Jesus Does Not Make Sense if He Claims to be God Himself.

If Jesus is God as Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals claim, what Jesus says would not make sense. For instance, in Matt. 5:8 Jesus says,

“Blessed are the pure in heart FOR THEY SHALL SEE GOD.”

If Jesus is God, then he is intentionally being deceptive if he claims to be God as Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals falsely claim he did.

Some of the questions posed below to Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostal believers will never get a straight answer.  If an answer is given, notice that they must resort to unbiblical reasoning.

How can Jesus claim to be God and have a God at the same time? When he was resurrected from the dead he told the woman in John 20:17,

“I ascend to my Father and your Father, and MY GOD and YOUR GOD.”

And in Rev. 3:12 he says,

“Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of MY GOD. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of MY GOD and the name of the city of MY GOD, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from MY GOD; and I will also write on him my new name.”

And in Revelation 3:21

“To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with MY FATHER on HIS THRONE.

In Rev. 1:6 Jesus says,

"[Jesus] has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve HIS GOD AND FATHER - to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen."

Notice this is AFTER he was resurrected from the dead.  Again, How can Jesus claim to be God and have a God at the same time?

What about prayer?  Does Jesus always pray to himself? (Ex. John 17:3) For that matter, if Jesus is God, why the need for him to pray at all? 

If Jesus is God, why tell the disciples, “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me?” Why not simply say, “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in me for I am God?”

If you say Jesus is God who created the heavens and the earth and mankind, why does Jesus say it was God who did those things? (Mark 10:6; see Gen. 1) Why couldn’t Jesus simply say, “I created…?"

Bottom line, If Jesus is God and claims to be God as you say, why does he use a lot of double-talk to confuse the listeners?

If you say Jesus is 100% human and 100% God because he has a “dual nature,” where did you get that out of Scripture? If a person is 100% human, how can he be 100% of something else?

I often hear, and have used it myself, that nothing is too hard for God and that he COULD become a man if he so chooses. The question is not COULD God become a man, the question is, where in Scripture does it clearly state that he DID become a man? There is not one.

Where does it clearly state that Jesus was comprised of two natures? It doesn’t.

Hebrews 2:17 says, 

“in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

If Jesus was made like unto his brethren, do we have a dual nature?  Are we God-man?  Since we don’t have a dual nature, Heb. 2:17 cannot be true concerning Jesus if you say he does.

Dual nature is not taught in Scripture. God did not send Himself to die for us. God cannot die!

No where in scripture did Jesus or the apostles teach a dual nature of Christ or that Christ was God. One would have to read that into scriptures and rely on philosophy. Scriptures are clear that Jesus is the Son of God and that God is his Father and our Father and our God. God the Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD (John 20:17, John 17:3, etc.).

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." Col. 2:8

Jesus is Not the Almighty in Rev. 1:8

A person told me that Rev. 1:8 refers to Jesus as the Almighty. (Trinity and Oneness Pentecostals come to the same conclusion...that Jesus is God.) My response?

In Rev. 1:8, it does not matter what color the words are in, it does not refer to Jesus. Jesus is NEVER referred to as the “Almighty.” No one will find a single place in the entire NT that describes Jesus as the Almighty.

Please read the context and you will see that John bore witness to distinct separate beings; God Almighty AND Jesus the man.

For example, in Rev. 1:4-6 it says, 

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him (GOD THE FATHER) 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 first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him (Jesus) who loves us, and released us from our sins by his blood, and he (Jesus) has made us to be a kingdom, priests TO HIS GOD AND FATHER; to him (GOD THE FATHER) be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

PLEASE carefully read the grammatical structure of the paragraph. It reads, “…Him who is and who was and who is to come AND from Jesus Christ.”

Jesus is not God Almighty and God Almighty is not the firstborn from the dead! God cannot die! Nor does God have blood!

In Revelation 1:5 we see that Jesus is not God because he made a kingdom of priests to “HIS GOD.” How can Jesus be God since the passage says, “he made us to be a kingdom, priests to HIS GOD AND FATHER?”

This is not to mention that in Rev. 3:12 Jesus says, “

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.” 

Does it make sense to say "MY GOD" if Jesus is God??

When he was resurrected from the dead, he told the woman, 

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto MY FATHER and YOUR FATHER, and MY GOD and YOUR GOD. “ ~Jn. 20:17

And since it’s a matter of eternal life, who does Jesus say is the ONLY TRUE GOD in John 17:3?

Sin is Not in the Blood

There are those who teach that Adam and Eve started out with perfect blood, but something happened to that blood after they sinned. In other words, the blood properties changed and that is understood to be ‘sinful blood’ as opposed to maintaining ‘sinless blood’. This “sinful blood” in turn is given to all Adam’s progeny.

I even read where one teacher said that Adam and Eve had water flowing through their veins before they sinned! (Ruckman, Peter. Ruckman’s Bible References: Personal Notes on Salient Verses in the Bible. 1997, p. 25) But enough of this nonsense.

Now, if there is sin in the blood, if a person loses his blood, would he become sinless? Does he become less sinful as he bleeds? A logical conclusion would indicate that losing blood would be a positive thing.

Most importantly, where in scripture does it teach that sin is in the blood and transmitted by the blood? Where in scripture does it say blood is the place where sin resides? Where in scripture does it say Adam’s blood became impure after he sinned? And for that matter, where in scripture does it say Adam and Eve had water running through their veins before they sinned?!

Sin is a transgression (1 John 3:4), NOT something we are born with.

The Bible is clear that a person is born innocent and corrupts himself (Genesis 6:5-7, 11-12; Exodus 32:7-8; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Deut. 31:29; Deuteronomy 32:5-6, 18). Sin is something that happens AFTER we are born, it is not something we are born with, not something that is in our genes DNA, or chromosomes. This doctrine makes sin to be a physical problem, and this is exactly the belief in the majority of

Christendom and the world. Those in the world think that someday they will be able find the cure for the “sin gene.”

