:30 Ray Faircloth “The Cult Aspect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Organization”
3:00 Anthony Buzzard “How Christianity Discards Its Own Founder’s Creed”

Sunday
9:15 Faith Stories
10:30 Kent Ross “The Zealously Ignorant”

click here to access the live webcast

The most common title that is used to describe Jesus is “Christ” (Heb. “messiah”). The term “messiah” (Heb. mashiach) literally means “an anointed one.” It refers to a person anointed by God and filled with His Holy Spirit to be His appointed agent and accomplish His works. The term “messiah” may “refer to a prophet, priest, or king who was consecrated for service to God.”[2] In the Old Testament, King Saul, King David, and even King Cyrus – a pagan – are all designated “messiahs” (1 Sam. 12:3; 2 Sam 19:21; Is. 45:1). The patriarchs and Levitical priests are also called “messiahs” (Ps 105:15; 1 Chron 16:22; Lev 4:3,5,16; 6:22). There are also nine references to the coming or promised one, the ultimate “Messiah.”[3] In the New Testament, Christians are even referred to as “anointed ones,” which would make them “christs,” by definition (2 Cor. 1:21). Thus, from the Biblical usage, it may be seen that to be designated as “messiah” by God does not require one to be deity. Rather, it suggests the opposite: to be messiah, is to be God’s appointed human agent acting on His behalf. Therefore, to recognize Jesus as the ultimate “Messiah” or “Christ” is to identify him as a man, anointed and appointed by God, to fill the offices of prophet, priest, and king.

Another common title for Jesus is “Son of God.” Historically, it was used to describe God’s dirt-born son Adam who was initially appointed to rule the Earth, the nation of Israel, the King of Israel, and even angels (Luke 3:38;Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1; Ps. 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38). Dr. Colin Brown of Fuller Seminary, writes that:

“In light of these passages in their context, the title “Son of God” is not in itself a designation of personal deity or an expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed to be ‘Son of God’ one has to be a being who is not God! It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with God. In particular, it denotes God’s representative, God’s vice regent. It is a designation of kingship, identifying the king as God’s son.”[4]

It is important to keep these thoughts in mind when applying the title “Son of God” to Jesus. Though he was literally the son of God by his miraculous birth by the Holy Spirit of God, Jesus was also anointed the “Son of God” at his baptism. Scripture also says that he was later “appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead” (Luke 1:35; Rom. 1:4). Clearly, it may be seen that the title “Son of God” is indicative of his divine anointing and appointment to rulership – not any reference to deity; and it functions much like his title “Messiah.”

In fact to the Hebrew mind, Jesus’ many Messianic titles are completely interchangeable and even synonymous. To be the promised Messiah is to be the King of Israel, the Son of God. This is evidenced by the usage of these titles in the Old Testament, in reference to the ultimate Messiah. In his book, They Never Told Me THIS in Church!, Greg Deuble writes that “Psalm 2 uses the descriptions ‘My Son,’ ‘My king,’ and ‘My Messiah’ interchangeably for the promised savior who is to come: ‘The rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed [Messiah]…but as for Me I have installed My King upon Zion…You are My Son, today I have begotten you’ (Ps, 2:2,6-7).”[5]

These same titles continue to be used synonymously in the New Testament as well.  When Jesus gathers his first disciples, Andrew finds his brother Simon and announces, “’We have found the Messiah’ (which translated means (Christ)” (John 1:41). The story goes on to tell how “Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45). After hearing Jesus’ claim to have seen him under the fig tree, Nathanael exclaims, “‘Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel’” (John 1:49). Later, at his trial, it may be seen that Jesus considers his favorite self-designation, “Son of Man,” to be synonymous with the titles “Christ” and “Son of God” (Matt 26:63-64).  Clearly, it can be seen that these Jewish men were not only basing their understanding of the Christ on their knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, but also that they were comfortable using the terms “Messiah,” “Son of God,” “Son of Man,” and “King of Israel” as synonyms referring to the same subject.

