Who is this “man” we call Jesus? Is He simply one of the noblest and best of human beings? Is He merely the subject of a glorious myth, not real? Is He the noblest of creatures that God created? Or is He God Incarnate, God manifest in the flesh, sharing fully in every essential attribute of God? All the inferior answers to the above questions fail to grasp the reality of the situation. Either Jesus is who He claimed to be, God Incarnate, in every way co-equal and co-eternal with God, or He was the biggest fraud to ever live.

     In the first century pagan philosophy in the form of Gnosticism attempted to attach itself to Christian teaching, evidenced both in Colossians and in most of John’s inspired writings in the New Testament. However, to succeed, the Gnostic teachers had to do away with the whole idea of Jesus possessing a literal, material human body. Thus in both Colossians and in First John particularly New Testament Scriptures confront this error and soundly reject it. To deny Jesus’ literal human body and consequently to deny His literal, physical, bodily resurrection is to deny every essential claim the New Testament makes about Him and about our ultimate salvation. When Paul asserts in First Corinthians 15 that, apart from Jesus’ literal, bodily resurrection, our faith is vain, and we are yet in our sins, he made the point as clearly as he could possibly make it. We cannot—and should not try to—rationalize or tolerate this ancient Gnostic heresy any more than New Testament writers, under the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit did.

     When Scripture writers confront and refute error, they give us some of the richest and simplest teachings in the Bible regarding truth. While we see the error they reject in these writings, we see God’s truth far more clearly. They do not obsess against error, though boldly confronting it. See Paul’s Galatian letter as a good example of boldly opposing error, along with Colossians and First John. Error ignored becomes bolder and more aggressive. It never settles for peaceful coexistence with truth. New Testament writers leave no doubt that error, when discovered, must be opposed and rejected. When Paul wrote the following words, did he advocate “peaceful coexistence” with error? Or did he confront and reject it?

     I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

     A study of the history of Christianity, particularly of Christian doctrine, affirms Paul’s point. Whenever error has been ignored, rationalized, or tolerated, it has consistently grown bolder and more invasive against the New Testament’s measure of “sound doctrine.” When exposed and rejected, it has shriveled and diminished, albeit with sad casualties among the naïve and less informed of hungry sheep.

But ?shun ?profane and vain babblings: for they will ?increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is ?Hymeneus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:16-18)

     Error in a Christian culture behaves like cancer or gangrene in a person’s body. Left alone it kills. Almost eight years ago I faced a prostate cancer diagnosis. Medical technology offers three basic approaches to this disease. When detected early in older men, prostate cancer often grows quite slowly, but as it grows and evolves, it becomes quite aggressive. I could have chosen any one of three alternatives. I offer this thought, not as a discussion of my diagnosis, but as a clear parallel to Paul’s teaching regarding the character of error in the Christian culture.

1. I could adopt a “watchful wait” approach. See my doctor for regular follow-up and watch for indications that it has spread. I chose against this alternative. Having significant experience with family members who dealt with cancer in other areas of the body, I felt strongly opposed to this approach. We may adopt watchful waiting, but the cancer doesn’t watch and wait. It continues to grow, in the case of my particular diagnosis, becoming increasingly aggressive over time. After surgery, the option that I chose, the surgeon told me that my tumor had already become aggressive and, in his professional assessment, would have spread to other areas of my body within weeks, a few months at best. “Watchful waiting” when dealing with error in a church culture is no different than the same approach when dealing with cancer. Eventually it will destroy the body. There may be times when “watchful waiting” are reasonable options for either cancer in the body or potential error in a church, but we should not ignore the potential in either case.
2. I could opt for radiation. Several different methods exist in this protocol that in one way or another attack the tumor with radioactive energy that effectively kills the tumor. Many men with my diagnosis have experienced excellent results from this treatment. The objective of radiation is to destroy the destructive tumor while preserving surrounding healthy tissue. The difficulty of radiation is its inclination to destroy surrounding healthy tissue. For churches of for the human body, sometimes this strategy may be quite acceptable, but in either case it should be used with wisdom and caution.
3. I could opt for surgery. Remove the tumor from my body. If the tumor has not already spread outside its known location, this option eliminates the cancer and thus its threat to the body. I chose this option and have been disease free for almost eight years. However, the fact that this cancer existed gave my surgeon grave concern, particularly because it had turned aggressive and was threatening to spread. For the first two or three years after surgery, he gave me cautious optimism with each disease-free lab report, but only after the third year passed did he start talking to me with true optimism.