Jehovah Witnesses believe sin is in the blood. This is what the Watchtower teaches,

“The blood in any person is in reality the person himself. It contains all the peculiarities of the individual from whence it comes. This includes hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits . . . The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood.” (Watchtower 9/15/1961, page 564)

Watchtower is saying that such sins reside in physical blood. This is one of the reasons why they won’t allow blood transfusions. Sin does not reside in the blood, nor does righteousness reside in the blood, and any Scripture quoted is used as a smokescreen to enforce the Gnostic thinking.

The Bible does use terms like “innocent blood” and “righteous blood” but this is not talking about the properties of blood itself.

The innocent blood is speaking of one who was simply innocent from doing any crime, who are unjustly punished, and the righteous blood refers to those saints who were righteous, “righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias.”

Here are two quotes some may use to try and prove blood has moral properties.

“For he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine, and the LORD wrought a great salvation for all Israel: thou sawest it, and didst rejoice: wherefore then wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause?” -1 Sam 19:5

“That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” -Matt. 23:35

Note it is obvious that it’s not referring to moral properties in the blood, for physical blood has no moral properties. A person who is innocent is one who is free from guilt; not having done wrong or violated any law. In Matthew Jesus talks about those righteous people from Abel right onto Zacharias! Jesus was not referring to these people in the sense of their blood having moral property (for it doesn’t!), but of the people themselves living a righteous life, innocent, and whose blood was shed, from Abel to unto the blood of Zacharias.

Some people try to prove that Jesus had “righteous blood” flowing in his veins by quoting 1 Peter 1:19 for support. Nowhere in the passage does it say anything about “righteous blood.” The text says “PRECIOUS BLOOD.”

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

Precious means of great price; costly; as a precious stone. Highly valued; much esteemed. Nothing in there about moral properties in the blood of Jesus he Messiah.

Worshipping Someone Does Not Make Them God

The majority of Christendom think that since Jesus was worshipped, this means he is God. They will also often refer to the passage where Jesus says,  

“You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only” (Matt. 4: 10).  

Note that Jesus did not say, “I am the LORD your God, worship me only.”

In the Hebrew culture worship is not reserved exclusively for God.  Worship was offered to God and other people.  For example:

• Lot “worshipped” the two strangers as they entered Sodom (Gen. 19: 1). 
• Abraham “worshipped” the Gentile leaders of the land where he lived (Gen. 23: 7). 
• Jacob “worshipped” his older brother Esau (Gen. 33: 3). 
• Joseph’s brothers “worshipped” him (Gen. 43: 26). 
• Ruth “worshipped” Boaz (Ruth 2: 10). 
• David “worshipped” Jonathan (1 Sam. 20: 41). 
• David “worshipped” King Saul (1 Sam. 24: 8). 
• Mephibosheth fell on his face and “worshipped” David (2 Sam. 9: 6). 
• Abigail “worshipped” David the outlaw (1 Sam. 25: 23, 41). The whole congregation “worshipped” the king (1 Chron. 9: 20).

In Rev. 3:9, the saints will be worshipped,

Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

People who were worshipped were God’s representatives. This is called “Jewish Agency.”  When a superior commissions an agent to act on his behalf, the agent is regarded at the person himself.  We can take a few examples from scripture.  For instance:

Jacob wrestled with “a man” all night until dawn and said he had “seen God face to face” (Gen. 32:24-30).  When we read the book of Hosea 12:3-4 it states, “As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with the angel and overcame him.” 

When Israel started their journey through the wilderness we read in Exodus 13:21, 

The LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to lead them on their way during the day and in a pillar of fire to give them light at night, so that they could travel day or night.”

Then in Exodus 14:19 we read, 

“And the angel of God who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them.”

Here we have the LORD Himself who went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud and there other passage says it was the angel of God.   The angel of God is the angelic representative of Yahweh as if the angel is Yahweh Himself.  Now it might be said that this speaks of Jesus the Messiah, but if they want to call and say Jesus is an “angel,” they will run into many problems trying to read that into the text.

Notice when Moses gathers the people together to tell them of the great signs and wonders the LORD did for them, he says,

You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders (Deut. 29: 2-3).  

Now in verse 6 he says, 

You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God.

No one would have mistaken that Moses was claiming to be the LORD their God.  Moses, as God’s agent, speaks as though he is the LORD himself.

Concerning the concept or “law” of Jewish agency, The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion states: 

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 on the part of the agent. (R.J.Z. Werblowsky, G. Wigoder, New York: Adama Books, 1986, p. 15.)

We can compare this concept when a person is given “Power of Attorney” for someone.  They have full rights to speak on behalf of that person and take care of all his affairs in all matters as if he were the person himself.

In the New Testament Jesus is the ultimate agent of God, "power of attorney" so to speak. He is the messiah sent from God (“sent,” not meaning Jesus literally came down from heaven as though he preexisted his birth) as all other agents, whether men or angels, were sent.

So when it comes to worshipping Jesus, the Jewish people did not recognize him to be God himself, but as the prophet of God, sent from God.  When Jesus did mighty works, they glorified God through him (Matt. 9: 8; 11: 27; 28: 18; Luke 7: 16; 9: 11; 10: 22.).

Summary

The Hebrew and Greek word for "worship" apply to God and also apply to superior human agents of the only true God. Worshipping a superior human agent did not make them the only true God. Jesus is the ultimate spokesman for God and said to be the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), “and the express image of his person” (Heb. 1:3), which means he perfectly reflected God's mind and character while he walked on this earth, but this does not make him the only true God. Both are worthy of worship, that is, Jesus as the lord Messiah, and the ULTIMATE praise and worship to the ONLY TRUE GOD AND FATHER of our lord Jesus Christ. (John 17:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:3)

John 8:58

 Jesus said to them, “I assure you: Before Abraham was, I am.”

Trinitarians like to use this verse to try and prove Jesus was claiming to be the one supreme God Almighty, and this is the very reason why the Jews tried to kill him.  The "I am" is "ego eimi" from the Greek translation.  Jesus never said, "I am" as in "I am Yahweh."  This is nothing more than a theological presupposition and not found in the context.