So then, what is the significance of these Messianic titles, if there is no biblical support for them to be applied as a reference to deity? To understand their importance, one must understand the concept of the Kingdom of God and the promised Messiah from a Jewish perspective which, as noted above, was solidly based on the revelation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Regrettably, these concepts are foreign to many churchgoers today, for orthodoxy is largely based on tradition and Greek philosophy, instead of its Hebraic roots. To make any sense of the Bible, we must return to a Jewish perspective. Author Greg S. Deuble presents a beautiful summary of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah and the Kingdom of God:

“…To Jewish ears the expression ‘the kingdom of God’ carried a huge (national) connotation. Their Hebrew Bible contained the recurrent theme that God was going to send the Messiah to be His agent to bring about the end of the world as it is currently run, and to introduce a whole new world order. The government of that age would be upon his shoulder (Is. 9:6). This Messiah was to be the son of David… [and] he would sit on the throne of David in a New Jerusalem. The enemies of God’s people would be judged. Truth and justice would cover the earth. All nations of the earth would be blessed through Israel’s exalted status. Even the very natural order would be completely transformed, to the point where dangerous animals would no longer hunt and tear apart, and where little children could play un harmed with them; the desert would blossom (Is. 11:6-9). In short, the glory of God, through the Messiah and his people would cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.”[6]

It is from this background that Jesus’ titles gain their significance. By proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah, one is acknowledging that he is God’s appointed agent, the future King of the restored Israel! There is no suggestion of deity to be found in the Jewish understanding of the Messiah.

Supposedly the church is founded on the confession that Jesus is the Christ. However,  as Dr. Schonfield noted from his many conversations with Christians over the years, “So connected [has] the word ‘Christ’ become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate, that the title ‘Messiah’ [is] treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated.”[7] However, as it has been previously noted, “Christ” is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah!” The original meaning of the title Christ or Messiah has been lost! – has the identity of the one to whom the title belongs been lost as well? Anthony Buzzard writes in his booklet, Who is Jesus?: A Plea for a Return to the Belief in Jesus, the Messiah, that

“Christianity’s founding figure must be presented within the Hebrew-biblical framework…Outside that framework we invent another Jesus because his biblical descriptive titles have lost their original meanings (cp. 2 Cor. 11:4). When Jesus’ titles are invested with a new unscriptural meaning, it is clear that the no longer convey his identity truthfully.”[8]

A Messiah separated from his Messianic heritage is not the biblical Messiah. In fact, as Dr. Schonfield writes, “It was Messianism that made the life of Jesus what it was and so brought Christianity into being.”[9] And thus it appears that by losing sight of the biblical meaning of the title Messiah, orthodox Christianity has lost sight of the identity of the true Messiah and invented a new one – an incarnate “God-man” foreign to the Scriptures.

The fact that the church has lost sight of the true Messiah is evidenced by the gospel that they are preaching. According to the famous evangelical preacher, Billy Graham, the whole gospel message is summed up in 1 Corinthians 15:1, 3 and 4. He writes,

“You are saved through a personal faith in the gospel of Christ as defined in the Scriptures. “The Bible says, ‘ I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you…For I delivered to you first of all what I also received, that Christ died according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he was raised from the dead the third day according to the Scriptures’ (1 Cor. 15:1,3,4).”[10]

But does Billy Graham’s definition, which is the definition of the gospel accepted by most mainstream churches, line up with the gospel message as defined by Jesus?  It would appear that it falls short of being the whole truth, for it is missing an essential ingredient: the kingdom of God.

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the future King of the restored Israel, and the gospel message he heralded reflected his identity as such. Jesus was a kingdom-preacher, in fact preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God was his mission: “I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43). Jesus’ statement in Mark 1:14-15 leaves no doubt that the main subject of Jesus’ gospel message was the kingdom of God: “…Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15). This is the message that Jesus and his disciples preached, long before he ever made any mention of his death. This can be seen in Matthew 16:21-23, where Jesus says that he will be handed over to death by the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law, and Peter rebukes him vehemently saying “’Never, Lord!’ he said. ‘This shall never happen to you!’” (Matt 16:22). Clearly, if the message about Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection was the whole gospel that Peter and the other disciples had been sent out to preach in Matthew 10, Peter should not have been surprised. Therefore, if you say that the gospel is solely concerned with death and resurrection of Jesus, you do not sound like Jesus or his disciples. Those elements are as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15, “of first importance,” but are clearly not the whole gospel.

The full gospel is a message about the kingdom of God and of Jesus the Christ. This is made clear by Acts 8:12, which records that when the people “believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike” (Acts 8:12). Baptism is contingent upon intelligent believe in the gospel. The gospel of the Kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ are inseparable – the king must not be separated from his kingdom, or else he is no longer a king! And without the atoning death of the king, there would be no way to be forgiven and enter God’s kingdom. A message that solely proclaims the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins provides the “how,” but not the “why.” The message of the kingdom provides the reason “why” people should repent and believe.

