Special Announcement

I will be “debating” (discussing is a kinder word) the prominent apologist for the Trinity Michael Brown, who is a Messianic Jew, on February 8th at 3 pm EST (show will be archived at http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/02/08/february-8-2010/).

Then there is popular debater James White, author of a small and very readable paperback The Forgotten Trinity. The site for the discussion is www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

v.1 n.7 Conversion and New Birth According to Jesus

A systematic mistake plagues contemporary attempts to bring the saving Gospel to the public. It is all a question of which Bible texts are placed before the potential convert. You can make the Bible say almost anything if you select your verses in a way which produces only some of the evidence — particularly if you omit entirely the primary evidence.

Here is how it works. Pick a few verses from Romans (written not to unconverted people but to those who had already heard the Gospel) and you can give the impression that being saved means believing that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead. “Jesus came to do three days work: to die, be buried and rise again” declares a very widely circulated tract offering salvation.

But why would you begin with Paul and Romans? What about Jesus? Was he not the prototype preacher and teacher of salvation and how to obtain it? According to Hebrews 2:3 the “Gospel began to be preached by the Lord Jesus.” It did not begin to be preached by Paul or Peter. Rule number one in our quest for the faith is to begin with Jesus. How did he preach salvation? The answer is very clear. He did not come into Galilee and say “Repent and believe that I died for your sins and am going to rise from the dead.” Jesus did say: “Repent and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:14, 15), but the Gospel in question was positively not at that stage information about his sacrificial death or his resurrection. It was about believing in the Good News (Gospel) pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

“Kingdom of God” does not mean the death of a savior on a cross. Kingdom of God does not mean resurrection from the dead. Kingdom of God and resurrection are connected, certainly, in the New Testament’s theological system, but they are never synonyms. “Repent and believe in the Gospel of the Kingdom” (Mark 1:14, 15) is the first recorded imperative, the first commandment of the Lord and Savior. Yet curiously it never gets a mention in tracts offering salvation and almost never in today’s evangelistic campaigns.

Curiously and sadly the Gospel has been truncated, actually deprived of its principal element. Jesus laid the foundation of the Gospel, went about offering salvation, seeking sinners and urging them to be reconciled to God. And his saving tool, during his ministry on earth, was the Gospel/Word/Message about the Kingdom of God (Matt. 13:19).

Three independent and corroborative accounts of Jesus’ evangelistic technique are offered us by Matthew, Mark and Luke. Yet these are ignored. Have you ever read a tract which begins by asking “What did Jesus say you have to do to be saved? How did he conduct his mission? What did he say about conversion?”

It may be that there is one exception. Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus in John 3 gets some mention. From this we gather that we must be “born again.” No one, Jesus asserted, can see or enter the Kingdom of God unless he is first “born again,” or “born from above.” Even this text suffers from popular mishandling when Kingdom of God is given a non-biblical meaning as “heaven.” Jesus did not offer “heaven” to anyone. He offered inheritance of the earth as the reward of the faithful (Matt. 5:5), and promised his followers that they would one day function as royal rulers “upon the earth” (Rev. 5:10). “Heaven” language (“when I get to heaven,” “he has gone home to heaven,” etc.) has a jamming effect on these precious and clear texts. The brain is confused when confronted with the contradictory propositions: “the meek will inherit the earth and rule on the earth” (Matt. 5:5 and Rev. 5:10) and “so and so is going/has gone to heaven.”

“Heaven in the Bible is nowhere the destination of the dying.” So said the learned professor at Cambridge within recent years (Dr. J.A.T. Robinson, in In the End God). But has the church taken up the challenge to see if perhaps he was right? “If you meet some who deny the resurrection and say that when they die their souls go to heaven, do not consider them Christians.” Such was the protest of a Christian spokesman and martyr of the second century (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 80).

In those days, it was abundantly clear that the Bible said nothing at all about souls enjoying a post-mortem existence in heaven at the moment of death. Rather it was known, because the Bible had been so clear on the subject, that all the dead went to the realm of death, Sheol/Hades, from which only the future collective resurrection of all the faithful dead of all the ages would rescue them and return them to life. It was from the sleep of the dead in the tomb that Jesus rescued Lazarus (John 11:11, 14 — “Lazarus is asleep, Lazarus is dead: I am going to wake him up out of his sleep”). Jesus was nourished on the words of Daniel 12:2 (and 12:13) where the dead are said to be sleeping in the dust of the ground. That tells you what the dead are doing and where they are doing it. Jesus was instructed in the wise words of Ecclesiastes 9:5: “The dead do not know anything.”