The phrase "I am" is found many times in the NT and is often translated as "I am he" or something equivalent.  (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). The "he" is often used in italics.  It is interesting that when it comes to John 8:58, they left it out.  If they were consistent, John 8:58 should have been translated as "I am he" or "I am the one," just as they did elsewhere, would cut down the confusion.  It is easy to see that we have "Trinitarian bias" when it comes to translating the scriptures.  However, this is where it would be fruitful to compare other passages of scriptures that are very plain and easy to understand.

Just because someone says "I am" (ego eimi) does not mean the person is God.  The blind man in John 9:9 says, "Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Christ.  The conversation at the well with the woman states:

Joh 4:25-26  "The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.  Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he."

Others called him the Messiah throughout his ministry (Luke 2:11; Matt. 16:16; Mark 1:1; John 1:41).

More importantly, the Jews did NOT try to kill Jesus throughout his ministry because he claimed to be the one supreme God.  If Trinitarians insist this is the case found in John 8:58, this would have been the GRAND opportunity to bring it up as Jesus' trial.  At the trial, did the high priest ask Jesus if he were God?  NO.  Rather, he asked, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us IF YOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD.” (Matt. 26:63)  It is for this reason the Jews tried to kill Jesus!

From John's gospel where Trinitarians try to prove the Trinity doctrine fail to miss the main point of why John was writing.  He says,

"But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is God?"  NO.     

"But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

No matter how clearly something is taught in scripture, people who either have an agenda or a theological perspective to protect will never be able to see the truth of what is plainly taught in scripture.

Spiritual Death or Physical death in Romans 5:12

In the past I had a problem when it came to the term "spiritual death," because of the connection with Reformed Theology.

"Spiritual death" simply means a "moral and relational" separation from God” which comes about by sinning, and never has to do with infants. Infants do not come into this world morally and relationally separated from God. The Bible teaches that infants are born morally innocent (2 Kings 14:6; 21:16; 24:4; Joel 3:19), that children are born innocent with no knowledge of good or evil (Rom. 9:11, Ecc. 7:29, Duet. 1:39). Infants do not go to hell when they die (Matt. 19:14 Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16).

Question: How do you explain the fact that humans die?

Man physically dies because they have no access to the tree of life. Jesus himself was under this condition. Like all humans, He had cells that reproduced and died. He lost his baby teeth. He lost hair and grew more. He got hungry, he thirsted, and he grew tired and needed sleep. He was in all ways like us. (Heb. 2:14; 17)

We have this idea that Adam was created immortal, which the Bible says he was not (1 Corinthians 15:47-50).  If Adam and Eve had to eat from the tree of life to become immortal,  then they were created mortal to begin with!

Sin is a choice, not a constitution. Sin is a transgression of law (1 John 3:4) and conscience (James 4:17). If sin is a choice it cancels out constitution, if sin is in our constitution it cancels out the choice.

Now, if "physical death" is referred to in Romans 5:12 as a result from Adam's sin, then it can no longer be a result from "personal" sin. In Romans 5:12 it states,

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

The death in Romans 5:12 deals with personal transgression... "for all have sinned." Spiritual death comes by sinning. The word "have" indicates an activity on every individual's part since sin is voluntary. All that have sinned are the ones who have sinned. Babies do not sin.  Babies cannot make moral choices.

However, when a person comes to maturity where he knows the difference between good and evil, and does evil, they sin and consequently come under the wrath of God as a result of them misusing their free will. (Rom. 1:18-21; 2:12-15; Rom. 6:16). So the type of death that comes upon individuals for their own personal sin is not physical (all are going to eventually die physically), but spiritual (Eze. 18:4, 20). This spiritual death (severed relationship with God) comes by personal disobedience to light. (James. 4:17; Heb. 7:26; 1John 1:5)  It is addressing spiritual death that passes upon all men, for that all have sinned (v.12). Not in Adam! It does not say "all have sinned in Adam." This is why there was a group of people (not babies) who were spiritually dead between Adam and Moses (v.14). So death (spiritual) still reigned over those who had NOT sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression (v.14), meaning they were sinning against the law of their conscience (James 4:17).

Sin is optional, not a necessity of nature. All who choose to sin become spiritually dead in their sins. But just as a person may choose to sin (which we all have) they must also choose to reject the created habits. This is possible through the freedom of the will and God given nature (Ecc. 7:29; Rom. 2:14). If sin were physical (as Gnostics teach) this would not be true.  How can a person feel responsible for something that does not spring from his choice but rather governs his choice?  But sin is moral so the will is always in play - always able to choose vice or virtue - otherwise we're robots!

Michael Pearl, as well as others, teaches that Roman 5:12 is referring to [physical] death  and that [physical] death is the condemnation that went out upon all of Adam's descendants, but Romans 5:12 is speaking of a death that comes upon all men  for their own personal transgression ("for all have sinned").  And it is only upon a person sinning that they can experience condemnation (Eze. 18:4,20; Eph. 5:5-7), since condemnation and justification are completely conditioned upon a person’s personal choices, not Adam's.  Those who decide by free will to follow Adam's example are spiritually dead in their sins (i.e. separated from God relationally Isa. 59:2), without righteousness (Rom. 6:20) and will receive the punishment of eternal death (2Thess.1:9; Rev.21:8). BUT, those who choose to follow Christ's example will be spiritually alive (reconciled relationally to God Jn.17:3; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21) without sin (Rom. 6:7; 11,13; 8:10) and will receive eternal life in the world to come (Mk. 10:30).

Now here is where we need to be very careful.  If Paul were not speaking of "spiritual death" in Rom. 5:12, he would then be teaching what is known as "positional righteousness" in Rom 6, 7, 8. WHY?

Knowing this that our old man was crucified with Him that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

(Here it is...)

For he who has DIED has been freed from sin." (Rom. 6:6-7)

It's very easy to see that 'baptism of repentance' which happens in 'initial salvation' (2 Cor. 7:10-11) is a spiritual regeneration (Rom. 6:4-7; Jn. 3:3; Titus 3:5). The problem is, if Paul were referring to [physical] death in Rom. 5:12, then he is also referring to [physical] death here in Rom. 6:7.  Therefore Paul would have been teaching (which he did not) that a person must [physically] die to be "freed from sin!" (Rom. 6:7) This then makes Rom. 6, 7, 8 all POSITIONAL, rather than PRACTICAL. This is a very dangerous teaching!! 

