Christian Biblical Church of God

Biblical Truth Ministries: “…the truth shall set you free”

Order Books Online | Sermon Text Index | Sermon Audio Index | CBCG Children

The Holy Bible In Its Original Order - Available Now New

CHAPTER ONE

Is the Trinity Biblical?

The belief that God is one substance, yet three persons, is one of the central doctrines of mainstream Christianity. The concept of the Trinity is believed by most professing Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant.

A Gallup Poll taken in 1966 found that 97% of the American public believed in God. Of that number, 83% believed that God was a Trinity.

Yet for all this belief in the Trinity, it is a doctrine that is not clearly understood by most Christian laymen. In fact, most have neither the desire nor the incentive to understand what their churches teach. Few laymen are aware of any problems with the doctrine of the Trinity. They simply take it for granted, leaving the mysterious doctrinal aspects to theologians.

And if the layman were to investigate further, he would be confronted with discouraging statements similar to the following: "The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who would try to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind. But he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul." (Harold Lindsell and Charles J. Woodbridge, A Handbook of Christian Truth, pp. 51-52).

Such a statement means that the concept of the Trinity should be accepted or else. Merely accepting it as doctrine without first proving it would be contrary to Scripture. God inspired the Apostle Paul to write: "Prove all things hold fast that which is good" (I Thess. 5:21).

Peter further admonished Christians: "...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.. " (I Peter 3:15). Therefore the Christian is duty bound to prove whether or not God is a Trinity.

Clear Explanation Difficult.

If you were to confine yourself to reading the articles on the Trinity in popular religious literature for laymen, you would conclude that the Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible. However, if you read the Bible and what the more technical Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries, and books say on the subject, you would come to an entirely different conclusion. And the more you have studied the subject, the more you would find that the Trinity is built on a very shaky theological and philosophical foundation indeed.

The problems inherent in clearly explaining the Trinity are expressed in nearly every technical article or book on the subject. The New Catholic Encyclopedia begins: "It is difficult... in the second half of the 20^th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette" (Vol. XIV, p. 295). (Emphasis ours throughout the booklet.)

But why should the central doctrine of the Christian faith be so difficult to understand? Why should such an important doctrine present an unsteady silhouette? Isn't there a clear Biblical revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity? Didn't Christ and the apostles plainly teach it?

Surely the Bible would be filled with teachings about such an important subject as the Trinity. Unfortunately, the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible.

"The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," p. 3012). Not only is the word "Trinity" never found in the Bible, but there is no substantive proof such a doctrine is even indicated.

In a recent book on the Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner recognizes that theologians in the past have been "...embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of the 'imminent' Trinity (even in the Apostle John's prologue there is no such doctrine)" (The Trinity, p. 22).

Other theologians also recognize the fact that the first chapter of John's Gospel the prologue - clearly shows the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, but does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. After discussing John's prologue, Dr. William Newton Clarke writes: "There is no Trinity in this; but there is a distinction in the Godhead, a duality in God. The distinction or duality is used as basis for the idea of an only-begotten Son, and as key to the possibility of an incarnation" (Outline of Christian Theology, p. 167).

The first chapter of John's Gospel clearly shows the pre-existence of Christ. It also illustrates the duality of God and as Dr. Clarke explains, the key to the possibility of the incarnation - the fact that God could become man.

The Apostle John makes plain the unmistakable fact the Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1-14). Yet we find no Trinity discussed in the chapter. WE do not find even a mention of the Holy Spirit in John's inspired revelation—only a duality of God the Father and the Son, who was God before the incarnation.

Seeking More Biblical "Proof for the Trinity

Probably the most notorious scripture used in times past as "proof of a Trinity is I John 5:7. However, many theologians recognize that this scripture was added to the New Testament manuscripts probably as late as the eighth century A.D.

Notice what Jamieson, Fausset and Brown wrote in their commentary: "The only Greek MSS. [manuscripts], in any form which support the words, 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a MS. [manuscript] at Naples, with the words added in the margins by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words."

The conclusions arrived at in their commentary, written over 100 years ago, are still valid today. The more conservatively oriented The New Bible Commentary (revised) agrees, though quietly with Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. "...The words are clearly a gloss and are rightly excluded by RSV [Revised Standard Version] even from its margin" (p. 1269).