The dead, according to Jesus, are still in the nether world of the dead awaiting their summons to life when the seventh trumpet, the resurrection trumpet at the return of Jesus, sounds its earth-shattering call for the return of dead persons to full-blooded life (I Cor. 15:23, 50-55; Rev. 11:15-18; Matt. 24:31; I Thess. 4:16). That is biblical resurrection. Biblical resurrection is positively not the re-attaching of departed “immortal souls” to a new body. That is not resurrection as the Bible knows it. Biblical resurrection means the return of the whole man who has died to life as a whole, recreated person, equipped at his resurrection with the spiritual body described by Paul in I Corinthians 15:50-55. No one in the Bible ever received an incorruptible, immortal body at the moment of his death. Immortalization of human beings will happen only at the return of Jesus to resurrect the dead. Until then the faithful are dead, as are also the unfaithful. Paul expected to gain his crown “at that day,” the day of Christ’s reappearance on earth (II Tim. 4:8).

Following that resurrection destined to happen at the future reappearance of Jesus (I Cor 15:23) the Kingdom of God will be reestablished in Jerusalem and the world will be under new management. Jesus will be the first successful world-governor (Messiah means exactly that — king of the world under God’s authority). In those wonderful days, the world will indeed be one people under One God (Zech. 14:9), though still differentiated by national groups (Isa. 19:18-25), and they will be truly “under God.” To say that any nation is now “under God” is a considerable hyperbole, not supported by actual fact. But the Gospel of the Kingdom, the first item on the agenda of Jesus’ and apostolic evangelism, sets before the convert a glorious future as immortal assistant in the sound management of world affairs in company with the returned Jesus. Being a Christian is an invitation to training under test conditions in the “present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) with a view to administrative office with Jesus in the “future inhabited earth about which we speak” (Heb. 2:5).

The germ of the Christian’s glorious future is the seed sown in the heart. And the seed is defined by Jesus as “the Gospel/Word about the Kingdom of God” (Matt. 13:19; see also I Pet. 1:23-25; James 1:18; I John 3:9; Gal. 4:28, 29). Satan works hard and long to prevent that seed Message from taking root in your heart. He well knows that it contains the spark of life forever! (Luke 8:12). God’s creative Gospel through Jesus initiates the saving process which will be complete in the future. We are now “nearer to salvation than when we first believed” (Rom. 13:11).The Gospel about the Kingdom sets before the believer a summons to wholehearted action, (including baptism for the remission of sins, Acts 8:12), a reorientation to the bright new future of the Kingdom of God coming from heaven when Jesus returns. Repentance means turning back to the Covenant by embracing God’s grand scheme for the immortalization of mortal man and the rescue of the world from Satan’s present domination.

v.1 n.7 Did God Have to Die to Save Humanity? by Charles Hunting

The widely held belief in Jesus as preexistent, eternal, coequal Son of God has carried with it the idea that a single human person, in this case Jesus, would not, if only human, have the value necessary to atone for the sins of the world. The reason offered is that a single person’s sacrifice could only atone for the sins of one other man. Hence Jesus had to be God Himself to be the Savior of all mankind. No Scripture is cited for this fundamental proposition; nevertheless the logic is supposed to be unassailable. It has long satisfied its many advocates.

Can human reason legitimately determine the value of a sacrifice? Peter’s inspired sermon on the day of Pentecost was quite explicit in its designation of Jesus the man as God’s appointed offering for humanity. “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man accredited to you by God…just as you know — this man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death” (Acts 2:22, 23). Jude supports God’s accreditation of the man Jesus, contrasting God and man, with these words: “to the only God our Savior [the One God of Jewish unitary monotheism], through Jesus Christ our Lord [the human lord adoni of Psalm 110:1], be glory, majesty…before all time and to all the ages” (Jude 25).

“Before all time” he was the Lamb designated for sacrifice “from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8, NIV) in order to bring about the reconciliation of a rebellious creation. Adam, the son of God created from the dust of the ground (Luke 3:38), could have gained immortality but failed. Eve, a special creation from Adam’s body, joined Satan in opposition to God.

Then followed the rest of human creation through Adam and Eve until God created through the Virgin Mary the prophesied seed who was to crush the serpent’s head. Jesus, referred to as the second Adam by Paul, during his historical life, divested himself of all the royal prerogatives, and “humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8). This was after having lived a sinless existence entitling him to freedom from the death penalty and the reward of eternal life offered to the first Adam.

Forty days after his resurrection, Jesus, though now exalted and sitting at the right hand of his Father, was still referred to as a “man” (Acts 2:22). Was it, as some allege, because of the disciples’ strict monotheism that they were not ready to hear that God had died to save the world? Or is the “death of God” a completely unbiblical concept? God only has immortality: He cannot die.