Likewise you also reckon yourselves dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 6:11)

This must be done positionally (counting yourself dead to sin) since sin will be with you until you [physically] die according to Michael Pearl and many others who teach the physical death position. (Rom. 6:7)

The question must be asked.  How can someone be "set free from sin" (Rom. 6:18), but still NOT be set free from sin, since you have yet to [physically] die? (Rom. 6:7) This is where imputed righteousness comes into play. Romans 7:5, 14-25 must also all be taken in positionally since you must [physically] die  in Rom. 6:7 to be "freed from sin."  So many have fallen for this false teaching, myself included, that one will not be set free from sin until they die!  This is wrong!

Michael Pearl rejects Rom. 7:14-23 as being the normal Christian life (since it was directed at unsaved Jews, Rom. 7:1, and I agree), but by teaching there is only one type of death in the scriptures (i.e PHYSICAL), he cancels out his commentary and refutes his own position of Paul's penmanship. How? Simple - by teaching that Rom. 5:12 is speaking of [physical] death necessitates Rom. 6:7 to be speaking about [physical death].

Pearl rejects the sin nature (and I do as well), but His position on the meaning of "death" leaves the sin nature in tack (somehow) since you cannot be freed from sin until you [physically] die!!! (Rom. 6:7) This is where I see a problem with a teacher who rejects original sin and holds on to a doctrine like imputed righteousness.

The same condemnation that is found in Rom. 5:16, 18 is found in Rom. 8:1. Since the condemnation is due to Adam's transgression and is referring to physical death (as Pearl says) that was unconditionally imputed to all his descendants (that is condemnation was imputed), then there is in fact condemnation for those who are in Christ since they are physically still alive! (Rom. 5:18; 8:1) This might be another reason why Pearl holds to imputed righteousness....the blood must cover, not purge.

Romans 8:6 says,

For to be carnally minded is [physical] death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Huh? How? If death only has one meaning, how does Pearl explain this verse?

For if you live according to the flesh you will [physically] die... (Rom. 8:13) ???

There are people who live according to the flesh and live well up to their 80's and 90's and sometimes more. So this is the problem of Romans. 5:12 with death being 'physical'; it necessitates positional righteousness.

The context of Romans 5:12-21, Paul speaks of condemnation and justification. The condemnation is referring to spiritual death, for those who are justified still die physically.

Also, if "death" in Romans 6:23 means physical death, being justified would mean that we would not die physically!

It is "spiritual death" in Rom. 5:12, not physical. I see the influence and effects of Adam's sin led unto the condemnation of all people - that is - upon all those who choose to sin by their own free will and follow Adam's example will come under the wrath of God.

Pearl's rejection of original sin but acceptance of imputed righteousness would be like me teaching the sin nature and telling people to obey God.  It DOESN'T WORK. If you're born a sinner, you MUST have Jesus' imputed righteousness (which they teach and is not Scripturally correct); however, if you're born morally innocent, then you must obey from the heart! (Rom. 6:16-17; 1 John 3:7)

Take Romans 5:16:

And not as it was by the one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.

The two examples and their work are yet again being contrasted. Adam's influence and sin resulted unto condemnation while Christ's obedience resulted in a free gift unto justification. Let me point out that it does not say that the sin of one condemned them all, but rather that the sin of one led to the condemnation of them all. This is because condemnation and justification are both CONDITIONAL, not unconditionally universal as Pearl says. Condemnation can only come upon personal transgression, while justification comes freely through the process of repentance and faith. (Acts 11:18; 20:21; 2 Cor.7:10-11)

I see a state of spiritual deadness as a state of relational separation from God DUE to moral disobedience.  I do not believe there are any morals in the metaphysics of man. For example, I attended a funeral a while back. Upon seeing the deceased it was obvious there was no vice nor virtue in the corpse. The body is simply an instrument (2 Pet. 1:13-14). This instrument can be used for "righteousness" or unrighteousness" (Rom. 6:13). Yielding our instrument (flesh) to sin leads to death while obedience leads to righteousness (Rom. 6:16). If Adam's sin has caused the whole human race to physically disease and decease, then how does our personal sin lead to physical death, again? (Rom. 6:23)

If the spirit cannot die, then Christ would have to be joined with sinners, but if the spirit can die then Christ must be separated from sinners (Heb. 7:26).  Now, if two persons are separated that must mean they are no longer joined although they both actually live. This is the same thing as "spiritual death." Nothing physically dies, but rather separates. The Bible says God must be separated from all sin (1 Jn. 1:5; 3:5; Heb. 7:26). 

King David who fell into murder and adultery with his beautiful neighbor Bathsheeba (2 Sam. 11-12) is said by many to have only lost his joy of salvation or maybe some loss of rewards (Psa. 51:12) but not his spiritual state with God. Since King David was an "elect" they say he could grieve the spirit, but never quench it. However, Ezekiel said something totally different.

But when a righteousness man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? [The answer to this question has eternal consequences] All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. (Eze. 18:24)

How could Ezekiel be referring to physical death when Judaism teaches man is created mortal and which the Bible supports? This is how we know that King David was NOT in a safe "spiritual" condition until he found godly sorrow in Psalms 51. Hence, David lost his justification and fell back under condemnation DUE to the fact he transgressed known law (1 Jn. 3:4; James. 4:17; Rom. 8:13). Although King David was still alive (since he was physically walking about) his communication with God was severed for those 8 months until he found repentance.

