The Gospel Broadcasting Association
Post Office Box 1555
Houston, Texas 77251

An Introduction to the Christian Faith
:: Lesson 2 – The Nature of the Godhead and the Nature of the Incarnate Christ ::

by Russell L. Harris

Revised 07 July A. D. 2006



Contents





This lesson perhaps is the most vital lesson of the entire course, for a misunderstanding of the nature of God sparks or fuels heresy of every category. Indeed, some argue that every theological heresy may be traced to a misapprehension of the nature of the Godhead. And no examination of the nature of the Godhead is complete apart from an examination of the nature of the incarnate Christ. Concerning this pair of subjects there is no end of confusion, controversy, and heresy.

Christians today generally give little, if any, thought to the nature of the Godhead. Some consider the matter to be of no practical importance, thinking it to be of concern only to the theologian. Others assume that the nature of the Godhead is a matter which lies entirely beyond the reach of the intellect of man.

But the Scripture teaches extensively concerning the nature of the Godhead and the nature of the incarnate Christ; consequently, it behooves every Christian to understand these subjects. One fruit of a correct understanding of the nature of the Godhead and the nature of the incarnate Christ is the ability to distinguish between the true Godhead and false gods, and between the true Christ and false christs. The basis for such discernment is the fact that the attributes of an individual are inseparable from the identity of that individual. The Godhead of the Bible has a definite set of attributes. A godhead which lacks those attributes is a false godhead. Likewise, the incarnate Christ of the Scripture is characterized by certain attributes. A Christ which lacks those attributes is a false Christ.

The contemporary pulpit teaches a godhead having attributes which differ greatly from the attributes of the Godhead of the Scripture. Likewise, the contemporary pulpit teaches a Christ having attributes which do not agree with the attributes of the Christ of the Scripture.

Need it be said, that one cannot be saved by faith which is placed in the promises of a false god, or in the merit of a false Christ? Moreover, if the `gospel' being proclaimed by a church or teacher or ministry is centered about a false Christ, it follows that the `gospel' in question is no gospel at all, but, rather, a worthless counterfeit of the Gospel of the Scripture.

1  Theological Speculation

1.1  The Trinity and the Oneness of God

The nature of the Godhead is a matter concerning which there is much debate, together with endless appeal to mysticism. Most of the discussion centers about two matters, the first being reconciliation of the concept of a triune Godhead with the declaration of the Scripture, that God is one. The second matter is apprehension of the concept that a member of the Godhead became flesh and died, in order to atone for the sin of mankind. With these two matters, theologians and teachers through the centuries have struggled. But does the Scripture fail to teach plainly regarding matters so fundamental? Investigation reveals that, at the root of the problem is Talmudic tradition—tradition which for centuries has skewed the thinking of Christians.

While Christians unanimously affirm that God is `one', Christian thought is divided as to the sense in which God is one.

  1. There is what appears to be a contradiction in the teaching of the Scripture concerning the nature of the Godhead:

  2. Various explanations have been proposed for reconciliation of the two concepts. One explanation:

    Another explanation:

  3. There is no general agreement concerning the meaning of the `oneness' of God, that is, concerning the sense in which God is `one'. Almost always, resort is made to the argument that the matter is mystical and inscrutable.

  4. Most Christians, while dogmatically averring God to be `one', also confidently assert that God is triune in nature—a `trinity'. But almost invariably, such assertions are based upon hearsay, rather than being the result of personal study. Few personally have delved into the matter and thus few are able to explain in greater detail their conception of the Godhead. Thus, and almost without exception, such confident assertions concerning the nature of God are nothing more than the tossing about of words and phrases of which the speaker has no understanding. Indeed, for the typical Christian, the entire matter of the nature of the Godhead and the oneness of God is surrounded by an impenetrable fog.

1.2  The Spirit of God

Christian thought is divided as to the nature of the Spirit of God, also known as the `Holy Spirit'.

  1. Most Christians believe the Spirit of God to be a distinct person or personality; this belief typically is based upon use of the term parakletos, which the King James version translates `comforter', in the Gospel account of John.

  2. Some Christians think the Spirit of God to be a force or mental attitude.

1.3  The Incarnate Christ

Christian thought varies as to the nature of the incarnate Christ.

  1. Some Christians think the incarnate Christ to have been deity `cloaked' in humanity.

  2. Many (if not most) Christians think the incarnate Christ to have been a hybrid—a `god-man' in which deity was bonded to or united with humanity. Supposedly this god-man possessed both a divine nature and a human nature, so that the composite being was characterized by:

  3. Christians typically suppose that, while the incarnate Christ Jesus possessed all the attributes of deity, he voluntarily restricted the use of those attributes. However, the thinking in this regard typically is inconsistent, for Christians typically suppose that Jesus made frequent use of the attribute of omniscience.

  4. Many, if not most, Christians think the incarnate Christ to have been unable to sin; this, despite the fact that the inability to sin would mean that the temptations faced by Christ were but a sham.

