The Prophesies About Jesus in Isaiah 53

“The passage from 2 Corinthians quoted above, together with the verses from Isaiah, indicate that it was God the Father who put our sins on Christ. How could that be? In the same way in which Adam’s sins were imputed to us, so God imputed our sins to Christ; that is, he thought of them as belonging to Christ, and, since God is the ultimate judge and definer of what really is in the universe, when God thought of our sins as belonging to Christ then in fact they actually did belong to Christ.” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, page 574.

“II. Imputation of the Sin of Man to Christ. In contrast to the imputation of Adam’s sin to the race, often considered a real imputation, the imputation of the sin of man to Christ is considered judicial, and related to the death of Christ on the cross. Christ ‘hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows . . . But he was wounded for our transgressions . . . the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53:4-6). .... Though the word impute is not actually used to express this idea in the NT, the idea is clearly stated in other words.” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, page 282.

“It is vicarious or substitutionary. It was rendered by the Lord Jesus Christ for His people, i.e., not merely for their benefit, but ‘in their place.’” Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, article Atonement, page 43. Imputation “describes the act of God in visiting the guilt of believers on Christ and of conferring the righteousness of Christ upon believers.....Makes the guilt, legal responsibility of our sins, really Christ’s, and punishes them in Him, Isa. 53:6.” Ibid., article Imputation, page 187.

The doctrine is that the responsibility for our sins was literally transferred to Jesus. He also assumed our guilt for the sins committed by us. Further, the punishment that rightly belongs to us because of our sins was imputed to Him as well. That was done 2000 years ago and consequently we really do not have any sins or guilt, never did have any and we will never be punished, because all of that was transferred, imputed, to Jesus. He stood in our place, taking our responsibility away from us and “bore” them all Himself on the cross.

But, this Calvinist doctrine of imputation is just another way of stating the doctrine of the vicarious, substitutionary death of Christ. It is also known as the doctrine of penal satisfaction. Thus, the concepts of substitution and vicarious death of Christ developed along with the imputation of sins popularized by Calvinism. Indeed, Wiley and Culbertson, in their book Introduction To Christian Theology, page 228, say: “This is the theory generally held by the Reformed Churches, and is frequently known as the Calvinistic theory.” But, even Calvinists must admit the unscriptural nature of at least their language as stated above in Baker’s Dictionary. Thomas Crawford was a convicted Calvinist and an avid believer in the imputation/substitution theory. Yet, among some other like things, he says the following in his book The Doctrine of The Atonement, page 188:

“One of these conclusions is, That our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ. It is true there is no passage to be found in Holy Scripture in which this doctrine is expressly affirmed; but there are many passages in which it seems to be necessarily implied. For, when we read of Christ as ‘bearing our sins,’ as ‘made sin for us,’ and ‘made a curse for us,’ we can hardly fail to recognize in these expressions the substance of what is really intended by all intelligent advocates of the doctrine that ‘our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ.”

Note that it “seems to be necessarily implied.” Is that very convincing that the doctrine is true? With this in mind, and there is much more that could be said along these lines, let’s take a closer look at Isaiah 53:4-12 as a foundation for the imputation, substitutionary death of Christ.

Verse 4 - “Surely he hath borne (nasa) our griefs, and carried (sabal) our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”

The words “borne” and “carried” are the key terms here. “Borne” is from the Hebrew, “nasa.” Gesenius, pages 567-569 presents the range of meanings, while at the same time injecting the Calvinist position of imputation at one point, which will be addressed later. Nasa may have a literal meaning of lifting up something, such as the ark, Genesis 7:17, the table of showbread, Exodus 25:27. It may also refer to being cheerful or merry, Job 10:15, or to a land able to support people, Genesis 13:6.

Nasa also has figurative meanings and so may be translated in some passages as “forgive” or “pardon,” such as Exodus 32:32, 34:7, Numbers 14:18. In some places even though the words “bore” or “bear” are used, it may mean only “removal.” The conclusion that nasa, “borne,” refers to a transference of sins to the one who “bears” is a false conclusion. There is no imputation of sins inherent in the word.

Nasa is translated by the words “forgive” and “pardon” in Genesis 50:17, Exodus 10:17 and I Samuel 15:25. Must we conclude that the sins of the people involved were transferred to Joseph, Moses or Samuel? Were their sins imputed to these individuals? No, they were not.