Can the spirit die? Jesus said it could.  But remember, "spiritual death" simply means a "moral and relational" separation from God”

...for this my son was dead [morally and spiritually] and is alive [relationally] again. (Lk.15:24; 32)

...He that...believeth...is passed from [moral and spiritual] death unto life [relationship]." (Jn. 5:24)

Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead [moral and spiritual], and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5:14)

...yield yourselves unto God, as those that are [relationally] alive from the dead [moral and spiritual]." (Rom. 6:13)

And you being [morally and spiritually] dead in your sins...hath he made [relationally] alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." (Col. 2:13)

We know that we have passed from [moral and spiritual] death unto life [relationship]." (1Jn. 3:14)

Spiritual death means being out of touch with God and righteousness, which means that a person who is out of touch with God has no righteousness (Rom. 6:20) and therefore must reinforce only unrighteousness. And since all unrighteousness is sin (1 Jn. 5:17) the unrighteous are sinners (1 Jn. 3:7-10), and must by necessity be separated from God (Heb. 7:26) due to their wicked works (Col. 2:13), not birth!

"Spiritual death" comes ONLY by sinning! Since sin is a moral issue which is a transgression of the law and conscience, and babies are not able to make moral decisions, they are morally neutral! (2Kings 14:6; Deu. 24:16; 2Chr. 25:4; Eze. 18:2-4; Eze. 18:19-20) Babies are innocent.  Children are neither guilty of evil, nor worthy of praise until they are able to make their own decisions (Rom. 9:11). They have to come to the age of maturity (accountability) where they know the difference between good and evil. This sin is not by necessity, but rather by choice. (James. 1:13-15). This is why every human is responsible for the "things done in the body” and is judged "according to what he/she has done, whether it be good or bad." (2Cor. 5:10)

The founder of Calvinism said we were born "lumps of sin" (i.e Augustine of Hippo). And as far as John Calvin, I do not believe that he was a regenerate born again believer. He took his theology from a man who thought babies could be regenerated by baptism. Of course Calvinism holds to total depravity. If they didn't, their heresy would all fall down (_.U.L.I.P?). Basically, Calvinism is modern day Manicheanism, which is Gnostic. Denial of man's "free will" is a heathen belief, just like dualism! (i.e. the “sinful nature.”) If man cannot respond to the call of the Spirit, then man is not a man but rather a preprogrammed robot. If mankind can't repent no more than ice can burn, God is a liar. (Mk. 1:15; Lk. 13:3,5; Acts 11:18, 17:30; 26:18-20) If man is OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved), the Son of man was a liar (Matt. 10:22; Lk. 13:24).

James also said:

Therefore lay aside ALL filthiness and overflow of wickedness and "receive" with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls. But be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. (James. 1:21-22)

What do the Calvinists say about that?

If Reformed Theology have it right, then that means God must by necessity save people in their sins. Since they are incapable of responding to the call of repentance proven by deeds and faith working by love, they would have to be compelled [by God] and forced against their own will [by God] to do something they never wanted to do - that being of course - love God. Calvinism is heresy!

Keep in mind the day that Adam sinned against God he "spiritually died" (Gen. 2:17). Spiritual death comes by personal sin, not Adam's. If one were to say that physical death is a result from Adam's sin, then it would stand to reason that we do not physically die for our own personal transgressions...but yet

She that lives in pleasure is dead while she lives. (1Tim. 5:6)

Is she physically dead or spiritually dead? Can you even be physically dead while you're physically live?  If the spirit cannot die, how is she dead while she still lives? This is precisely what happened in the garden. God said,

You shall not eat from the tree for IN THAT DAY you shall surely die. (Gen. 2:17)

Did Adam physically die the moment he ate from the tree? NO. Scriptures say Adam lieved to be  930 years old and then he died. (Gen. 5:5) So the death God was speaking of in Gen. 2:17 must have been referring to the relational ends of things... spiritual death. [He eventually died physically because he and Eve and all his posterity no longer had access to the tree of life which sustained their mortal fleshly bodies.  We suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, but are not guilty of his sin.

Sin is not a substance since there are no morals in substance. Adam, by his own free will, chose to transgress and consequently brought sin into the world and spiritual death comes by sin.  (Rom. 5 :12) It is speaking of "spiritual death" through Adam. How? Not by imputation, but by following his EXAMPLE of disobedience. So "[spiritual] death passes upon all men for that all  have sinned." (V.12) 

The verse in Romans is speaking to the influence and effects of Adam's sin which led to the condemnation of all men, upon all those who choose to sin by their own free will. There is no such thing as universal condemnation. Again, notice in Rom. 5:16 it does NOT say that the sin of one condemned them all, but that the sin of one led to the condemnation of them all.  Condemnation is conditioned upon personal transgression and justification is conditioned upon repenting and believing. Men can only be condemned for their own personal sins (1Cor. 6:9; Rev. 21:8) and reconciliation requires a personal choice (2 Cor. 5:20). Condemnation is the wrath of God that comes upon the sons of disobedience.(Jn. 3:36; Eph. 5:5-7) Romans 8:1 says,

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.

Again, condemnation is CONDITIONED upon a person's walk, it is not universal apart from choice. Condemnation is shown to be spiritual death, for if you live according to the flesh you will [spiritually and morally] die (Rom. 8:13), since being carnally minded is death. (Rom. 8:6) 

Another question worth pondering is this.  If the carnally minded are dead but still walking around, how are they dead?  If condemnation is physical, and a person gets born again, are they still condemned since they are still in the flesh and condemnation is physical? How could there be no condemnation? (Rom. 8:1)

Thus it can be clearly seen that Romans 5:12 speaks of spiritual death. In fact, much of Scriptures speak of spiritual death unless the context calls for physical death.

Divine Agency

Was it Jesus who wrestled with Jacob?
Was it Jesus who stayed behind with Abraham?
Did the Lord speak to Moses face to face?
Is an angel of the Lord the pre-incarnate (pre-human) form of Jesus Christ?
Because Jesus is our Savior, does this make him God?
The good Shepherd is Jesus, does this make him God?