  5. Many Christians believe that the virgin birth was necessary to prevent transmission of a genetically-inherited `sin nature' to the incarnate Christ.

  6. Some Christians suppose that Jesus became the “son of God” by virtue of the virgin birth; others argue that sonship is an attribute which Jesus possessed prior to the Incarnation.

  7. Many Christians think that Christ, by virtue of his own divine nature, came forth from the dead of his own accord and power; that is to say, that Jesus resurrected himself. These Christians typically view self-resurrection as the ultimate proof of the deity of Jesus.

  8. Some Christians claim that all three members of the `Trinity' played a role in the resurrection of Christ; that is to say, that the humanity of Christ was raised from the dead by the deity of Christ working in conjunction with God the Father and the Spirit of God.

1.4  Omniscience

Christians affirm the belief that God is perfect. Accordingly, Christian thinking regarding the attributes of God demands of those attributes perfection. But the perfection which the Christian demands of God and of the attributes of God typically is based upon human concepts and standards.

  1. Christians typically hold to a concept of omniscience which is based upon human concepts of perfection.

  2. The human concept of perfection demands of the attribute of omniscience that it be comprehensive. That is, humans typically accord to God a knowledge which embraces the entirety of the Creation, so that nothing within the Creation is outside the purview of God.

  3. The human concept of perfection demands of the attribute of omniscience that it be intimate. That is, humans typically accord to God a knowledge of the Creation which extends to the smallest detail, so that no activity, whether the flutter of a leaf or the blink of an eye, goes unobserved by God.

  4. The human concept of perfection demands of the attribute of omniscience that it apply not only to the present (and thus, to the past), but also to the future.

  5. Accordingly, Christians typically accord to God a knowledge of the future which is both comprehensive and intimate.

  6. The human concept of perfection demands of the attribute of omniscience that it apply not only to future actualities, but also to future possibilities.

  7. When approaching a passage of the Scripture which treats subjects relating to the divine attribute of omniscience—subjects such as foreknowledge and predestination—the Christian typically assumes that the Scriptural concept of omniscience is in agreement with his own concept of omniscience, and he interprets the passage accordingly.

2  The Difficulty with the Speculation

2.1  The Trinity and the Oneness of God

2.1.1  Background

Christian thinking regarding the oneness of God is characterized by error and inconsistency, which result from the attempt to combine two incompatible concepts, both of which are false.

  1. A belief or doctrine which embodies contradictory views is termed `incoherent'. The simultaneous embrace of contradictory views is the phenomenon known as `cognitive dissonance', which is a category of irrational thinking. Thus, to embrace an incoherent doctrine is to engage in thinking which lies outside the bounds of reason. In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is termed `doublethink'.

  2. Christ Jesus warned concerning the teaching of the Jew, which teaching he portrayed as leaven. While some argue that, within the context of the Scripture, leaven invariably represents sin or evil, such is not the case, as is evidenced by the parable in which Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to leaven—leaven which is hidden in three measures of meal1. The essential characteristic of leaven is that it permeates and transforms. In the case of the teaching of the Jew, the transformation is harmful; thus, the leaven of the Jew is a corrupting influence. But in the case of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is `hidden' in the kosmos, the transformation is beneficial—at least, from the perspective of the righteous.

  3. Within contemporary Christianity, the prevalent notion is that Christianity is an extension or expansion of the religion of the Jew. However, the contemporary Christian typically is ignorant of the fact that the religion of the Jew, Talmudic Judaism, is a gross perversion of the Faith of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and thus is incompatible with the Christian Faith. The god of the Talmudic Jew is a single being. The Jew rejects the concept of a Godhead composed of Father and Son, despite the fact that the concept is found throughout Old Covenant scripture. Because of his ignorance of the true nature of Talmudic Judaism, the contemporary Christian typically is unaware that the god of the Talmudic Jew is not the God which he, the Christian, worships, namely, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord, Christ Jesus.

2.1.2  The Pagan Concept of the Godhead: a Trinity

The Christian concept of a trinitarian godhead is drawn from paganism.

  1. Pagan religions commonly incorporate a form of trinity, the pagan godhead being composed of three distinct beings, typically mother, father, and child.

  2. However, the fact that a pagan trinitarian godhead is false of itself does not demonstrate that the concept of trinitarianism is false: one may argue that, inasmuch as a counterfeit, to be effective, must resemble the genuine, it is reasonable to expect the pagan godhead, which is a counterfeit, to resemble the true Godhead.

2.1.3  The Talmudic Concept of the Oneness of God

The Christian concept of a monotheistic godhead is drawn from Talmudic Judaism.

  1. Talmudic Judaism arose during the seventy years which Judah spent in Babylonian captivity, circa 586 B. C. to 516 B. C.  When the terms `the traditions of the elders' and `the traditions of men' appear in New Covenant scripture, the reference is to the oral traditions which constitute Talmudic Judaism. It was not until well into the Christian era that these traditions were codified, resulting in the document today known as the Babylonian Talmud. Talmudic Judaism is not the religion of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. Indeed, the words of the incarnate Christ Jesus repeatedly demonstrate that Talmudic Judaism is contrary to the religion of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.