Surely somewhere along the line the omission of the (contradictory!) notion that God Himself had died would have to be rectified. But we note Luke years later recording Paul’s continued proclamation of the human Jesus: “God who made the world and all things in it… and made from one, every nation…He Himself gives to all life breath and…determined their appointed times…and set the boundaries of their habitation.” This same God, “having overlooked the times of ignorance,” now declares to men everywhere to repent, “because he has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:24 ff.).

This same promised seed of Eve was to be a prophet of whom Moses said, “I will raise up a prophet from among their brothers like you [Moses], and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (see Deut. 18:15-18) These early statements attest to a being whose boundaries are existence within the human family. This precious identity of Jesus as the “Man Messiah” (I Tim. 2:5) was central to the first-century church’s understanding of the faith. Both Peter and Stephen quoted and applied to Jesus this passage from Deuteronomy 18:15 in Acts 3:22 and 7:37.

The stinging accusation of Israel and call to repentance sounded by Peter did strike home, with no record of a protest as to the inadequacy of a human savior, born of a human mother in an earthly location with the rather common Jewish name Jesus.

Hebrews states that Jesus shared in flesh and blood with the rest of us. “He had to be made like his brethren in all things” (Heb. 2:17) that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest, tempted in all things just as we are. Even in his rulership of all nations, as future judge and high priest of the earth, Jesus is kept inside the boundaries of the human family. After carefully detailing his human existence the writer to the Hebrews claims “Jesus Messiah is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” (Heb. 13:8), sealing his status for all time as a member of the human family, the second Adam and the image of the invisible (One) God, the Father (I Cor. 8:4-6).

Where did the idea originate that Jesus was fully God in addition to being fully man? As others have observed, such a God/man would have little in common with the flesh and blood constitution of ordinary men, the status which the Scriptures claim for him. “He was tested in all points as we are.” It took over four hundred years to formalize the innovative doctrine of the “two natures.” It was not finally settled until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. Officially Jesus became God with “impersonal human nature.” Such a person is hardly a human being as so many distinguished scholars have complained.

Viewing Jesus’ final days on earth, would we see anything that would indicate more than the reactions of a completely overwhelmed human being? Facing a monumental battle, without the support of friends and family, bereft of angelic help, he pleaded with his Father to let this cup pass from him and allow a different means of atonement.

His reactions to the thought of the impending terror awaiting him on the cross were those of a very disturbed and distressed human person. He asked his Father to be relieved of the final agony. Where was the calm faith of one who knew he was the eternal God and who could easily handle the ordeal? Why the sweat like great drops of blood? Abandoned at the time of greatest need, without the protection of the cool mental assurance of his Divinity, he left his life in God’s hands. He asked that he be spared the bitter cup of those final moments of torment, moments when even his hope was gone and he paid the final price with the words, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). He died as a hopeless sinner. He suffered the abyss of the blackness of doomed humanity that drives men to suicide and asked “Why?” This was a human reaction. Does this sound like the question of one who shared absolute Godhead with God the Father? Or was Jesus after all mortal man?

Other humans have faced equally cruel physical fates. Michael Servetus, slowly roasted over a fire of green sticks, cried out in screaming agony, “Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me!” But he had hope. Jesus, bereft of strength, physical or spiritual, as he carried the burden of the life and salvation of all mankind, was left hopelessly alone. And at the moment of his greatest need it appeared to him as if his Father had turned His back on him. “He became sin,” and bore that penalty for all of us. Here was the drama of the ages.

The word “awesome” loses its triviality when it describes the deed this tortured human faced in horrifying agony. He accomplished where Adam had failed. His was a trust to the point of death after a perfect life in which all conditions for eternal life had been met. Why did it have to be this way? Jesus did not know the why, and we can only speculate as to why one man had to face this ordeal as payment for our sins.

We can know that our acceptance of his sacrifice, along with our belief in his Gospel of the Kingdom, provides the way to eternal life and rulership with him in the Kingdom of the future. It is this final human battle at the cross that demands our admiration, respect and love. It is through Jesus’ supreme deed that we find our peace and security with God even in death. Jesus was not given this option. He faced the abyss, as it seemed, without God, so that we would not have to. All debts were paid and the world was reconciled through the one man.

The New English Bible translation captures the humanity of Jesus as Paul relates the world drama in Romans 5: “Let us exalt in the hope of the divine splendor that is to be ours…For at the very time when we were still powerless, then Christ died for the wicked…Death held sway from Adam to Moses…and Adam foreshadows the Man who was to come. But God’s act of grace is out of all proportion to Adam’s wrongdoing. For if the wrongdoing of that one man brought death upon so many, its effect is vastly exceeded by the grace of God and the gift that came to so many by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ. For if by the wrongdoing of that one man death established its reign, through a single sinner, much more shall those receive in far greater measure God’s grace and his gift of righteousness, live and reign through the one Man, Jesus Christ…For as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of the one Man the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:2ff.).Surely in view of the complete absence of biblical evidence for a “God-Man” we should hesitate before we abandon the Hebrew Bible’s picture, confirmed by the New Testament, of the Messiah as the human descendant of David, qualified to be the Son of God not by some imagined “eternal begetting” but by God’s staggering creative event in the womb of Mary. The Father’s miraculous production of His unique Son provides, according to Gabriel, the basis and cause of Jesus’ title, Son of God (Luke 1:35). Gabriel and the inspired canon know nothing of the creedal definitions of Jesus which belong to later centuries and which so many today unconsciously canonize and believe, as though they existed in Bible times. Luke 1:35 defines, against traditional creeds, the reason why Jesus is entitled to be called Son of God. The begetting (coming into existence) of that Son was at a historical moment, not in eternity.