“Carried” is from the Hebrew, “sabal.” It is clearly a synonym of nasa in this passage. This will further be proven shortly. Gesenius, who was a Calvinist, inserts the idea of imputation into Isaiah 53:4 on page 578 of his Hebrew Lexicon. He says:

“TO BEAR, TO CARRY, a heavy burden...Isa. 46:4,7. Used figuratively to bear griefs, sins, etc. i.e. to receive the penalties which another has deserved, Isa. 53:4,11; Lam. 5:7. [It must not be forgotten that when the vicarious sufferings of Christ are spoken of, every figure falls very far short of the full truth; he actually bare our sins.]”

Gesenius does accurately admit that sabal is used figuratively, just as nasa is. The mistake that many make is to literalize the terms where they are not literal at all. Just what figurative meanings are to be attached to the terms? Gesenius claims that in Isaiah 53:4 that sabal (carried) refers to receiving the penalties which another has deserved. This could not be further from the truth! It is so outlandishly false that only one who is blinded by his theology could reach such a conclusion. It is a determined effort to insert Calvinist theology into the Bible.

We are not left to wonder what these terms refer to in Isaiah 53. For verse 4, especially, we have an inspired explanation of the way they are to be understood relative to Jesus and they have nothing at all to do with His death on the Cross! Matthew 8:16-17 says:

“And when even was come, they brought unto him many possessed with demons: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.”

The context of these passages shows that Jesus healed them of their diseases. The Holy Spirit said specifically that what Jesus did was a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4, a fulfillment of the phrases that include both nasa and sabal, borne and carried. Were their diseases transferred to Jesus in any sense whatever? No. Did He become a leper in their place when he “bore,” “carried” their diseases and suffering? The answer is obvious. He did not become blind in healing their blindness. And, take note that this was all done long before His death on the cross.

Further, the Greek verbs used in Matthew 8 mean only to remove or take away. Jesus removed their diseases. This is what, by divine inspiration, nasa and sabal mean in Isaiah 53. There is no “imputation” nor “transference” at all involved in these terms.

Verse 5 - “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

The preposition “for” is found twice in this passage in English, “for our transgressions” and “for our iniquities,” and in the Hebrew text the preposition, minee, means “on account of” or “because of.” This is why the Septuagint, translated by Hebrew Scholars, uses the Greek preposition dia in both instances; they do not use either huper or anti. Dia means because of here in keeping with the Hebrew preposition. It was because of our transgressions and because of our iniquities He was wounded and bruised. There is no “imputation of our sins to Him,” no “in the place of” nor “instead of” idea in this verse.

“Chastisement of our peace” may also be translated as “chastening He took in order to bring us peace,” as also say Keil and Delitzsch on this statement.

His being wounded, bruised and chastised refers to His physical suffering before and during His time on the Cross. He was also emotionally stressed but there isn’t even a hint in these terms that Jesus suffered bitter rejection because “God had withdrawn from Him” while on the cross. The so-called “desertion” of the Father is a fabrication.

“With his stripes we are healed,” means that by His suffering and death we are spiritually healed and is quoted in I Peter 2:24 -

“...who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed.”

What is the meaning of “bare” in Peter’s statement here? It is from the Greek word, “anaphero” in this passage. Anaphero is found in the Septuagint of Isaiah 53:11 as a translation of sabal, “he shall bear (sabal/anaphero) their iniquities.” As a synonym of nasa in 53:4 and its fulfillment in Matthew 8, sabal means to remove or take away. Anaphero means to offer up.

To “remove” or “take away” sins does not even imply that all of our sins were imputed to Him and He removed our sins two thousand years ago before we ever had any sins. Our sins cannot be removed through Christ unless we obey what He has commanded us to do. We retain our sins until our obedience and thus, Jesus did not remove your sins or mine while He was on the cross. He just provided the way whereby our sins can be forgiven. He didn’t pay a debt but rather He opened a door. That makes the terms used, such as “bare,” figurative terms, not literal. But, let’s next look at two passages that give us more information, Hebrews 9:26 and 28 -

“..else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away (athetesin) sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

“..so Christ also, having been once offered to bear (anaphero) the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.”

These two passages are saying the same thing, parallel in thought. Athetesin means “removal,” Bauer, page 21. “Put away” and “bear” mean the same as also does “sacrifice” and “offered.” Jesus bore our sins in that He removed them by means of His offering. There was no imputation of sins, no transference of our sins to Him, no substitution here. But, another passage -

“..who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up (anaphero) sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered (anaphero) up himself.” Hebrews 7:27.