  2. A cornerstone of Talmudic Judaism is the doctrine that “God is one” in the sense that the Godhead is comprised of a single entity.

  3. Accordingly, the Jew rejects the concept of the Son of God, for to be the son of God is to be equal with God:

  4. Though Old Covenant scripture clearly portrays `the Son' to be a distinct and independent member of the Godhead, the Talmudic Jew views all Scriptural references to `the Son' to be references to Israel as a nation or people. Indeed, the Jew views himself—that is, the Jewish people—as the `Messiah'.

  5. Needless to say, the Talmudic Jew does not view references to the Spirit of God as being references to a distinct member of the Godhead.

In a passage of Scripture which often is quoted, there is a declaration which few appear to have noticed—a declaration which clearly implies that the god of Talmudic Jew is not the God and Father of Christ Jesus. The declaration is found in the eighth chapter of the Gospel account of John, at the end of verse 54.

Perhaps no doctrine more clearly separates the Christian Faith from Judaism and from the false religion termed “Judeo-Christianity” than the doctrine of the oneness of the Godhead. Without doubt, the cornerstone of the Jewish religion (i.e., “rabbinic” or “Talmudic” Judaism) is the conviction expressed by a literal interpretation of the declaration found in Deuteronomy 6:4; namely, that God is “one”.

Jesus acknowledges the validity of the declaration.

But the Jewish concept of the oneness of the Godhead differs remarkably from the true, Scriptural concept of oneness. To the Jew, the Godhead is “one” in the sense that it consists of a single being. But according to the Scripture, the Godhead is a family—a family consisting of father and son—which is “one” in the sense that the members of any close-knit family are “one”; that is, the unity has to do with essence, with character, with motive, with purpose, and so forth. This concept of “family” and of “oneness” is seen throughout Scripture, both Old Covenant and New.

Sadly, the vast majority of Christians are ignorant of this fact, the reason being that, in most English translations of the Bible, the Greek word THEOS is almost always translated by the English word “God”. However, in many instances, THEOS is more properly translated “Godhead”, and in others, the context demands that THEOS be interpreted as “God the Father”.

Prior to the Incarnation, the members of the Godhead are termed by the apostle John as “God” and “the Word”.

In the second Psalm, the term “the Lord” is used first for God the Father, and subsequently, for God the Son, who also is designated “his Christ” and “my Son”.

Jesus constantly referred to God the Father as “my Father”, and declared to the Jews that he and the Father are one—assertions which the Jews considered blasphemous.

Perhaps no passage better portrays the Scriptural sense of the oneness of the Godhead than that which records the prayer of Jesus in the garden on the night in which he was betrayed.

In this prayer of Jesus, we see that two groups of mankind are included in the unity of the the Father and the Son. The first group consists of the apostles. The second group consists of those who, through faith in the Gospel proclaimed by the apostles, have believed on Jesus. This unity of the Godhead and believers demonstrates conclusively the error of the Jew in rejecting the Scriptural portrayal of the Godhead as a family.

False notions regarding “oneness” have lead to the heresy which argues that God the Father and God the Son are one and the same being.

2.1.4  The Traditional Christian View of the Godhead

The concept of the Godhead traditionally held by the Christian is erroneous.

  1. Having set aside the teaching of the Scripture concerning the nature of the Godhead, the typical Christian has embraced, on the one hand, the trinitarianism of paganism and, on the other, the monotheism of Talmudic Judaism. From these two false and irreconcilable concepts, the Christian has synthesized a concept of the Godhead which contains elements of each.

  2. Having been cobbled together from two concepts which not only are false but also are incompatible, the concept of the Godhead typically held by the Christian is both false and incoherent.

  3. There are two variants of the concept of the Godhead typically held by the Christian. In the first, God is construed to be a single being who possesses multiple personalities—something of a schizophrene. In the second, God is construed to be a single being who has multiple manifestations. Accordingly, the Christian typically believes that God the Father, God the Son, and the Spirit of God either are three distinct personalities of a single being, or else are three distinct manifestations of a single being.

2.2  The Spirit of God

The Scripture appears to be ambiguous with respect to its revelation or teaching concerning the nature of the Spirit of God.

  1. As portrayed in the Scripture, the Spirit of God almost always appears to be a force, a power, a manner of thinking, or a frame of mind, rather than a person.

  2. However, in some passages, the Spirit of God does appear to be a person.

  3. Always, the role of the Spirit of God appears to be subservient to the role of God the Father and to the role of God the Son.