Divine Agency in the Scriptures
by David Burge, New Zealand

 We are delighted to publish these important thoughts from our New Zealand colleague. His subject is far from being a dry, academic exercise. “Agency” provides a key, in fact the key, to understanding the relationship of the Son of God, Jesus, to his Father, the one God of Israel — the God of Jesus’ creed (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:28ff). The world is presently torn apart by the inability of billions of religious people to agree on who the One God is and who His Son, the Messiah is. A common biblical understanding of God and Jesus has the potential for bringing mankind to peace and unity. One day it will. Everyone on earth in the Kingdom which Jesus will establish at his return will acknowledge the One God of Israel (Zech. 14:9) and His unique human agent, the Son of God, begotten by miracle in Mary (Luke 1:35). Jesus came as the ambassador of the One God. He claimed not to be God (that would make two Gods!) but to represent the One God. Jesus is the uniquely begotten Son of God. He models the perfect relationship between the Creator and mankind. Jesus is the model human agent of God and our lives should reflect him and our Father. — ed.

In Hebrew thought, the “first cause” is not always distinguished from “intermediate” or “secondary” causes. That is to say: The principal is not always clearly distinguished from the agent, the one commissioned to carry out an act on behalf of another. Sometimes the agent, standing for the principal, is treated as if he or she were the principal him or herself, though this is not literally so. Principal and agent remain two distinct persons but they act in complete harmony. The agent acts and speaks for his principal.

The Principle of Agency in Scripture

In the Bible there are examples of human principals using fellow humans for agents, of God as divine principal using angelic agents, and of God using human agents. This notion of principal and agent is the key to understanding the relationship between the one true God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

Human Principal and Agency in the Gospels

The concept of principal and agency can actually help us to reconcile what appear otherwise to be contradictions in the parallel accounts found in the synoptic Gospels. So in the account of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant, Matthew speaks of a conversation between the centurion himself and Jesus (Mt. 8:5-13). Luke tells us that the centurion did not in fact come personally. He sent some “Jewish elders” and then some “friends” to Jesus with his requests (Luke 7:1-10). The centurion here is the principal; the Jewish elders and the centurion’s friends are his appointed, commissioned agents. Remembering that in Hebrew thought, the principal and the agent are not always clearly distinguished, Matthew mentions only the principal (the centurion) without distinguishing the agent (the Jewish elders and friends). Luke mentions both principal and agents. To put it another way, in Matthew’s account, the elders (agents) stand for and are treated as the centurion (principal), even though this is not literally true.

Similarly, when Jesus was questioned concerning who might sit next to him in his Kingdom, Mark gives us the impression that James and John themselves personally asked whether they might sit next to Jesus in places of royal authority (Mk. 10:35-40). Matthew tells us that in fact it was the mother of Zebedee’s children who actually made the request to Jesus (Mt. 20:20-23). In this case, Matthew gives the agency (the mother), whereas Mark does not. Again, putting it the other way around, in Matthew’s account the mother (as agent) stands for and is treated as James and John (the principal), even though this is not literally true.

Divine Principal and Human Agency

The LORD told Moses that he would be “Elohim [God] to Aaron” (Ex. 4:16). He says, “I have made you Elohim to Pharaoh and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Ex. 7:1). In Exodus 7:17-21 the LORD says: “By this you will know that I am the LORD: With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.” The LORD then says to Moses, “Tell Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt — over the streams and canals, over the ponds and all the reservoirs — and they will turn to blood.’” Moses and Aaron did as the LORD had commanded. Aaron raised his staff and struck the water of the Nile “and all the water was changed into blood.”

The LORD had said that He Himself would strike the waters with the staff in his own hand. Yet, it was Aaron’s hand that held the rod, and Aaron who struck the Nile. Clearly, Aaron is not God. Rather, Aaron stands as God’s agent, in the place of God. One might even say he is “God,” not literally, but in a manner of (Hebrew) speaking. One might even say in this case that God (as principal) was represented by Moses (the agent), who in turn was represented by Aaron!

Divine Principal and Angelic Agency

Genesis 18 begins by saying that “the LORD appeared to Abraham” (v. 1). We read that Abraham “looked up and saw three men” (v. 2). The implication is that one of the three is in a sense the LORD. Later it is the LORD who says, “I will surely return to you about this time next year” (vv. 10, 13). When the men get up to leave the LORD speaks yet again (v. 17). Finally, two of the angelic men turn away. As the NIV has it, “Abraham remained standing before the LORD” (v. 22). The alternative, given as a footnote, reads “but the LORD remained standing before Abraham.” It was not literally the LORD (the principal) who appeared to Abraham; it was an angel (His agent). As agent of the LORD, however, the angel is treated as the LORD. We know this must be so because the Bible is adamant: No one has seen God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:16). Note too that the one angel who directly represents God is worshiped as God’s agent.

When Jacob wrestled with a heavenly being, he is said to have “seen God face to face.” So Jacob is said to have wrestled with “God” (Gen. 32:24-30). However, we know from the word of the LORD to the prophet Hosea that Jacob in struggling against God actually wrestled with an angel (Hos. 12:3-4). Jacob did not literally wrestle with the LORD (the principal); it was with an angel (His agent) that he wrestled. However as the agent of the LORD the angel is treated as the LORD. Again, we know this is so because the Bible insists: No one has ever seen God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:16). So too, when Jacob, as an old man, blessed Joseph’s children he said, “May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm — may he bless these boys” (Gen. 48:15-16). Surely, God Himself is not an angel, but the angel as His agent represented Him.

Another very clear example of this type of thinking is as follows. According to Deuteronomy 4:12 it was the LORD who spoke to Israel “out of the fire” to give them His Law at Sinai. It is said to be the LORD’s own voice that they heard. Yet several Scriptures reveal the speaker to have been an angel. Stephen says that “he [Moses] was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai” (Acts 7:38). He told the Jews, “You have received the law that was put into effect through angels, and have not obeyed it” (v. 53). Paul also says, “The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator [Moses]” (Gal. 3:19). Hebrews 2:2 only serves to confirm this point, saying that the message (the law) was “spoken by angels.” This is no contradiction. The LORD did not literally speak “out of the fire.” An angel spoke. However as the agent of the LORD the angel is treated as the LORD. It is as if the LORD actually spoke.

Scripture affirms that it was God who “opened the doors of the heavens” and “rained down manna” for the people of Israel to eat during their wilderness wanderings. He gave them “the grain of heaven” to eat (Ps. 78:23-24). The manna did not literally come down from heaven, the throne of God. It was “from heaven” in that it was a gracious gift of God. So too, the manna is called “the bread of angels” (Ps. 78:25). This is probably not because angels actually have manna for breakfast. God himself provided the food, but he did it through the agency of His angels.