The editors of Peake's Commentary on the Bible wax more eloquent in their belief that the works are not part of the original text. "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSV, and rightly... It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a 4^th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT [New Testament] of Erasmus" (p. 1038). Scholars clearly recognize that I John 5:7 is not part of the New Testament text. Yet it is still included by some fundamentalist Christians as biblical proof for the Trinity doctrine.

Even the majority of the more recent New Testament translations do not contain the above words. They are not found in Moffatt, Phillips, the Revised Standard Version, Williams or the Living Bible (a paraphrase).

It is clear, then, that these words are not part of the inspired canon, but rather were added by a "recent hand." The two verses in I John should read: "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water and the blood: and these three agree in one ''

Three things bear record. But to what do they bear record? A Trinity? We shall see.

Bear Record to What?

The Spirit, the water and the blood bear record of the fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is living His life over again in us. John clarifies it in verses 11-12.

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

But how do these three elements - the Spirit, the water and the blood -specifically bear witness to this basic biblical truth?

"The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Rom. 8:16). (We will see more about the part the Spirit plays in Chapter Three.)

Water is representative of baptism, which bears witness of the burial of the old self and the beginning of a new life (Rom. 6:1-6).

The blood represents Christ's death by crucifixion, which pays the penalty for our sins, reconciling us to God (Rom. 5:9, 10).

Now understand why Christ commands the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). First of all Jesus did not command the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as an indication that God is a Trinity. Such a relationship is not indicated in the Bible.

They were to baptize in the name of the Father, because it is the goodness of God that brings us to repentance (Rom. 2:4), and because the Father is the One "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph. 3:15). We are baptized in the name of the Son because HE is the one who died for our sins. We are baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit, making us the Father's begotten sons (Rom. 8:16).

Many theologians have misunderstood the part that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit play in each person's salvation. The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of that misunderstanding.

The Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. It has no basis in biblical fact. Then how did this doctrine creep into the Church? Pagan theology, about the nature of God, was used to interpret scripture. God tells us that scripture is to interpret scripture, not pagan mythology.

History of the Trinity

The ancient idea of monotheism was shattered by the sudden appearance of Jesus Christ on the earth. Here was someone who claimed He was the Son of God. But how could He be? The Jewish people believed for centuries that there was only one God. If the claims of "this Jesus" would have been accepted, then in their minds, their religion would have been no different from that of the polytheistic pagans around them. If HE were the Son of God, their whole system of monotheism would have disintegrated.

When Jesus plainly told certain Jews of His day that He was the Son of God, some were ready to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33).

To get around the problem of the plurality in the Godhead, the Jewish community simply rejected Jesus. And to this day, Orthodox Judaism will not accept Jesus' Messiahship. However, the more liberal Jews will at least admit that He was a great man, maybe even a prophet.

But the "new" Christian religion still faced a problem. How could proponents explain that there was only one God, not two?

"The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was the church's profound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian concept of God from the first origin of Christianity turned" (International Standard Biblical Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," p. 3021).

The deity of Christ does not mean that the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary, as we shall see in Chapter Two.

Roots in Greek Philosophy

Many of the early church fathers were thoroughly educated in Babylonian, Egyptian and Greek philosophy, from which they borrowed such non-biblical concepts as dualism and the immortality of the soul. However, most theologians, for obvious reasons, are generally careful to point out that they did not borrow the idea of the Trinity from the Triads of Greek philosophy or those of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians.

But some are not so careful to make such a distinction. Notice: "Although the notion of a Triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In the Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and the Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother and Son in medieval Christian pictures. Not is it only in historical [not biblical] religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity. One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by Plato..." (Hastings Bible Dictionary, Vol. 12, p. 458).

Of course, the fact that someone else had a Trinity does not in itself mean that the Christians borrowed it. McClintock and Strong make the connection a little clearer.

"Toward the end of the 1^st century, and during the 2^nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology" (article "Trinity," Vol. 10, p. 553).

In his book, A History of Christian Thought, Arthur Cushman McGiffert shows that the main argument against those who believed that there was only one God and that Christ was either an adopted or created being was that their idea did not agree with Platonic philosophy (ibid., p. 240).