2.3  The Incarnate Christ

Few contemporary Christians have an accurate perception of the nature of the incarnate Christ. The error typically centers about the supposition that the incarnate Christ possessed the attributes of deity. The supposition originates with theologians and teachers, who typically assert that the incarnate Christ was a dual-natured being, having on the one hand, the nature of God, and, on the other, the nature of man. These claim that, during the period of the Incarnation, Jesus voluntarily refrained from using the attributes of deity. However, the same theologians and teachers frequently contradict their own assertion, particularly with respect to the attribute of omniscience.

But such a supposition is erroneous, for it gainsays the clear teaching of the Scripture. Moreover, the supposition leads immediately to a theological quagmire, in which every attempt to extricate oneself results in a compounding of the error.

2.3.1  Divine Attributes and the Concept of `Hypostatic Union'

The English word “hypostasis” is a transliteration from the Greek; it means “that which forms the basis of anything; the underlying principle; a concept or mental entity conceived or treated as an existing being or thing”. In the theological sense, hypostasis means “substance; subsistence; essence; person; personality”.

The doctrine of hypostatic union declares that the incarnate Christ Jesus possessed both a divine and a human nature; in effect, it declares that Jesus was a hybrid being, half-man and half-God, much like some of the characters found in mythology. However, seldom do theologians and teachers use the word “hybrid” or the terms “half-man” and “half-God” when speaking of Jesus; instead, they speak of the “God-man” and the “union of the divine and human natures”, and say that Jesus is “undiminished deity and true humanity in one person”. Supposedly, the union of the two natures, having come about through physical conception, gestation, and birth, continues evermore. Moreover, they argue that the two natures remain distinct; thus do they make the incarnate Christ a schizophrene. A variant of this doctrine teaches that Jesus during the incarnation was “deity cloaked in humanity”; but neither concept agrees with the teaching of the Scripture.

It is vital to note that, even though many Christians never have heard the term “hypostatic union”, the beliefs which they have embraced concerning the incarnate Christ almost always are bound up in the false doctrine of hypostatic union. Every man who believes that Christ simultaneously possessed both human and divine attributes has embraced the doctrine of hypostatic union. Every man who believes that it was not possible for the incarnate Christ to commit sin has embraced the doctrine of hypostatic union. Every man who believes that Christ of his own power rose from the dead has embraced the doctrine of hypostatic union.

Viewed objectively, the concept of hypostatic union amounts to nonsense, for it holds that Jesus simultaneously was ignorant, though omniscient; simultaneously was weak, yet omnipotent; simultaneously was confined by space, yet omnipresent; simultaneously was constrained by time, yet eternal; simultaneously was subject to death, yet immortal. Only by appealing to mysticism may such contradiction be embraced.

What is the origin of the false concept of hypostatic union? As with most of the heresies which have troubled the Church, the source appears to be the Jew—the leavening agent against which Christ Jesus repeatedly warned. The Scripture documents the mindset of the Jew, and his inability to conceive of a weak, suffering Christ who ultimately is put to death. This attitude of the Jew, described by the apostle Paul is his first epistle to the Corinthians, is the fundamental reason for the Jew's rejection of Jesus as the Christ.

The fact that the Christ was to suffer and die is a stumblingblock to the Jew; this despite the fact that the humiliation and suffering and death to which Christ was subjected are portrayed vividly by the prophets (most notably, Isaiah and the Psalmist) and by the fact that they are portrayed in Scripture from Genesis onward, through analogies ranging from the aprons of skin which the Lord made for Adam and the woman in the Garden to the intricacy of the Levitical ritual with its numerous sacrifices. As evidenced by the Gospel accounts and the book of Acts, the Jew envisions Christ only in the sense of a redeemer from the oppression of earthly foes; the Jew has no expectation of Christ as a sin-bearer, for the Jew has no appreciation of his own sinful state, nor of the necessity of atonement.

While some Christians view the incarnate Christ as deity `cloaked' in flesh, many view the incarnate Christ as a `god-man' in which divine and human natures were united or bonded, yet remained distinct, a theological concept which is termed `hypostatic union'. The English word `hypostatic'4 is derived from the Greek word upostasis, which has the meaning `essence' or `substantial nature'.

  1. Christians almost universally are taught that the Incarnation5 involves the union of two natures: a divine nature and a human nature.

  2. The theological term for this supposed union of natures is `hupostasis' or `hypostasis'. Accordingly, the union is termed `the hypostatic union'.

  3. The hypostatic union supposedly is inseparable and everlasting.

  4. By virtue of the hypostatic union, the incarnate Christ supposedly is characterized by:

  5. Supposedly, the human nature of the incarnate Christ is free of the propensity to sin, according to the following reasoning:

    1. The sin of Adam resulted in the spontaneous generation within Adam of a sin nature.

    2. The sin nature is transmitted genetically to the progeny of Adam.

    3. The agent by which the sin nature is transmitted is the male gamete.

    4. The virgin birth of Christ eliminated involvement of the male gamete in the conception of Christ.

    5. Consequently, Christ was born without a sin nature.

  6. It is not clear how, in the supposed union of an immortal and incorruptible spiritual nature possessing the attributes of deity with a mortal and corruptible fleshly nature possessing none of the attributes of deity, it is possible to preserve the respective natures.