“The Angel of the Lord”

When Hagar saw the angel of the LORD she said, “I have now seen the one who sees me” (Gen. 16:7-14), referring to God. The angel of God said to Jacob, “I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar” (Gen 31:11-13; cf. 28:16). While it is said that “the angel of the LORD” appeared to Moses from within the burning bush, it was God who called to him “from within the bush” (Ex. 3:1-5). Manoah, realizing he had seen “the angel of the LORD,” said to his wife, “We have seen God!” (Jud. 13:20). So too, works attributed to the “angel of the Lord” are attributed to the LORD himself. The angel is said to have brought Israel out of Egypt (Ex. 3:7-8, Jud. 2:1). He is said to have sworn to give the land to the seed of Abraham (Gen. 15:18; Jud. 2:1). It was he who is said to have “cut a covenant” with Israel (Gen. 15:18; Jud. 2:1).

Many suggest that the angel of the LORD is a manifestation of the LORD Himself. Some even suggest that the angel of the Lord is a pre-incarnate (pre-human) form of Jesus Christ. If you believe this—Scripture is clear on this point—we suggest that you are mistaken. The book of Hebrews makes much of the supremacy of the Son and the superiority of his ministry over that of God’s servants, the angels (1:5-14). It is because the ministry of the word in the Son is superior to theirs that it must not be neglected. If the message “spoken by angels” (see the previous section) was binding, the saving Gospel message that comes by the Son is more so (2:1-4). While the Son was “made a little lower than the heavenly beings” (Heb. 2:7, 9), the “angels” of the LXX (Gk version of the OT) (Ps. 8:4-5), he has been exalted far above them by God the Father. He who is so superior to the angels cannot himself be an angel. One of the greatest truths revealed by Hebrews (1:1-2) is that God expressly did not speak through His Son in the Old Testament times. That is because the Son was not yet living. He had not yet been brought into existence (begotten) in Mary’s womb (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35).

To say that the angel of the LORD is the LORD Himself is inaccurate and imprecise. The angel of the LORD is the agent of the Lord and thus stands for the LORD Himself. Exodus 23:20-21 makes this clear: The LORD says, “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you, to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my name is in him.” As the LORD’s chosen representative, the angel speaks whatever he is told to speak by the LORD. The people are to obey the angel’s voice because “my [God’s] name is in him.” That is, the angel represents God when he is sent on a mission from God.

Has Anyone Ever Seen God?

When God confirmed His covenant with Israel, it is said of Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders that they “saw the God of Israel” (Ex. 24:9-11). So too, in Exodus 33:17-23, Moses is said to have seen God’s “back.” God would not allow Moses to see His face when He passed because “no man can see Me and live.” Note, in verse 20, in God’s own words, “seeing God’s face” and “seeing God” are synonymous. Seeing God’s “back” is akin to seeing “God’s glory” (Ex. 33:18, 22), which Moses did indeed see. As the writer to the Hebrews puts it, Moses “saw Him who is invisible” (Heb. 11:27). How is it then that the Bible is so clear: “No one has ever seen God”? (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). He “lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16). The only explanation available to us is that none of these worthies ever literally saw God. Rather they saw God’s agent, His chosen representative, who spoke with the authority of the LORD as though he were the LORD. They saw the angel of the LORD. In exactly the same manner Jesus said “He who has seen me has seen my Father” (John 14:9).

The Messiah as God’s Agent

There are a number of texts where titles explicitly referring to God in the Jewish Scriptures are referred to Jesus in the Christian Scriptures. Many take this as proof positive that the two are One in a Trinitarian sense, that is, two Persons in the One Essence of God. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, in line with all that has gone before, it can easily be shown that these verses teach the vital truth that the LORD is the principal and the Messiah is His agent. As His appointed representative Messiah stands in the place of God, but is not literally God any more than Moses, Aaron or any of the angels who stand in the place of God are literally God.

Jesus as Savior

The Jewish Scriptures are clear on this point: God is the sole Savior of Israel. The LORD says, “I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior” (Is. 43:3); “apart from Me there is no savior” (Is. 43:11; cf. 45:15, 21; 49:26; 60:16; 63:8). Nevertheless, Moses, as God’s agent, is called a savior (Acts 7:35; cp. 27 and Ex. 2:14; 18:13). The judges, as God’s appointed agents, are also called saviors (Jud. 3:9, 15; Neh. 9:27; Ex. 2:14; 18:13, Acts 7:27, 35). The prophets speak of other human agents, yet future, who will save Israel (Is. 19:20, Obad. 21).

Of course the Apostles acknowledge God as their Savior also. They speak of God as “our Savior” (1 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:4) and as “the Savior of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10). For them “the grace of God [the Father] brings salvation” (Tit. 2:10). But in true Biblical fashion, they also refer to Jesus, God’s ultimate agent, as Savior. He was born a Savior (Luke 2:10-11) and not just the Savior of Israel but “the world” (John 4:42). “Salvation is found in no one else.” There is “no other name” than that of Jesus “by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). They were eagerly awaiting that Savior, Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:20). This does not however prove that Jesus is the LORD God any more than the fact that Moses and the judges of Israel are called savior, makes them literally Divine. There is indeed only one ultimate Savior who is the God and Father of Jesus. Jesus is also savior as the perfect agent of the One supreme Savior. Salvation derives as Jude 25 says from “the only God” who is our principal savior “through” His agent Jesus Christ.

Jesus as Shepherd

Without doubt God is the principal “shepherd” over Israel (Gen. 49:24; 80:1; Jer. 31:10; Ezek. 34:11-16). David said, “The LORD is my shepherd” (Ps. 23). “We are His people, the sheep of His pasture” (Ps. 100). The prophet Isaiah agrees, saying, “He [the LORD] tends His flock like a shepherd” (Is. 40:11). However He shepherds His people Israel through His agents. Thus the elders of Israel were God’s appointed shepherds (2 Sam. 7:7). David himself was appointed by God to shepherd Israel (2 Sam. 5:1-3; 1 Chr. 11:1-3; Ps. 78:71). Then also a future greater “David,” the Messiah, was predicted to be God’s appointed shepherd over Israel (Ezek. 34:23-24).