v.1 n.7 Melchizedek by Jim Kunz

Perhaps one of the most mysterious figures in the Bible is Melchizedek. With no introduction he appears suddenly on the scene in Genesis 14:18: “And Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine; now he was priest of God most High.” With this brief mention he disappears again. His title, description and briefly described activity leave no clear trail. He is said to be King of Salem, but we are not told where Salem is. Many scholars think it was Jerusalem. He is the first priest named in Scripture, “priest of God most High.” But the setting and description of his priesthood are not detailed or enlarged on.

He meets Abram who is returning from a brief, decisive battle. A confederation of rulers had conquered and occupied a portion of Palestine for 12 years, following which the kings who had been subdued rebelled. The same federation of conquering rulers banded together again and put the rebellion down, taking much booty, spoil and many prisoners. These included Abram’s nephew, Lot.Abram quickly gathered his trained men, went in pursuit of the conquerors, and with his small contingent defeated the conquering, allied force. This is described in Genesis 14:1-16. In Genesis 12 Abram was told by God to leave his relatives and country and go to a land He would show him. God promised that He would make him a great nation and that He would bless him. This promise also included an assurance that God would bless those who blessed Abram and curse those who cursed him. Abram’s success in putting to flight an army with an inferior force was probably the first fulfillment of the promise that God would curse those who cursed him (Gen. 14:20).

It is noteworthy that Melchizedek met and blessed Abram on his return. Where this took place is not stated. Melchizedek brought out bread and wine (a royal banquet hosted by a king, Melchizedek, celebrating Abram’s victory?). There is no indication, contrary to some, that this represented a Passover ceremony. (Not only did Melchizedek bless Abram, but Abram gave him a tenth of the war booty: Gen. 14:20; Heb. 7:1-2). The clear indication here is that Melchizedek was recognized by Abram as the greater of the two. Abram received Melchizedek’s blessing and paid him a tenth of the spoils.

Who was this Melchizedek to whom Abram paid homage? Some commentaries suggest that it might have been Shem. A few religious groups think it was Christ. The Bible does not identify him. He was both a king and a priest. This does not fit the Levitical, Aaronic priesthood. The Levitical priests after the order of Aaron were not kings. The kings of Israel were not priests. Often God communicated with Israelite kings through prophets whose office actually exceeded that of the kings, but Melchizedek was not of this order either.It was not God’s intention to identify Melchizedek’s person. This is made clear in Hebrews 7:3, referring to Melchizedek: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually.” Some say this Scripture refers to Christ, and assume he preexisted his birth. But Melchizedek was not the Son of God. He was like him. The passage appears to say that he was not born, and that he lives forever. However The Word Biblical Commentary, on Hebrews, by William L. Lane, indicates that this is not a proper understanding. Lane renders the passage as follows: “His father, mother, and line of descent are unknown, and there is no record of his birth or of his death, but having been made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest continuously” (Vol. 47a, p. 157).

The writer to the Hebrews merely says that the Bible does not give Melchizedek’s genealogy, nor is there a record of when he was born or when he died. The terms “without father, without mother” come from the Greek words apator and amator. Apator does not mean “fatherless,” but “father unknown.” By implication the term amator carries the same meaning. In fact Philo uses the term amator to refer to Sarah because her mother is not mentioned in the biblical text (p. 166). The Syriac Peshita translation renders Hebrews 7:3: “whose father and mother were not entered in genealogies.”

Our commentary also states, “There is no hint in the argument that unfolds in verses 4-10 that the writer regarded Melchizedek in mythological terms. He presents the royal priest of God Most High as a historical personage in primal history. The silence of Scripture concerning Melchizedek’s parents and family line is stressed by the writer to amplify the concept of the uniqueness of his priesthood…It implies that Melchizedek’s priesthood was not established upon the external circumstances of birth and descent. It was based on the call of God and not on the hereditary process by which the Levitical priesthood was sustained. Without a recorded priestly genealogy, Melchizedek could not have qualified for Levitical priesthood. Nevertheless, this man was priest of God Most High, and Abraham recognized his dignity.”