  7. In particular, it is preposterous to assert, as many nonetheless do, that the incarnate Christ simultaneously could have only a local and limited consciousness of events and yet be omniscient—that his human nature could be unaware of phenomena of which his divine nature was cognizant.

  8. The Scripture declares that the Word became flesh, the verb ginomai connoting a transformation, as opposed to a `bonding' or a `cloaking'.

  9. The Scripture declares that, for the purpose of the Incarnation, the Word laid aside the attributes of deity.

  10. The Scripture teaches that, upon resurrection, Christ Jesus received again from the Father the attributes of deity which he, as the Word, had laid aside.

When the postulates of the doctrine of hypostatic union are taken to their logical conclusion, the result often is absurdity and blasphemy. For example, with regard to the temptations of Christ, the doctrine of hypostatic union asserts, “possi non peccare, non posse peccare”, a Latin phrase which means, literally, “able not to sin, not able to sin”. The reasoning is thus: the human nature, by virtue of virgin birth having no inherent disposition to sin, renders the hybrid Christ able not to sin; while the divine nature, by virtue of the perfection of divinity, renders the hybrid Christ unable to sin. So, to assert possi non peccare, non posse peccare is to assert that the temptations of Christ have no validity and no significance, and are but pretense and sham. If Christ was not able to sin, Christ could not be tempted.

The Scripture, however, declares that Christ Jesus was tempted, both at the outset of his earthly ministry and repeatedly during the course of it.

Moreover, the Scripture declares that Jesus was tested (KJV “tempted”) in every respect in which we are tested; and that, because of this, he is able to be “touched with the feeling of our infirmities”. Arguably the greatest testing which a man may face is that of death, the test being to maintain confidence in the promise of resurrection.

Perhaps the most insidious assertion of the doctrine of hypostatic union concerns the death of Christ. The doctrine asserts that only the humanity of Jesus died on the cross—for deity, being immortal, cannot die. But this is to say that Christ did not truly die, which is to say that the Incarnation and the Atonement amount to nothing but sham and pretense.

It must be understood that the phrase “shedding of blood” does not mean simple bleeding from a wound. Indeed, the physical loss of blood is not necessary, for that which accomplishes atonement is not literal blood. Rather, atonement is accomplished by death—the forfeiture of life. Contrary to popular notion, Christ Jesus did not bleed to death. Crucifixion is a technique of torture which kills by means of physiological shock, dehydration, and exhaustion, ultimately resulting in suffocation; loss of blood is not a primary factor in such a death. Jesus died by dismissing his human spirit.

The Scripture, however, both teaches and declares that it was necessary for Christ to die.

Moreover, the Scripture declares that it was necessary for Christ to be raised from the dead.

By attributing to Christ both divine and human natures, the doctrine of hypostatic union confounds the teaching of Scripture regarding both the death and the resurrection of Christ. Whereas the Scripture teaches that resurrection is the means by which an individual is transformed from flesh to spirit, the implications of resurrection are not clear in the case of a hypothetical dual-natured being. Upon resurrection, does the resurrected humanity of a hybrid Christ remain inferior to the divine nature? That is, does the resurrected human nature remain limited in knowledge, in power, and with respect to space and time? Or does the resurrected human nature become omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Here again, the arguments for a dual-natured, hybrid Christ lead to absurdity, if not blasphemy.

Christ Jesus himself is the first to be resurrected from the dead, and thus is the first to be transformed from flesh to spirit.

The equivalence between spiritual birth and the transformation of the Resurrection may be seen from a comparison of Colossians 1:18 with John 3:6. It is apparent that spiritual birth is nothing other than the process of resurrection.

2.3.2  The Virgin Birth

The Concept of a Genetically-Inherited Sin Nature

genetically-inherited 'sin nature'

Christ as the `Son of God'

`son of God'

2.3.3  Temptation

The Scripture declares that the incarnate Christ was tempted. But, by its very nature, the concept of hypostatic union precludes the ability to sin, and thus, the ability to be tempted.

  1. God cannot sin.

  2. Consequently, a dual-natured Christ characterized by hypostatic union cannot sin.

  3. Thus, for a dual-natured Christ, no temptation can be valid.

  4. The Scripture records that the incarnate Christ was tempted.

  5. If the temptation of the incarnate Christ was not valid, then the Scriptural account of the temptation of Christ is a deception.

2.3.4  Death and Atonement

The Scripture declares that the incarnate Christ died. But, by its very nature, the concept of hypostatic union precludes the ability to die.

  1. God cannot die.

  2. Consequently, a dual-natured Christ characterized by hypostatic union cannot truly die, for even if somehow the human nature could die apart from the divine nature, the being would remain alive, inasmuch as the two natures supposedly inseparably are united.

  3. Atonement cannot be accomplished apart from the death of the Christ.

  4. The Scripture declares that Christ died.

  5. The Scripture declares that, upon dying, Jesus committed unto the Father his spirit. This spirit is the breath of life; it is the animating agency of a fleshly creature.