Is it any wonder that Jesus, God’s ultimate agent, should refer to himself as “the good shepherd” (John 10:11, 14) or that his Apostles refer to “our Lord Jesus” as “that great shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20) and “the shepherd and overseer [bishop]” of our souls (1 Pet. 2:25). Nevertheless, this does not prove that Jesus is literally the LORD transmuted into flesh, any more than the fact that the elders of Israel and King David being styled shepherds of Israel proves them to be God incarnate.

Jesus as Judge

God is the principal judge of the whole earth (Gen. 18:25; 1 Sam. 2:10; 1 Chr. 16:33; Ps. 50:3-4; 67:4; 94:1-2; 96:13; 98:9); yet though it is said that God Himself is judge (Ps. 50:6) and that God Himself will bring every deed into judgment, “including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc. 12:14), God has chosen and commissioned human agents as judges to execute God’s judgment throughout Israel’s history.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture we discover that Jesus, God’s ultimate agent, actually stands for God and will judge all things at the end. “He [Jesus] will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts” (1 Cor. 4:5). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:10) when he will judge “the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

When the Son of Man comes “all the nations will be gathered before him” (Matt. 25:31-46). The Father will actually judge no one. He has “entrusted all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22-27). The Father “has set a day when He will judge the world with justice” but through the agency of “the man He has appointed” (Acts 17:31). Note that the Son does not judge in his own right but only because the Father entrusts judgment to the Son (John 5:22-27). And the Son is styled man and not God. That of course is because there is only One God, and not two!

Jesus as the Rock or Stone of Stumbling

Peter applies to Jesus the text describing the Messiah as “a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall” (Is. 8:14; cp. 1 Pet. 2:8). Again, remember Jesus is God’s agent. Thus when Isaiah says, “The LORD will be a stumbling stone,” he allows for the fact that God causes Israel to stumble over Jesus His agent. “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes” (Ps. 118:22, 23).

Jesus as the Coming One

In Isaiah 40:10 we read, “See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and His arm rules for Him. See, His reward is with Him, and His recompense accompanies Him.” Clearly, the Sovereign LORD is the Father. The phrase “His arm” may be taken to refer to Messiah (John 12:38), but “the Sovereign Lord” is the coming one; it is He who brings His reward with Him. Yet the Christian Scriptures repeatedly tell us that Jesus is the coming one (Rev. 22:7, 12, 20). Our reward is with him (Rev. 22:12). This is not because Jesus is God but because Jesus as His representative stands in place of Him.

Zechariah 14:4 should be seen in this light as well. “On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.” In the Jewish Scriptures “His feet” are the LORD’s feet. Christians believe it is Jesus who is returning to set up his Kingdom upon earth. But rather than jumping to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus is the LORD we should understand that, as the LORD’s agent, Jesus’ feet are spoken of as God’s feet in exactly the same way as Aaron’s hand is spoken of as the LORD’s hand (remember Ex. 7:17-19).

All the Second Coming passages in the OT are referred to God, but in the NT to Jesus. Since there is only one God, we know that Jesus cannot be God (which would make two!). The principle of agency steps in to provide a wonderfully satisfying solution to the apparent puzzle. God acts through and in His beloved Son and also in His sons.

Jesus as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc.

Surely, the same reasoning applies to Jesus’ being called “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:16), King or Lord of glory (Ps. 24:7, 10; 1 Cor. 2:8), the first and the last (Isa. 44:6; 48:12; Rev. 1:17; Rev. 22:13), the Rock (1 Sam. 2:2; Ps. 18:2; 31:2; 89:26; Is. 17:10-11; Mt. 16:16; 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:4, 6) and so on. Jesus stands in this relationship to the LORD not because he is the LORD in a literal sense, but because as God’s ultimate agent he stands for the Lord in a way that supersedes the status of Moses and Aaron or any of the angels, even the angel of the LORD, who preceded the time of Jesus.

Zechariah and the “Thirty Pieces of Silver”

Perhaps one more example will drive the point home. The prophet Zechariah, speaking about himself and recording an event in his own life, pictures his prophetic ministry as the shepherding of sheep. When he challenged the leaders of Israel to give him the wages due him, they gave him instead the price of a slave (30 pieces of silver). This surely was an insult worse than if they had not paid him at all. So the LORD told the prophet to throw it to the potter.

“And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter, the handsome price at which they priced Me!’ So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter” (11:13). It may be that the LORD Himself speaks of being priced at 30 pieces of silver, but it was Zechariah who was so paid. Are we to assume that Zechariah is Almighty God? Not at all! Rather, in so pricing Zechariah the LORD’s agent, they thus priced the LORD Himself. So when Jesus was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Mt. 26:14-15; 27:3-10) they betrayed the LORD for 30 pieces of silver. We need no more conclude, therefore, that Jesus is the LORD in a Trinitarian sense, than we would conclude that Zechariah is the LORD. The Trinitarian idea of God in three Persons had not been imagined in NT times. A fine recent study by a German scholar, One or Three? by Karl-Heinz Ohlig, says, “The Trinity possesses no biblical foundation whatsoever” (p. 130).

Conclusion

A Jewish understanding of the law of agency is expressed in the dictum: “A person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” God appointed Jesus the Messiah as His agent. As such anything he does is regarded as though the Almighty Himself did it. One trusts the principal in trusting the agent. This notion of principal and agency helps us to understand why if you do not honor the Son, you do not honor the Father (John 5:23; 15:23). By refusing to honor and love the agent you are refusing to honor and love the principal. We see in Jesus a perfect reflection of his principal. He who has seen and heard Jesus has seen and heard the Father (John 14:9, 10; 10:38). And remember that people should be able to see God and Jesus in you, since Christians are also God’s agents to bear the saving Gospel of the Kingdom to others.

Restoration Fellowship