Losing the biblical definition of the title “Messiah” has caused us to not only lose sight of the identity of the Messiah, but also of the message of salvation which he fervently heralded. In most churches today, a half-truth is being proclaimed as the full gospel. Not only that, but the Messiah is now generally thought to be a being who is fully man and fully God – a concept that would have been completely foreign to the Jews of first century Palestine, who expected the Messiah to be an anointed human agent of God destined to overthrow the wicked and rule the kingdom of God on the earth, with righteousness and justice. It is essential that we return to the biblical Messiah and the gospel message that he proclaimed, for the fact that Jesus is the Messiah is the very foundation of the church and the good news that he preached the essential message of salvation.

If you asked 100 random people on the street what they thought of when they heard the word “church,” what do you think they would say? Some people would have positive thoughts about church, others negative. A lot of people would probably think of buildings with steeples, crosses, and stained glass windows.

How many people would say, “When I hear the word church, I think of me”?

Though it may sound strange, this should be the correct answer for anyone who calls Jesus Lord.

We Are His Body

When Jesus walked the earth, his hands healed the sick, and his feet carried the good news of the Kingdom of God everywhere he went. His mouth spoke God’s truth, and his heart felt compassion for the poor. He worked many miracles, casting out demons, restoring sight to the blind, and even raising Lazarus from the dead.

And yet, as a human being, he could only be in one place at a time. While he ministered to the multitudes of people who gathered around him, countless other multitudes in other locations longed to see him but could not.

Today, Jesus Christ is much more present in the world than he was when he walked the earth. Today, Jesus Christ lives in the heart of every believer through the Holy Spirit (Colossians 1:27). While previously he only had one pair of hands and one pair of feet, today he is working in the world through the lives of millions of believers who follow him as Lord.

Having ascended into heaven to take his place at the right hand of God, Jesus Christ is no longer physically present in the world. And yet, he is physically present in the world through us! Jesus calls his disciples to be his hands and feet in the world today, promising, “whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father” (John 14:12).

In 1 Corinthians 12, the Apostle Paul describes the Body of Christ as being composed of many members, each with different functions, yet all vitally important. In Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul writes that God has given Jesus Christ “to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.”

The Greek word translated “church” is ekklēsia (Strong’s 1577), literally meaning a community of people who have been called by God. Church is not a building, an institution, or an organization. Church is the Body of Christ – a collection of individual believers in all parts of the world – gathering together in fellowship and community to follow Jesus Christ as Lord.

The first century church described in Acts 2 did not have elaborate church buildings – or any church buildings! They met in homes, gave up everything they had, and shared all things in common. They were totally sold out and committed to Jesus Christ and they were able to work incredible miracles.

Why is it that in the two thousand years that followed, the concept of “church” has become so mundane, religious, even boring?

Why are so many Christians gathering to worship God on Sundays but living only for themselves on Monday through Saturday?

Why are millions of dollars spent on enormous “megachurch” buildings, but on average less than 2% of church finances go toward foreign missions?

Why is much time and energy devoted to church “programs” while little time and energy is spent building relationships with people?

Why are some believers going hungry while others store up riches?

Why do we rarely see the kind of miracles that the early church experienced?

In the words of Casting Crowns:

If we are the Body,

Why aren’t His arms reaching?

Why aren’t His hands healing?

Why aren’t His words teaching?

And if we are the Body,

Why aren’t His feet going?

Why is His love not showing them there is a way?

I believe the answer to all of these questions lies in the fact that many Christians have an incorrect understanding of what church is.

Church is not a building we go to, or an activity we do once a week.

Church is who we are – the Body of Christ.

“Your vs. You’re”

How many times has someone asked you where your church is? How many times has someone asked you what church you’re a part of?

While these questions may sound identical, this seemingly insignificant difference in grammar reflects a huge difference in thinking.

For many Christians, church is something we possess – “I have a church.” And yet, if we are truly members of the Body of Christ, church is not something we own but something we ourselves are a part of – something we are. If you’re a believer, it’s not your church. Rather, you are the church!

As Christians, we are called to be the church, not only on Sundays, but every day, and everywhere. The way we be the church is through radical obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ in all areas of life.