2.3.5  Resurrection

Resurrection of the incarnate Christ is central to the Christian Faith.

Resurrection and the Dual-Natured Christ

Resurrection appears not to be applicable to a being having dual natures, one of flesh and the other, of spirit.

  1. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul describes the Resurrection from the dead:

  2. From the description of Paul, it is clear that the Resurrection from the dead is much more than mere resuscitation or reanimation; rather, the Resurrection is a process of transformation:

    1. In resurrection, a corruptible being, the essence of which is flesh, is transformed into an incorruptible being, the essence of which is spirit.

    2. In resurrection, a being which is mortal is transformed into a being which is immortal.

    3. That is to say that, through the process of resurrection, a fleshly being which is capable of death and capable of decay or decomposition is transformed into a spiritual being which cannot die and cannot decay or decompose.

  3. The Scripture portrays resurrection as a process of birth; specifically, resurrection is the spiritual birth—the `birth from above' or the `birth anew'. The Greek term is gennao anothen, which, in the King James version, is translated `born again'.

  4. It is not clear how the concept of resurrection can be applicable to a hybrid Christ or to a cloaked Christ.

The Self-Resurrection Heresy

One of the most serious misunderstandings concerning the nature of the incarnate Christ is the notion that Jesus somehow raised himself from the dead—that he came out of the tomb of his own accord and by his own power. Well-meaning but ignorant teachers sometimes boast, “My God is greater than the gods of the heathen, because my God raised himself from the dead.” But to make such an assertion is to deny the teaching of the Scripture.

It should be evident that no being which has died is able to bring itself again to life, for death is defined as the absolute and irreversible cessation of the vital functions of an organism. To argue that Christ Jesus raised himself from the dead is to argue that Christ did not truly die. In rebuttal, the theologian and the contemporary pulpit contend that it was only the humanity of Christ—that is, his human nature—which died, and that the divinity of Christ—that is, his divine nature—being ever-living, was able to resurrect his humanity. There appear to be, at best, only two or three passages of Scripture which even remotely appear to support the concept of self-resurrection. The most obvious of these passages is John 2:19; and without the support of John 2:19, the argument for self-resurrection becomes hopelessly indefensible.

In considering this passage, it is essential to keep in mind the fact that the Scripture is a coherent whole—a fact which was declared by Jesus, speaking to the Jews. Jesus said, “…the Scripture cannot be set aside…”, by which he means that no passage of Scripture may be disregarded.

Accordingly, if the interpretation of a particular passage seems to contradict the interpretation of other passages, an alternative interpretation must be sought for one or the other. Now, numerous passages plainly declare that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead; these passages may not be disregarded, and their interpretation hardly can be doubted. So, despite the fact that John 2:19 seems to be a prophecy of self-resurrection, and despite the explanation of John 2:21, that Jesus was referring to the temple of his body, it is evident that John 2:19 must be speaking of something other than the resurrection of Jesus.

In John 2:21, we are told that Jesus is speaking of the “temple of his body”. Now, recall that the Church is portrayed in Scripture both as the figurative body of Christ, and as the figurative temple of God—a temple which is composed of living stones, those stones being the individual members of the body. The apostles Peter and Paul both speak of this figurative, living temple.

Inasmuch as the term “body” and the term “temple” both are used in New Covenant scripture with respect to the Church, it should be apparent that it is the Church—a figurative, living temple—which Jesus, in John 2:19, declares that he shall “raise”. Note that the word EGEIRO, which the KJV translates “raise”, does not necessarily indicate that the structure would be brought to completion in three days; the word may be used to indicate the beginning of a structure. Obviously, it is in this latter sense that Jesus uses EGEIRO; he is speaking of the laying of the cornerstone. Three days after his fleshly body was “destroyed” by crucifixion, Jesus was resurrected by God the Father. And upon his resurrection, Jesus himself laid the cornerstone of this new, spiritual, temple—he, Jesus, being the cornerstone.

Another passage which typically is cited in support of the notion that Jesus raised himeself from the dead is John 10:17–18:

In this passage, Jesus appears to say that he has the ability to take up his life after having laid it down. However, a closer reading reveals that such is not the case.

As an additional rebuttal to any who stubbornly continues to argue that Christ Jesus raised himself from the dead, it should be noted that the faith which Scripture demands as a condition of salvation specifically includes faith in the fact that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. Numerous passages may be cited in this regard.

A variant on the false self-resurrection teaching is the notion that all three members of the so-called “Trinity” collaborated in the resurrection of Jesus. Of course, those who make this argument cite John 2:19 as evidence that Jesus was a participant. And any of more than two dozen passages of Scripture may be cited as evidence that God the Father was a participant. Finally, I Peter 3:18 is cited as evidence that the Spirit of God was a participant.