     Error in a church culture is like cancer in the body. It grows unnoticed and undetected for an extended period of time. In my case the surgeon suggested that I had likely had this disease for ten to twelve years, but only in the two years prior to surgery did I notice any symptoms. When cancer produces pain, it is likely also at a dangerous, life-threatening stage. It grows for an extended period unnoticed with little or no discomfort. Paul’s analogy indicates the same result with error in a church. Errant words quietly work to influence and warp the hearers’ minds. At first it is so subtle that the unsuspecting will simply think of it as a different way of explaining an old and accepted truth. Only after the teacher of error has entrenched his ideas in the minds of his followers will he more boldly reveal the depth of true error, but then the poor follower is too warped to know what to do.

     I grieve when I read in Scripture of people who challenged the truth of the gospel, but I celebrate the clarity with which New Testament writers expose and refute these errors. Not only do they model “sound doctrine” in their teachings, but they also model the godly method to reject it. Never ignore it. Never pretend it doesn’t exist. Like cancer in a watchful wait strategy, while you are watching and waiting, it is growing and taking over. Always confront the error. Keep your focus on the error, the idea that conflicts with and contradicts “sound doctrine” as defined in Scripture alone. The teacher of error is a problem, but the real problem is the error itself, so we should try to avoid personalizing our opposition.

     I thank the Lord that the Holy Spirit directed Paul and John to confront this Gnostic error, and I also thank Him that these inspired and godly men gave us the model of methods by which we are to oppose error. No, we are not apostles. God did not empower any of us with global authority, and we should not complicate one error by adopting another one. But within our own churches He has given us clear and simple truth, and equally clear and simple instructions to prevent that error from growing, gangrene or cancer-like in the church body.

     Most of the time I labor at home in my home church. Occasionally I accept invitations to preach in other churches. On more than one occasion when considering a particular subject or doctrine, before preaching it, I have asked the pastor about his views. When I have not had that opportunity, but felt strongly to teach the point, I’ve stated to the congregation, “If your pastor teaches you differently on this question, stick with him.” I never want to be viewed as a quiet invasive cancer, trying to impose my diseased ideas onto a church so as to create problems between that church and her pastor. Conversely, those who promote error look for such opportunities and are expert at exploiting them. The first three chapters of Revelation distinctly remind us that each church answers to the Lord, and He is quite competent in His administration of blessing and of withholding blessings from His churches based on their faithful obedience or their unfaithful rebellion.

     Truth never shined so brightly as when it stands beside error, a cheap imitation of the “real thing.”

God bless,
Joe Holder

Who is Jesus?

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:15–17) "

     The whole idea of Jesus being God Incarnate, of God literally taking on the form of a human body and living in His creation for a time, is a central point of the Colossian letter. The Gnostic teachers who attempted to invade and take over Christianity in the first century despised and rejected anything material. They viewed the “god” of the Old Testament who created the material universe as an errant and inferior “demiurge” who misread the chief deity’s wishes when he created the material universe. Thus, when Paul introduces this passage with its emphasis on Jesus being God Incarnate and possessing a literal human body, he specifically rejected a major theme of Gnostic error. Apparently this error continued to grow and intensify, for John later devoted most of First John to the problem, becoming far more detailed in his condemnation of the docetic Gnostic rejection of Jesus being God manifest in literal human flesh. The “docetic” view taught that Jesus only appeared to have a literal human body. Supposedly, it was really a “spirit body,” or a mere empty image. Another docetic error held that the “Christ,” the deity inhabited the human body of Jesus at some time after his natural birth and left His human body before Jesus’ crucifixion.

     Gnostic belief continued to threaten Christianity for at least three hundred years. Arius’ views of a lesser, created Jesus, not eternal, and not co-equal with the Father, illustrates a later manifestation of Gnostic influence. Thankfully, the Christian community rebuffed Arius and his beliefs. Arius’ modern followers will actually cite our study passage and claim it as supporting their idea that Jesus is a lesser deity, and a created deity, the first created being that Jehovah created. Let’s examine the passage to discover its teachings.

Who is the image of the invisible God….

The word “image” in this verse was translated from the root for our English word icon. In English the word suggests an imitation or a copy. This is not the case in the Greek language of the New Testament. D. A. Carson makes the point quite clearly.

     The image of the invisible God indicates that the very nature and character of God have been perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ; in him the invisible has become visible. No-one has ever seen God, but God the only Son has made him known (Jn. 1:18). Humanity as the climax of creation was made in God’s image (Gn. 1:26–27). From all eternity, Jesus, in his very nature, has been the image of God. The English word image may suggest a copy that is less than perfect; the Greek original, which is a term of revelation, does not imply this. Jesus, who is perfectly like the Father, reveals who he is in all his goodness (cf. Pr. 8:22).[1]

     Many New Testament scholars believe these verses originated as a first generation hymn sung in the first churches. If so, it makes a powerful point that the words in our hymns should be as true and sound as the words spoken from our pulpits.