Now the story of Melchizedek becomes clear. Psalm 110:4 brings it into focus: “The Lord [God the Father] has sworn and will not change his mind, you [Christ] are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” Melchizedek’s father, mother, time of birth and death were not important for God’s purpose. What was important was the fact that his priesthood was appointed by God and did not come by inheritance as the Levitical priesthood did. Melchizedek did not take up his priestly service from a predecessor and no successor is listed or indicated. In addition, he occupied the office of king and priest jointly. This is the precedent for Christ’s office in the future Kingdom as King of kings (Rev. 19:16; 17:14) and high priest of God (Heb. 5:5, 10). Christ’s office is not inherited as the kingly and priestly lines in Israel were, but appointed by God.

Why was it necessary to appoint Christ the high priest forever? Hebrews 7:11-14: “Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be designated according to the order of an Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also [the priesthood and the law were only temporary until the seed, Christ, should come, Gal. 3:19, 24-26]. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning the priests.”

It was necessary to show that there was a high priest of God, Melchizedek, to whom Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites, gave respect and honor. This took place long before the Levitical priesthood was appointed, and provided a “type” and precedent for the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. Melchizedek exercised a priestly role on the basis of divine appointment and innate worth. Christ, the fulfillment of that type, has been appointed high priest, also based on divine appointment and on his incomparable, unparalleled qualification. Melchizedek is brought into the picture to make this important feature of God’s plan clear. The Levitical priesthood and the law served only an interim function until Christ and his awesome priestly role could be established.Melchizedek was a human person. Hebrews 7:6 implies that he did indeed have a genealogy, but it was not connected to the family of Levi.

v.1 n.7 The Tragic Loss of the Old Testament

The churches’ problems can be traced to a single major cause: the loss of the Hebrew Bible as the basis for sound faith. The Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) was the Bible on which Jesus and the Apostles were reared. The basis of the Gospel is found in the promises made to Abraham. “The Gospel was preached in advance to Abraham” (Gal. 3:8) and Jesus came “to fulfill the promises made to the patriarchs” (Rom. 15:8). Paul typically argued the Gospel “from the Law and the Prophets from dawn to dusk” (Acts 28:23).

By contrast today we are offered a superficial three-point “key to salvation” constructed on a few isolated verses from Romans. Our method is the product of the quick-fix lifestyle. But the Bible and the great counsels of God will not yield to our over-simplified approach to the issue of conversion. Jesus did not preach a Gospel of the cross only, and neither did Paul. Paul was a disciple of Jesus and his object was to carry out the Great Commission which authorizes the continuation of the same Gospel as Jesus preached always, the Gospel of the Kingdom.

The Kingdom itself and the Gospel concerning it is rooted in the Hebrew Bible. The Kingdom is the Kingdom promised by the prophets. It has not yet arrived. The nations have not beaten their swords into plowshares. The nations are not flocking to Jerusalem to learn God’s ways (Isa. 2:1-5; see also Dan. 2:44; 7:18, 22, 27; Obad. 21; Micah 4:7, 8).

What if we had been taught from childhood to embrace the vision of the prophets, the basis of the Christian gospel? How different things would be. Jeremiah preached the Gospel as he looked forward to this kind of a world: “I will give you pastors and teachers who will share my mind and who will feed you with knowledge and understanding…At that time they will call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord [the Kingdom of God] and there will be a multi-national gathering in Jerusalem on behalf of God’s agenda. The nations will no longer behave according to the imagination of their evil heart. In those days and at that time the nation of Judah and the nation of Israel will return from the Northern Land to the land which I promised to their ancestors as their inheritance…You will call me Father and no longer turn away from Me” (see Jer 3:15-19).

The New Testament is a brilliant commentary on this vision of the “good time coming” on earth, the restoration of Israel to the land in peace and the conversion of nation-states as they come to recognize the Messiah who will then have returned to take up his position as world-governor on the restored throne of David.

“Listen! The days are coming, the Lord says, when I will produce for David a righteous descendant [Branch] and a King will come to the throne and succeed as he executes justice and judgment in the land. In his days the Jews will be saved and Israel will live in security… They will live in their own land” (see Jer. 23:5-8). “In those days and at that time I [the Lord] will cause the Branch of righteousness [the Messiah] to appear, the Son of David, and he will execute judgment and sound government in the land” (Jer. 33:15-17).

These thrilling promises of world peace are the heart of the Good News as the New Testament presents it. Christians are invited to repent and believe in God’s world Plan being executed through Jesus, the Son of God. At his farewell supper Jesus addressed the inner circle of disciples with these words — a summary of his whole Gospel mission. (They reflect perfectly Jesus’ own mission statement recorded in Luke 4:43: “I must proclaim the Gospel about the Kingdom of God to the other cities also: That is why God commissioned me.”) “You are the ones who have continued faithfully with me during all my trials and so I now covenant with you to give you a Kingdom, as my Father has covenanted with me to give me a Kingdom. You are going to eat and drink with me at my table in my [coming] Kingdom and you are going to be promoted to take your places on thrones to administer the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:28-30).