Some also cite Romans 8:11 as evidence that the Spirit of God, as a member of the “Trinity”, participated in the resurrection of Jesus. However, such teachers apparently are unable to read, for the “Spirit” of which the passage speaks is the spirit of God the Father; and the verse makes it clear that it is God the Father—not the “Spirit of God the Father”—which raised Jesus from the dead. Nor is the passage mistranslated; the English of the KJV properly translates the Greek.

The concept of hypostatic union opens the possibility of self-resurrection, a concept which, despite the clear teaching of the Scripture to the contrary, has been embraced by many Christians, because it seems to them an undeniable demonstration of the deity of the incarnate Christ.

  1. The Scripture declares that Christ was raised from the dead by God the Father.

  2. Some interpret the last clause of I Peter 3:18 as an assertion that the Spirit of God raised Jesus from the dead. While such an interpretation of the passage obviously is fallacious, there nonetheless are teachers who, having embraced the false concept of a trinitarian Godhead and foolishly subordinating sound exegesis to a notion of `hermeneutical symmetry'6, use the passage as a basis upon which to argue that all three members of the `Trinity' had part in the resurrection of Christ. As might be expected, I Peter 3:18 appears to be the only passage in all of the Scripture to which a teacher might appeal for support of the argument that the Spirit of God raised Jesus from the dead.

    In the King James version, the passage juxtaposes the prepositional phrases “in the flesh” and “by the spirit”:

    In the Greek, no prepositions appear in this passage; instead, the prepositions are implied, the author using the dative case of the respective nouns, sarx and pneuma. Interestingly, precisely the same construction—with the same pair of nouns—is employed by Paul in his epistle to the Galatians, Galatians 3:3. Curiously, the translators of the King James version chose to render that passage with the prepositional phrases, “by the flesh” and “in the spirit”7, which is the reverse of their choice in this passage.

    The consensus of most translators with respect to I Peter 3:18 is exemplified by the translation found in the New American Standard Version, which reads, “having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” Thus, the translators of the New American Standard Version recognize the fact that Peter juxtaposes the death of Christ with the resurrection of Christ, in a declaration of the truth of which Paul speaks in his first epistle to the Corinthians. The point being made by Peter is that the Christ which was crucified was a mortal, fleshly being, while the Christ which was raised from the dead is an immortal, spiritual being. And this, too, is precisely the point being made by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.

  3. Apart from the obvious absurdity of the assertion of self-resurrection, if Jesus indeed raised himself from the dead, then the record and the repeated assertion of the Scripture is false; for the Scripture unequivocally declares that Jesus was raised from the dead by God the Father; that is, that the resurrection of Jesus was the work of God the Father.

2.4  Omniscience and Foreknowledge

Misapprehension of the concepts of omniscience and foreknowledge has led many a devout man to embrace notions which range from the absurd to the blasphemous. Nowhere is this more evident than with the adherents of so-called `Reform Theology' who, in their zeal to defend their doctrine of `particular redemption' (a doctrine which is fundamental to Reform Theology), not only deny the existence of free will with respect to salvation, but go so far as to teach that no creature has volition.

  1. Christians typically hold to a concept of omniscience which is based upon human concepts of perfection.

  2. The concept of omniscience to which the Christian typically holds demands that the knowledge of God regarding the Creation be both comprehensive and intimate.

  3. The concept of omniscience to which the Christian typically holds demands that the knowledge of God regarding the Creation apply equally to the future as it does to the present and to the past.

  4. The concept of omniscience to which the Christian typically holds demands that the knowledge of God regarding the Creation apply equally to future possibilities as well as to future actualities.

  5. Comprehensive and detailed knowledge of the future implies that the future is fixed, having been written in advance—that there exists an infinitely-detailed script or program which is being played out as history progresses.

  6. Unless God himself is author of the script, there of necessity is a higher god (commonly termed `Fate') who has written the script of history, and whose script the God of the Bible at best only can foresee.

  7. It is nonsensical to say that the God of the Bible foresees a script which he himself has written; in that case, there is no distinction between the Scriptural concepts of foreknowledge and fore-ordination.

  8. The existence of a script precludes volition; if there is a script, then all creatures are but automatons which have been programmed in detail.
  9. The absence of volition would make a mockery of the Scripture, rendering invalid:

  10. The demand that the knowledge of God regarding the Creation apply equally to future possibilities as well as to future actualities is based upon the false assumption that the actions and responses of autonomous creatures are rigidly governed by a combination of natural law and the environment, as is the case with inanimate objects. But such an assumption not only is incorrect; it is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

3  The Teaching of the Scripture

3.1  The Nature of the Godhead

3.1.1  A Family

The Scripture portrays the Godhead as a family—a family which consists of father and son.

3.1.2  Distinct and Independent Beings

God the Father and God the Son are not, as some argue, two manifestations of the same entity; rather, they are distinct and independent beings.