In the latter half of the third century, Paul of Samosata tried to revive the adoptionist idea that Jesus was a mere man until the Spirit of God came upon Him at baptism, making him the Anointed One or Christ. In his beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ, he "rejected the Platonic realism which underlay most of the Christological speculation of the day" (ibid., p. 243).

At the end of his chapter on the Trinity, McGiffert concludes: "...It has been the boast of orthodox theologians that in the doctrine of the Trinity both religion and philosophy come to highest expression" (Vol. I, p. 247).

The influence of Platonic philosophy on the Trinity doctrine can hardly be denied. However, trinitarian ideas go much further back than Plato. "Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic, yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world his deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, north and south. Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one...The definition of Athanasius [a forth-century Catholic] who lived in Egypt, applied to the trinities of all heathen religions" (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, by James Bonwick, F.R.G.S., p. 396).

It was Athanasius' formulation for the Trinity, which was adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his philosophy was also deeply rooted in Platonism.

"The Alexandria catechetical school, which reversed Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologians of the Greek Church, as it heads, applies the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture. Plato influenced its thought: its strong point was [pagan] theological speculations. Athanasius and the three Cappadocians had been included among it members..." (Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, by Hubert Jebin, p. 29).

In order to explain the relationship of Christ to God the Father, the church fathers felt that it was necessary to use the philosophy of the day rather than the scriptures. They obviously thought that their religion would be more palatable if they made it sound like the pagan philosophy that was extant at the time. These men were versed in philosophy, and that philosophy colored what understanding of the Bible they had.

It was the doctrine of the Trinity - colored by the philosophy of the time - that was accepted by the Catholic Orthodox Church in the early part of the fourth century, over 300 years after Christ's death.

Even theologians recognize that the Trinity is a creation of the fourth century, not the first! "There is a recognition on the part of the exegetist and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualifications. There is also the closely parallel recognition - that when one does speak of unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4'^h century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarianism dogma 'one God in three persons' became thoroughly assimilated into [professing] Christian life and thought" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," Vol. 14, p. 295).

The Council of Nicaea

It was at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that two members of the Alexandrian congregation - Arius, a priest, who believed that Christ was not a God, but a created being, and Athanasius, a deacon, who believed that the Father, Son and Spirit were the same being living in a threefold form (or in three relationships, as a man may be at the same time a father, a son and a brother) presented their cases.

The Council of Nicaea was not called by the church leaders, as one might suppose, but by the Emperor Constantine. He had a far-from-spiritual reason for wanting to solve the dispute.

"In 325 the Emperor Constantine called an ecclesiastical council to meet at Nicaea in Bithynia. In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing body of [professing] Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony. Constantine himself of course neither knew or cared anything about the matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as around" (A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 258).

The decision as to which of the two men the church was to follow was more or less an arbitrary one. Constantine really didn't care which choice was made. All he wanted was a united church. (Arius was banished, but later recalled by Constantine, examined and found to be without heresy.)

The majority of those present at the Council were not ready to take either side in the controversy. "A clearly defined standpoint with regard to this problem - the relationship of Christ to God - was held only by the attenuated group of Arians and a far from numerous section of delegates, who adhered with unshaken conviction to the Alexandrian [Athanasius'] view. The bulk of the members occupied a position between these two extremes. They rejected the formulea of Arius, and declined to accept those of his opponents.. .the voting was not criterion of the inward conviction of the council" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11^th ed., article "Nicaea, Council of," p. 641).

The Council rejected Arius' views and rightly so, but they had nothing with which to replace it. Thus the ideas of Athanasius - also a minority view - prevailed. The rejection of Athanasius' view was not a blanket acceptance of Arius' view. Yet, the church in all the ensuing centuries has been "stuck," so to speak, with the job of upholding - right or wrong - the decision made at Nicaea.

After the Council, the Trinity became official dogma in the church. However, the controversy did not end. In the next few years, more Christians were killed by other Christians over that one doctrine then were finally killed by the different pagan emperors of Rome. Yet, for all the fighting and killing, neither of the two parties had a Biblical leg on which to stand.

CHAPTER TWO

Who Was Jesus?

The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. But we are still faced with the questions: Who was Jesus Christ? Was He a man that lived such a perfect life that God decided to call Him His Son at baptism? Or was He God who became a man and died for all men?