Jesus is inspired by the vision of the prophets of Israel just as Paul protested to his Jewish enemies that he was standing for the Hope of Israel, “believing everything written in the law and the prophets…the promise made by God to our patriarchs, the promise which our twelve tribes hope to attain” (Acts 24:14; 26:6, 7).

The Christian vision is no flimsy dream of “polishing rainbows” in heaven, no “pie in the sky.” Jesus did not believe in a realm of disembodied spirits enjoying a post-mortem residence in some super-celestial region. There is at present no burning hell or purgatory. And none of the faithful has yet gone to be consciously “with the Lord.” Coming face to face with Jesus can happen only via the future resurrection (I Thess. 4:13-17).

The Christian Gospel promises its adherents a place in the New World of peace and harmony to be established on the earth renewed by Jesus at his coming. This is the Gospel about the Kingdom, the Kingdom destined to come from heaven at the Parousia (Second Coming) of the Messiah.

How strange and — dare we add — sinister that gospel tracts have dropped the word Kingdom from the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven,” thus robbing the Gospel of its principal element, the key to the heart and mind of Jesus.

v.1 n.7 Plain Talk about Who God Is

Trying to read the Bible without understanding who the God of the Bible is is likely to be frustrating. Unfortunately so much pressure and dogmatism now surrounds the issue of who God is that Christians are unable to approach the text of Scripture with an open mind. A great measure of fear attends their studies, because they have been told what kind of a God they are to find in the Bible, or else… hellfire! This is a hopeless atmosphere for calm and reasoned investigation.

The matter of deciding who God is in the Bible is relatively simple, if we follow sound procedure.
And sound procedure demands that we start our investigation in the right place, the Hebrew Bible, the Bible which nurtured the Jews and Jesus and which Jesus categorically said he did not come to destroy (Matt. 5:17).

What God is presented in Jesus’ Bible?

The creed of Israel, the cardinal tenet of all sound religion and the great hedge against idolatry and paganism, is of course the Shema — the “Hear O Israel” (Deut 6:4). This creed declares that the “Lord God is ONE LORD.” The oneness of God is here proposed in the simplest and clearest language.

To confirm this central truth the Hebrew Bible describes God with singular pronouns (I, Me, You, Him, My, Your, His) thousands upon thousands of times!

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of language knows, or ought to know, that singular pronouns denote a single Person. God therefore in the Bible is One Person.

Jesus affirmed the unitary, non-trinitarian, faith of Israel when he replied to the question put to him by a theologian as to the greatest of all the commandments.

Jesus replied that the “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord” is the pinnacle of divine revelation. Only that God is to be loved with all our hearts and minds and strength (Mark 12:28ff.).

Paul echoed the teaching of Jesus on this point, with complete simplicity and clarity. Discussing the multiple gods of paganism, Paul contrasted the Christian belief: “To us [Christians] there is ONE God, the Father… And no one besides Him” (I Cor. 8:4-6). That of course is unitary monotheism, belief that God is a single Person.

The One God is defined, we note, not as three eternal Persons, but as the Father.

At once we are aware of a great difference between what traditionally appears in faith statements and what Paul actually said: “There is one God, the Father.” That is simply the unitary monotheism of Paul’s and Jesus’ Jewish heritage. It is by definition also the Christian creed, because it is the biblical creed.

The stark simplicity of this creed may seem threatening to some, but it is the force of prejudice which makes it difficult to accept. There is no complexity about Paul’s creed. It is straightforward and beyond argument.

Many, however, find it unsatisfactory, and they rush to point out that Paul in I Corinthians 8:4-6 went on to say that Jesus was also “God.”

But did he? In fact, not at all. Paul did indeed go on to say that “there is one Lord Jesus Messiah” (1 Cor. 8:6). But it would be a fatal and confusing move to think that Paul, by calling Jesus Lord, was really calling him God! There is a crucial difference.

You see, there is a simple and overpoweringly influential text behind Paul’s language. It is Psalm 110:1, the very text which Jesus himself had produced when describing the relationship of himself the Messiah to the one God (Mark 12:35-37).

Psalm 110:1 is quoted or alluded to no less than 23 times in the New Testament. It appears in every section of the New Testament, and it would be a major mistake to ignore its importance.

Psalm 110:1 recognizes in good Jewish fashion that God (Yahweh) is One Individual and that One God speaks in a prophetic oracle to another individual, not Himself, who is “my lord,” the lord of David. “My lord” is told to sit at Yahweh’s right hand until he is given future victory over his enemies.