  1. As they are revealed by the Scripture, God the Father and God the Son clearly are distinct and independent beings.

  2. The clear teaching of the Scripture notwithstanding, Christians sometimes argue that the Godhead is comprised of a single being having multiple manifestations—a being sometimes manifesting himself as God the Father; sometimes, as God the Son; and sometimes, as the Spirit of God.

  3. But one need only consider the phenomena which surround the Incarnation in order to see that the single-being, multiple-manifestation thesis cannot be correct:

    1. The Word became flesh.

    2. In order to become flesh, the Word divested himself of the attributes of deity, expecting to receive again those attributes, upon resurrection.

    3. The incarnate Christ was tempted.

    4. The incarnate Christ withstood temptation and did not sin.

    5. The incarnate Christ died.

    6. The incarnate Christ was raised from the dead, the agent of resurrection being God the Father.

    7. The incarnate Christ was dependent upon and subservient to the Father.

    8. Upon dying, the incarnate Christ committed his spirit to the Father for safekeeping.

    9. Upon resurrection, Christ Jesus received back from the Father the attributes of deity which he, as the Word, previously laid aside.

    10. Upon his ascension and session (that is, upon his parousia or `coming'), the resurrected Christ received from the Father ruling authority, the scope of which has no limit, save God the Father, himself.

    11. Ultimately, Christ Jesus shall return to the Father the ruling authority which he now exercises.

    12. The Scripture describes Christ Jesus as having been begotten of the Father.

    13. The Scripture describes Christ Jesus as the only-begotten of the Father.

    14. The Scripture describes Christ Jesus as the firstborn of many brethren.

  4. Moreover, to argue in support of the single-being, multiple-manifestation thesis is to argue that God purposefully deceives those whom he himself has called to adoption, by presenting to them a portrayal of himself which is misleading.

  5. Thus, the single-being, multiple-manifestation thesis is seen to be nothing more than the attempt of stubborn zealots to defend their mistaken interpretation of the oneness of God—an interpretation which is based upon the false, Talmudic concept of the Godhead.

3.1.3  The Son: the Word which Became Flesh

The incarnate Christ is the result of a transformation in which a member of the Godhead, namely, the Word, laid aside the attributes of deity and became flesh.

  1. The Son is “the Word which became flesh”, that is, the incarnate Christ Jesus.

  2. Old Covenant scripture portrays the Godhead as a family.

  3. The Song of Moses, which is recorded in the 32nd chapter of Deuteronomy, quotes the words of both God the Father and God the Son, a fact which may be established beyond question by observing that a phrase from the song is cited in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews. In the 32nd chapter of Deuteronomy, verses 39 through 42 record the declaration of the Son concerning the vengeance which he shall exact of his enemies, while verse 43 records the words of the Father. The epistle to the Hebrews cites a phrase from verse 43.

    Regrettably, the correspondence of these two passages is not generally recognized, even among Bible scholars. This is due to a grievous blunder on the part of William Tyndale, who was the first to translate the Scripture from the original language (that is, from the Greek) directly into English. After translating the entire body of New Covenant scripture, Tyndale undertook translation of the body of Old Covenant scripture. But rather than translating from the Greek of the Septuagint, Tyndale somehow was persuaded to translate from the newly-published Masoretic Hebrew Text, failing to perceive that the document was a Jewish counterfeit, and not (as it purports to be) a faithful representation of the ancient Hebrew Canon. In the counterfeit Masoretic Hebrew Text, the Song of Moses has been selectively edited, in order to obscure the Messianic reference.

    In the Septuagint, Deuteronomy 32:43 contains the phrase, “and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people”. The first part of the phrase, “and let all the angels of God worship him”, appears in Hebrews 1:6.

    But in the Masoretic Hebrew Text, only the latter half of the phrase, “rejoice o ye nations, with his people”, is present. The first half of the phrase, “and let all the angels of God worship him”, is missing, having been removed by the unregenerate, Christ-rejecting Masorete. And the reason for the deletion is obvious, for, inasmuch as worship appertains to God alone, the command, “and let all the angels of God worship him” is nothing other than a testimony to the deity of Christ. Such editing by the Masorete occurs throughout the Masoretic Hebrew Text, with the result that many messianic references have been obscured. Indeed, many commentators have incorrectly supposed the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews to be quoting the last phrase of Psalm 97:7, which reads “worship him, all [ye] gods.”

  4. The apostle Paul likewise cites from the Song of Moses, declaring that the passage has reference to Christ Jesus. Paul quotes the phrase, “Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.”

  5. And in the same passage in which he cites from the Song of Moses, Paul cites from a Messianic Psalm, namely, Psalm 18. From that psalm, Paul quotes the phrase, “For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.”

3.1.4  The Children or Sons of God

God adopts as sons (that is, as children) all the justified of every age of history. However, in the present life, the adoption is a matter of position, rather than one of actuality. That is, the adoption is promised and sure, but it is not realized in full. The realization of the adoption to sonship takes place upon the yet-future resurrection from the dead.

  1. The justified, by virtue of their union with Christ Jesus, become members of the family of God, that is, they become `sons of God'.