Being the Body of Christ means total commitment to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). It means continuing the exact same work that Jesus did when he walked the earth. It means radical forgiveness, loving enemies, sharing the gospel, being a peacemaker, healing the sick, casting out demons, visiting those in prison, and caring for the poor.

If we’re not doing these things, what are we doing?

Although we typically think of a Sunday morning service when we think about what church is, in reality, the way we live our lives Sunday through Saturday defines what the church (the Body of Christ) is. The world judges Christianity not on the quality of our Sunday services, but on the integrity with which individual Christians live their lives each and every day.

Sunday services are an awesome thing and an extremely important tool for preaching the gospel and edifying the believer. But our faith can’t stop there. It must be lived out.

Matthew 25:31-46 is very clear. When Jesus returns he won’t be judging us on whether we sat in a certain building at a certain time each week. What ultimately matters is obedience to him in daily life.

Where we go to church is not nearly as important as whether or not we are the church.

Church is not a location. Church is a lifestyle.

Church is not four walls. Church is a billion people.

Coming next week: A look at the issue of unity vs. division in the church.

So why is it important that there are two clearly defined persons with the title “Lord” mentioned in the Gospels? It is significant, because only one of them can be the Almighty God, the Most High. The monotheistic creed of Israel, which was affirmed by Jesus as the greatest commandment, states that “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29). This excludes the possibility of there being multiple “Lords” in the “Godhead.”

This leads to another important question; if there are two Lords, which Lord is the Almighty God? Well, the answer to this question has already been answered by Luke in the aforementioned verses. The Most High is identified as the Lord God, and Jesus is identified as the Son of the Most High, the Lord Messiah. If Jesus is the Son of the Most High, created by the power of the Most High, he is obviously not the Most High, and therefore not God.

This is further substantiated by Jesus’ own claims about his identity. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, which was historically known by Jews to a claim to be God’s appointed agent, the anointed King, who would establish God’s everlasting kingdom on the earth and reign on the throne of David with righteousness and justice forever. Moses’ prophetic utterance in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 points towards this appointed agent, a prophet who would speak the words of God in His name and authority.  Jesus is identified as this prophet in the book of Acts. Thus, Jesus’ authority was not of his own derivation, it was given to him by the one who sent him. He himself acknowledged, “By myself I can do nothing…I seek not to please myself but him who sent me” (John 5:30). Even the words that he spoke were not his own: “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak” (John 12:49). Jesus was a man, sent and empowered by God to accomplish the works of God his Father, in His name.

It may be seen even more clearly in the book of Acts, that it was the initiative and power of the Lord God working in and through Jesus that made Jesus who he was and empowered him to accomplish his Father’s works. Paul says that it was God who brought a Savior to Israel, from the lineage of David, according to the promise (Acts13:23). Acts 2:22 identifies Jesus, the Savior, as “a man attested to you by God with miracles and signs and wonders that God performed through him.” His healings and exorcisms are attributed to the fact that “God was with him” and because “God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10:38). He is identified as the servant of the God who was glorified by God in Acts 2:36. Several times in the book of Acts, God is identified as the one who raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:32). The Scriptures show that though there are two Lords, there is only one Lord who is God and that Lord is not Jesus, but his Father, the Most High God who supplied the power for all Jesus did.

Jesus is God or Jesus is Lord?

By Andrew Perriman

 The long conversation I have been having with John Tancock illustrates rather well, to my mind, the difference between the theological approach and the narrative-historical (a.k.a. apocalyptic-eschatological, biblical critical, you name it) approach to reading the New Testament. John was responding to an old post entitled Did Jesus claim to be God?, but a couple of recent pieces have explored the conflict on a broader hermeneutical basis: The battle between theology and history for the soul of the church: 24 antitheses and Theology, narrative and history: how they work in practice.

From John’s perspective, as a long-standing defender of classic Trinitarianism against the barbarian tribes of Modalists, Arians, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others, interpretation of the christological texts is ultimately answerable to the Council of Nicaea. So if I do not agree with him that one text or another does not teach that Jesus is God, then it would appear that I am an Arian and so a serious threat to the integrity of the faith.

From my perspective, however, it is very difficult to see why interpretation should be held accountable to a debate that took place centuries later in a very different intellectual environment. If interpretation of the New Testament is answerable to anything, it should be to the court of the Jewish scriptures and, to a lesser degree, of the literature of second temple Judaism.

My concern here is not merely with the methodological conflict. I suggested to John that:

…the historical understanding of the New Testament that has emerged over the last few decades may be taking us in a rather different direction altogether. We may end up in the old tug-of-war between Arius and Athanasius. But we may not.