Now the second lord of Psalm 110:1, the Messiah, is definitely NOT God, but a superior human being. How do we know this for certain? Because of the careful choice of words in the original. “My lord” in the Hebrew inspired text is ADONI. In every one of the 195 times the word ADONI appears in the Bible, it never means God, but always a human (or occasionally angelic) superior. ADONI is the word which tells us 195 times that the one named is not God, but man.

So when Paul said that next to the One God, the Father, there is “one Lord Jesus Messiah,” he meant the One (superior, human) lord as defined by Psalm 110:1. Paul has not confused Jesus with God.

Psalm 110:1 could well have used another word to describe the Messiah. There was a word ADONAI which meant God (in all of its 449 occurrences). But the spirit never confused God and the Son of God. God was Yahweh or Adonai and the Messiah was the human lord, ADONI.

There are two lords in the Bible, God and Jesus. But only the Father is the One God (“There is One God, the Father”). Jesus is the Lord Messiah, not the Lord God (Luke 2:11, etc.).The creed of the Bible is the essence of simplicity: “There is One God, the Father, and one Lord Messiah, Jesus” (I Cor 8:4-6).

v.1 n.7 It Pays to Read Carefully

Since we last wrote to you, we have been on the Internet in pursuit of information about what Christians think the Gospel is. The results are surprising, not to say bewildering and often confusing. Some 50 samples were tested. These were statements tackling the subject head-on:

“What is the Gospel?”

Complexity was the order of the day in many cases. According to some “Gospel” is a sort of wax-nose word needing to be bent into different shapes to fit different contexts. So at any point in the course of the New Testament you are not quite sure what “gospel” means.

There is need to bring some order out of chaos on this most basic of all subjects. An agreement over the definition of the Gospel could help churches take a giant step towards unity.

It seems to me incredible that those expert teachers and writers who have given us our New Testament documents were so inadequate that they left us in doubt about what the Gospel is. I am certain they took utmost trouble to convey to us an understanding of the New Testament’s most central term.

Several examples of the Gospel defined on the Internet plunged in with dogmatic certainty — but they began not with Jesus but Paul. It is beyond dispute, they argued, that Paul defined the Gospel once and for all in I Corinthians 15:1-3, where he limited the Gospel strictly to the facts about the death and resurrection of Jesus.

No attempt was made by these sources to explain how, if indeed the Gospel is about the death and resurrection of Jesus only, Jesus himself preached the Gospel for 25 chapters in Matthew, Mark and Luke without so much as a word about his death and resurrection.

Furthermore many ministries seemed unperturbed by the fact that if Paul really thought that the Gospel consisted only in facts about Jesus’ death and resurrection, he must have been in violation of the Great Commission by which Jesus commanded everything he taught to be taught worldwide as the Gospel (Matt. 28:19, 20).

So what about I Corinthians 15:1-3? Did Paul really say that Jesus’ death and resurrection comprised the whole Gospel? The answer is no. If we read carefully we hear Paul saying that he preached the death and resurrection of Jesus “among things of first importance” (v. 3). He did not say they formed the total Gospel. Henry Alford, in his celebrated commentary on the Greek New Testament, with an eagle eye for detail and precision, stated: “Paul declares to them the whole Gospel: not merely the Death and Resurrection of Christ which were important parts of it.”

Paul’s letters deal with special problems, and it is wise to go to other passages to find out what Paul said about the content of his Gospel. In Corinth the issue at stake was the resurrection. And to that problem Paul directs his attention unambiguously. If, however, we listen carefully to Paul in Acts 20:25 we find that his own summary of Gospel ministry everywhere was this: “I went about preaching as Gospel the Kingdom of God” (note that the Greek kerusso — “herald” — implies the announcement of the Gospel).

So there it is: Paul and Jesus are in perfect harmony. Both were tireless proclaimers of the Gospel about the Kingdom of God (Acts 8:12).The use of I Corinthians 15:1-3 as an out-and-out proof text for a watertight definition of the Gospel breaks down under careful scrutiny. There is one Gospel, and all the apostles followed the lead of Jesus in preaching it. When churches resolve to define the Gospel as Jesus and Paul did, a giant step towards unity will be achieved. But we have a long way to go. Tradition dies hard, and there is a pervasive lack of analytical study amongst churchgoers. “What we have always heard” seems to make sense, until someone comes and challenges the status quo in a closely-argued exegetical encounter.

v.1 n.7 Cause for Alarm

I recently went browsing on the Internet to find out what the churches and ministries think the Gospel is. There are countless presentations of the Gospel available, but with a very few exceptions the samples I tested give rise to concern.