     This hymn is also as far as one could imagine from Gnostic dualistic thought since it has a robust appreciation for creation and re-creation, and its vision of redemption includes resurrection. Furthermore, the hymn leaves no room for additional mediators between God and humankind. Christ is the be-all and end-all of all mediators. Angels and principalities need not apply. The hymn thus not only makes clear the basis on which the Colossians already have the salvific benefits they need and the reason they need not entertain supplements or replacements for what they have already believed and have been doing, but also provides a pattern or trajectory of the Christian life which involves death, resurrection, and eventual glorification.[2]

…the firstborn of every creature….

One meaning of the word “firstborn” refers to birth order, the first or oldest child in a family. However, this contemporary meaning does not frame the Biblical meaning of the word. Often in Scripture the word refers to one who is “first” in order of importance or preeminence. Consider the following:

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn…. (Exodus 4:22)

Also I will make him my firstborn, Higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27)

     If Jesus was the first of God’s natural creation, Israel cannot also fill that position. Only one being can be the firstborn or first created. Is it Jesus or is it Israel? However, if we interpret the word “firstborn” as the most important one or the preeminent one, Israel was more important to God than Egypt or any other nation that existed at the time of the Exodus.

     In Psalm 89:27 the prophetic message directs us to the Lord Jesus Christ in His Incarnation. In this setting applying the same meaning to the term gives us the obvious and true meaning. In His Incarnation, not in His eternal pre-Incarnate existence, Jesus was/is the most preeminent of all things natural in God’s created universe. However, I believe the true intent is that the Word, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father, would continue His preeminence, His co-equal standing with the Father, even during the Incarnation. John 5:17-18 affirms this truth, as does John 10:30-38. In both passages, Jesus clearly claimed present equality with the Father, even in the midst of the Incarnation.

     Thus, the Biblical use of the term “firstborn” affirms Jesus’ Incarnate deity and thus His inherent preeminence. Let’s see if Paul affirms this point in context.

     For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him…. Follow the simple, concise language of the lesson. All things natural have their origin in Him. Things visible, from submicroscopic atoms to massive constellations, all came to exist from His personal creative power. Things on Planet Earth all came to exist by Him. Things in the vast spread of the heavens came to exist by Him. Even invisible things, things outside the scope of molecules and atoms, angels, for example, came to exist by Him. Wait. If He exists in the order of angels, albeit the most preeminent of angels, how could He create Himself before He existed?

     In this point Paul categorically refutes the whole notion that Jesus was created as the first order of angels, or as a lesser god below Jehovah God. He could not possible be the cause of creation and Himself be part of the created universe. Paul distinctly affirms that He transcends creation; He is rather the Creator, not part of the creation, not even the most important of the creation.

…all things were created by him, and for him….

Not only were all things created by Him, but Paul affirms that all things were created for Him. Again, Paul goes to great length to make the point that Jesus is not one of a class of lesser deities, the precise error of Gnostic teaching that Paul confronts and refutes in this letter. He transcends all things created. He created all things created. All things created He made for Himself.

     Thus the very passage offered by advocates of a lesser deity, a Gnostic non-material, spirit-being Jesus, stands out as one of the strongest passages in the Bible in affirmation of His co-eternality and co-equality with the Father, as well as His not being part of what He Himself created.

     This same glorious, uncreated, eternal Word, fully and wholly equal with the Father in every essential attribute, is also our Savior. By His coming and by His successful and finished work, by His doing the will of the Father as the Father’s full equal, He redeemed us from our sins, extracted us from the fallen and alienated race of sinful man, and translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son. Jesus and the Father—no less the Holy Spirit—personally and equally worked together to accomplish our redemption, to make us members of the family of God and citizens of heaven’s glorious kingdom. The Socio-Rhetorical Commentary’s statement above affirms the bedrock truth.

     Paul’s language “…leaves no room for additional mediators between God and humankind. Christ is the be-all and end-all of all mediators. Angels and principalities need not apply.”

     God has already filled that position, and His Son succeeded fully. Hallelujah! What a Savior!

---

Elder Joseph R Holder
Gospel Gleanings

• Previous

---

f. cf. compare [1] D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary : 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994). [2] Ben Witherington III, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles, 129–130 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007).