Thinking about it further, it seems to me that this different direction will be determined not by the question of whether Jesus is God but by the question of whether Jesus is Lord. This is the question that is at the heart of the New Testament. But it is also the fundamental practical question facing the western church today when it is having such a hard time differentiating itself from its surrounding culture other than in formal creedal or propositional terms. “Jesus is Lord” is prophetic, it challenges behavior. “Jesus is God” is not, it doesn’t.

The “Jesus is Lord” Narrative

The historical Jesus begins as a prophet of the coming kingdom of God, the embodiment of a new people of God, the leader of a movement of renewal, empowered by the Spirit of God to heal and restore, ordained since at least his birth to be Israel’s king. Understanding himself in some way to be the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13-14, he predicts that he will suffer, die, be raised from the dead, be vindicated, that Israel will suffer catastrophic divine judgment, and that at some point in the not too distant future his followers will be vindicated with and in him. This narrative is picked up by the early church, which came to believe that the resurrection of Jesus signified not merely the renewal of the people of God but also the impending overthrow of the ancient world, the confession of Christ as Lord by the pagan nations.

Where this apocalyptic argument takes us is not Arianism but the confession that God has raised his obedient Son from the dead and made him Lord, judge and ruler of the nations.  This situation will endure throughout the coming ages. Once the last enemy has been destroyed, the reign of Christ will come to an end: as Paul understands it, Jesus will hand back the right to rule to the Father, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). Beyond this are the new heaven and new earth, where no king is needed because there is no further need for judgment, no further need for defense against enemies. Every enemy of God’s creation will have been defeated.

The storyline makes reference to major historical events—the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the defeat of pagan imperialism. It is the story of how Israel’s God took charge of history. But inevitably, as the story unfolded, perspectives changed.

The “Jesus is God” Narrative

As Christianity left behind the Jewish world, with its orientation towards history, and entrenched itself ever more deeply in the Greek world, with its orientation towards reason, the intense apocalyptic argument about who would rule the nations gave way to an equally intense metaphysical argument about the nature of the Christian God.

There are certainly texts in the New Testament which lend themselves to the later line of thought. Many of them are in John, which as I noted before does not have the euangelion word group in it (a more significant fact than you might think), but which is the primary source document for those who wish to defend the orthodox Trinitarian position. I made some remarks on the use of John for this purpose in the original post.

There are also a number of texts in which Jesus appears to have been given the part of divine wisdom. He is not himself the Creator, but he plays an instrumental role in an act of creation:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col. 1:16–17; cf. Jn. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2-3)

So we have a dominant historical narrative about how Jesus came to be judge and ruler of the pagan nations to the glory of the God of Israel, and we have a secondary “mythological” narrative about Jesus as an agent of divine creation patterned on Jewish wisdom motifs. Roughly speaking. By “mythological”, of course, I do not mean “untrue”. I mean that this narrative does not engage with history in the same way as the apocalyptic narrative—unless Jesus is actually being depicted as the agent through which new creation has come about, a new world.

The Missional Challenge

As Christendom fizzles out, we still operate under the theological assumption that the most important thing we can say about Jesus is that he is God. This was the debate that fundamentally determined the shape of European theology, and instinctively we defend our place in the world—our raison d’être—by defending Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy. This is why we tend to think that the Gospel of John contains the highest and most authoritative account of who Jesus was and why.

But we could argue that the Johannine development is not so much the acme of New Testament christology as a digression to deal with the emerging challenges of the Christian ingress into the Greek world. It should not get in the way of the primary eschatological affirmation found in Philippians 2:6-11 that God raised his obedient Son from the dead and authorized him to be the one confessed as “Lord”, not “God”, by the nations, to the glory of Israel’s God. Theologians effectively read the passage backwards as though the most important affirmation is the starting point of the argument—that Jesus was in the “form” of God, questionably understood as a statement of ontological identity.

Theology makes us work with a model that doesn’t need the title “Lord” except in a very attenuated personal sense, that makes no reference to the apocalyptic narrative, that turns “Son of God” into “God the Son”, that is not interested in the narrated historical existence of God’s people. It engages with at best the margins of the New Testament witness. It does not give us the theological resources to address the current missional challenge. Reaffirming the divinity of Christ will not deliver the church from irrelevance. Reaffirming the lordship of Christ will.