Many of the sites began with such words as “There is widespread confusion amongst Christians even about what the Gospel is…” But the remedy offered was less than satisfactory for this one reason: On almost no occasion were the words of Jesus appealed to for a definition of the Gospel.
Imagine it. Hundreds of earnest presenters of the Gospel do not resort to the words of Jesus to define the Gospel!

Anyone joining my search for information about the most crucial of all questions, what is the Gospel, would be struck by this amazing fact: Apparently ministries and churches do not think Jesus was the author of the Gospel.

The main purpose of our magazine is to call your attention to this dreadful situation and invite you to take steps to put things right, both for yourself and for your friends.

Is there any possible justification for the appalling fact that Jesus is not thought to be the principal exponent of the Gospel? In Scripture, none whatsoever. There appears to have fallen over churches an inexplicable blindness to the most obvious of biblical facts: Jesus came preaching the GOSPEL. Listen to him: Luke 4:43: “I must preach the Gospel about the Kingdom of God to the other cities also; that is the reason why God commissioned me.” Matthew, Mark and Luke could not have gone to greater lengths to inform us that Jesus was the great evangelist. To him we must look if we want to be informed and reformed by the saving Gospel. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, came “preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom” (see Matt. 3:2). Jesus came preaching exactly the same message: “Repent because the Kingdom of God/Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:23). “Believe the Gospel about the Kingdom of God” (Mark 1:14, 15). “From the time of John the Baptist the Gospel of the Kingdom of God has been preached” (Luke 16:16). “When anyone hears the Word/Gospel about the Kingdom of God…” (Matt. 13:19). “This Gospel about the Kingdom will be preached in all the world and then the end will come” (Matt. 24:14).

It is a biblical fact that hearing the Gospel means hearing the Message of the Good News about the Kingdom. “Believe that Gospel of the Kingdom,” Jesus declares, in the summary statement of his whole ministry (Mark 1:14, 15).

We invite our listeners to consider a crisis situation in churches. The facts are that the Gospel as Jesus preached it is not the Gospel offered by the churches. Is this not cause for utmost concern? Can we be deceived? Surely the Bible is full of such warnings. Have we really conducted a Berean exercise in our search for the True saving Message? It would appear not.

Do not by any means take it from us. Proceed to the Internet and see for yourself. Ask in a variety of circles for a definition of the Gospel and wait for a response. Do not ask in a way to condemn, but seek to be informed. Ask respectfully. But if your correspondent turns to the opening of the ministry of Jesus to define the Gospel, we think you will have met a rare person. Let us know what you find. We will publish the results.

Hebrew 2:3 states that the Gospel of salvation “first began to be preached by the Lord.” Romans 10:17 declares that faith is awakened by contact with the Message of the Messiah — Jesus’ own Gospel preaching relayed first by the apostles after the death and resurrection of Jesus and handed down to posterity. The Great Commission, about which we hear much, demands that the very Gospel of Jesus about the Kingdom be passed on to all nations till the end of the age and the return of Jesus.

Is all this complex? Does it make any sense that Christians would call themselves followers of Jesus and then bypass his Gospel preaching? Is it in any way safe or methodologically sound to skip over the repeated definitions of the Gospel as it came from the mouth of Jesus and rush to isolated verses in the letters of Paul?

But that is exactly what the approximately 50 websites I consulted on the Gospel have done. There is a faithful copying of each other — the same use of the same verses from Paul, but no reference to Jesus as the preacher of the saving Gospel.

It is plain common sense to realize that the words “the Gospel” without further explanation do not tell you what the Gospel is about. It is plain common sense that if you want an explanation of the content of the Gospel you look for the phrase “Gospel of…” The Bible is most generous with this phrase, and it occurs early on in the New Testament records so that we should not be able to miss it. But miss it we certainly have.

The Gospel is defined 18 times as the Gospel of (=about) the Kingdom of God. That is the first “ABC” fact of the Christian faith. Matthew never uses the noun Gospel without its qualifying explanation “of the Kingdom” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14). Mark sets up his whole story with a summary, programmatic statement of the activity and career of Jesus. “The Kingdom of God is at hand: Repent and believe the Gospel” (1:15). Luke records the words of Jesus indicating the secret of his heart: “I must preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the other cities also; that is the reason why I was sent” (4:43). Jesus sent the twelve out to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. Jesus sent out the 70 to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (Luke 8:1; 9:2). Jesus described the Christian faith as the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom (Luke 16:16).I trust that our readers will not find us unduly critical if we suggest that among believers today the phrase Gospel of the Kingdom has all but disappeared. Do you share our alarm? Write and tell us if you do. It can be a lonely business pointing out the obvious and the simple, but there seems to be a need for this basic task. We are encouraged by those of you who write and tell us that the Bible is coming alive for you in a new way now that you see what the Gospel is as Jesus preached it.