In the past, in most theological circles, a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity included a rejection of the divinity of Christ. But, before this booklet becomes classed as an Arian heresy, let me quote from the Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner: "...We must be willing to admit that should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of the religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged...the Christian idea of the incarnation would not have to change at all, if there were no Trinity.

"It is not surprising then, that Christian piety practice remembers from the doctrine of the incarnation only the 'God' has become man, without deriving from this truth any clear message about the Trinity" (The Trinity, p. 10-12).

A rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity does not constitute a rejection of the incarnation - the divinity of Christ. In fact, what he says indicates that, for all practical purposes, the Trinity doctrine is meaningless.

Jesus Was the Problem

To this day, Christianity is still confused about who and what Jesus Christ really was. A majority believes in a mysterious Trinity and a vociferous minority believes that Christ was a created being. Neither has the truth.

But why all the confusion?

Who Jesus was is clearly indicated in the pages of the Bible. It has been there for centuries. While Christians were busily excommunicating and killing each other over the questions of who Jesus was, the answer has been in the pages of Bible, and that explanation is not in harmony with what is taught by most churches today. Christ is not the second person in a Trinity, and God did not create Him - He is the Creator GOD!

In the Beginning

To find out who Jesus was, let's go back to the beginning. Beginnings are mentioned in the Bible, in at least two separate places - in the first chapter of Genesis and in the first chapter of John's Gospel.

The Apostle John began his Gospel by describing Who and what Jesus was before He came to this earth, as the Savior of mankind. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made...And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (verses 1-3, 14).

If we read no further in the New Testament than this, we would be able to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ was God and that He was the One who created man in Genesis 2:7. John clearly stated that the Word - the One who became Christ - created all things. Had Christians clearly understood these verses, there would have never been an Arian controversy or a doctrine of the Trinity, as both doctrines are meaningless.

But the Apostle John was not the only New Testament writer who wrote about the pre-existence of Christ. Notice what Paul wrote to the Corinthians. "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink of the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ" (I Cor. 10:1-4).

Paul clearly tells us that Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament - the One who spoke to Moses and the one that led the Israelites out of Egypt. This clearly shows us that the One who became the Son was the God of the Old Testament, not God the Father. Therefore, Christ was the Jehovah that spoke with Moses and the Holy One that led Israel.

Yet, the doctrine of the Trinity hinges on the assumption that God manifested Himself as the Father in the Old Testament and Christ in the New Testament. Such assumptions are false and without scriptural proof.

Duality of God Throughout the Bible

The plurality of God in not merely a "plural of majesty" as some would have us believe. Six hundred years before Christ, the Prophet Daniel recorded for us a vision. "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days..." (Dan. 7:13). The "Son of man" he describes can be none other than the One who later became Jesus Christ. Daniel then saw Him given rulership and a Kingdom that will never be destroyed (verse 14). The "Son of man" mentioned here could hardly be a mere physical human being!

The Ancient of Days, in this instance, is the divine Being who is called the Father in the New Testament. Jesus Christ referred to the same occurrence as mentioned in the vision in His parable of the nobleman (Himself) who went to a far country (heaven) to receive a kingdom, and to return (Luke 19:12).

David also referred to the duality of the God family in Psalms 110. "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (verse 1).

Two different Lords are mentioned here. One is the being who became God the Father and the other is the One who became Jesus Christ. Paul quoted this passage to the Jewish Christians - applying it directly to Jesus Christ: "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Heb. 1:13).

Was the Son also God? Verse 8 answers, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever..." There can be no doubt that God the Father and Jesus the Son are mentioned as two separate beings in the Old Testament.

Who Was Melchizedek?

Now, Notice Hebrews 5:5-6: "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made high priest; but he [glorified him] that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. As he also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

So Christ holds the office of Melchizedek. Who was Melchizedek? He was one of the Beings composing God.

In Genesis 14:18, he is called the king of Salem and the priest of the Most High God. Notice why he could not have been merely a human being.

The Apostle Paul, described Him further in Hebrews 7:2-3: "To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

Paul could not have been describing a human being, or even an angel in those verses, for he is describing a Being that eternally existed, as only God has eternally existed.

Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God. Who was the Most High God? Why of course, the being that became the Father! Jesus Christ said, "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). And also Melchizedek still lives (and if you will read Hebrews 7:8 carefully, you will see that Paul repeats this supremely important fact) and is still that High Priest. But Christ is also a High Priest (see Heb.7:26; 8:1). There cannot be two High Priests both holding the same office, so Melchizedek and Jesus Christ must be the same.

So we see that even in the first book of the Bible, the plurality of God is shown, although clear understanding of this truth could not be known until Jesus came to reveal it in the New Testament. Jesus said, "...No man knows who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22).

Jesus Came to Reveal the Father

A clear distinction has been made in the New Testament between Christ and the Father, again proving that Christ was the God of the Old Testament. "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). Christ came to the earth to reveal the Father and to show that a family relationship has existed in the Godhead.

Unless Jesus had revealed the Father to us, there would be no way for us to know Him. "All things are delivered unto me, of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (Matt. 11:27).

The Meaning of the Word YHVH

In the Hebrew of the original inspired text, there are two different names that are commonly used to refer to God. The word first used for "God" in the Genesis is Elohim. The second word is YHVH (commonly pronounced "Jehovah"). This word YHVH is generally translated "LORD" (In capital letters) in the King James Version of the Bible. It is first used in Genesis 2:7. There it was the LORD GOD - YHVH - who formed man out the dust of the ground. It was the LORD GOD who dealt directly with Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden. As we saw in John 1, it was the Word - Jesus Christ - who created all things.

Therefore, it was the LORD GOD of the Old Testament who became the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. This fact is illustrated by grammatical derivation of the word YHVH.

The word YHVH is explained by Rabbinic sources as encompassing three Hebrew words, HYH meaning was, HVH meaning is (literally "present tense" -the word "is" is not used in Hebrew) and YHYH, meaning will continue to be.

Putting the words all together, YHVH actually means the "Was-Is-Will Continue to Be" Being. Even Hebrew linguistic scholars agree that YHVH must be derived from some form of the verb "to be" (was, is, will be).

By His very name, God quite literally encompasses all aspects of time -past, present and future. This is in complete accord with Malachi 3:6, "For I am YHVH, I change not"; Hebrewl3:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday [was], and today [is], and forever [will continue to be]." Revelations 1:8 says, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

Even etymologically, Jesus Christ and YHVH can be equated. Yet, this is only a small part of the picture, because the clear statements of both the Old and New Testaments give overwhelming proof that the God of the Old Testament is the One who became Jesus Christ.

People Stumbled at Christ

In Isaiah 8:13-14, we find a very interesting prophecy concerning the Lord of Hosts. "Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare of the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

Most editions of the King James Version of the Bible note that these verses refer to the One who later became Jesus Christ. But even more accurate proof is found in the New Testament.

In his first epistle, the Apostle Peter writes: "Wherefore also it is contained in the scriptures, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed" (I Pet. 2:6-8).

The very same prophecy is alluded to in Luke 2:34. There can be no denying the fact that Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament, the Stone over which many people stumbled.

The religious leaders of the time simply could not understand how Jesus could have been God. Yet, the Old Testament, which they had copied for centuries, is filled with prophecies about Him. Truly, they were blinded, and most remain so to this day. The Apostle Paul explains this in the ninth to the eleventh chapters of his epistle to the Romans.

While Jesus Christ, the God of the Old Testament, was on earth as a human being, there was only one God-Being - the Father - left in heaven. We find that Jesus prayed to His Father in Heaven:

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world existed" (John 17:5).

The Jews and the Arians, found it hard to believe that God could become man. Yet, the New Testament explains that it did indeed happen. One of the members of the Godhead became a man that we might have the opportunity to be born into the family of God.

The Apostle Paul explained this concept in his epistle to the Philippians. The Amplified Bible makes the passage a little clearer. In chapter 2:5-8, he encourages the Philippians:

"Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus: [Let him be your example in humility:] Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained, But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity] so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being. And after He had appeared in human form He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme death, and even the death of [the] cross!" Jesus Christ was God Still, he voluntarily gave up His position as God to come to this Earth, becoming a physical human being and dying for us so we could be saved.

The true impact and importance of the oft-repeated scripture: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16) becomes abundantly clear.