The sacrifice was offered on behalf of the people. The preposition “for” in both places in this verse is from huper, definitely meaning “on behalf of” the people, not a substitute for them. Well then, was the priest who made the offering a substitute for the people? No. Remember that the priest offered sacrifices as much for himself as for the people. Was the priest a substitute for himself? No. Substitution was not involved in anaphero.

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up (anaphero) Isaac his son upon the altar?” James 2:21

Isaac was “offered up” on the altar. For whom was Isaac a substitute? Certainly, the ram was killed on the altar in the place of Isaac because the text says so. But, the text says that Isaac actually WAS offered up, but offered up in whose place; for whom was Isaac a substitute? For whom was Abraham a substitute?

“..ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up (anaphero) spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

When Christians offer up spiritual sacrifices to God, can they use a substitute to do it in their place so that they don’t really have to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God themselves? When Christians do make the offering for spiritual sacrifices, for whom are they substituting?

Isaiah 53:5 connected with I Peter 2:24 in no way teaches that Jesus was our substitute, that our sins, guilt and punishment were imputed to Him.

Verse 6 - “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

“Laid on” is from the Hebrew paga. Among its varied meanings, according to Strong, p. 93, is the figurative, “come (betwixt), cause to entreat, fall (upon), make intercession, intercessor, entreat, lay, light [upon], meet (together), pray, reach, run.” So also says Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon. Note that in this same context of verse 6, verse 12 uses the same term, saying that He, “... made intercession (paga) for the transgressors.”

The Septuagint records this in verse 6 as (English translation in Bagster’s), “and the Lord gave him up for our sins.” The verb paradidomi is in the Septuagint and means to deliver up or intercede, just as you find translated in Isaiah 53:12. Consider two NT passages that have paradidomi-
“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up (paradidomi) for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?” Romans 8;32.

“...and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up (paradidomi) for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell.” Ephesians 5:2.

Keep in mind that to bear sins is to remove them, not impute them to Himself. See also John 1:29, Hebrews 9:26, 28, I Peter 2:24.

Verse 7 - “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”
He was “oppressed” and “afflicted” only refers to His suffering brought on Him by His tormentors and then describes how He reacted to it. Also, where is there in these terms anything that even implies that He “suffered” because the Father withdrew His presence from Him while on the Cross???

Verse 8 - “He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”

His being taken from prison and from judgment refers to His incarceration by the Jews and the judgment brought upon Him. Being cut off from the land of the living refers to His death. That He was stricken refers again to His suffering through incarceration, judgment and death.

“For the transgression of my people” means what? The meaning hinges on the preposition “for.” Is it “in the place of our transgressions he was stricken?” The preposition “for” is again the Hebrew minee, as in verse 5, and means on account of. The Septuagint uses the Greek preposition apo, meaning out of. It might be translated as “out of the transgressions” that He was stricken. The transgressions were the reason for what He did. But, no substitution is involved.

Some have appealed to the American Standard Version that says - “for the transgressions of my people for whom the stroke (was due)?” This implies substitution but even the translators recognize that this is a doubtful rendering by putting “was due” in parentheses and adding a question mark. The NASV puts “was due” in italics with a question mark. This means it is the translator’s addition and is not in the Hebrew text. The New Living Translation is even more blatant in injecting Calvinist theology into the text by rendering this - “that he was suffering their punishment.” The true expression of the text is given in Bagster’s Greek and English Septuagint - “because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death.” Imputation is not found in this passage.

Verse 9 - “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.”

These are details of what happened at the Cross and afterward. He was absolutely innocent of all charges brought against Him as He was also sinless.

Verse 10 - “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”

The suffering of Jesus is highlighted in the first part of the passage and the consequence of what He did in the latter part. He was bruised and brought to grief. The key phrase we are interested in at the moment is that his soul was made an offering for sin. The single Hebrew term, asham, translates into the phrase, “offering for sin.” It means “trespass-offering.” In the Septuagint, the preposition “for” is the Greek peri, meaning concerning. It was a trespass-offering concerning or relating to sin. There is no imputation nor substitution in this.

Verse 11 - “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.”

The term “soul” is from nephesh. Among its many meanings is that of a living being. Here it refers to what other passages say about the piercing and the suffering He endured in this whole ordeal. Jesus was physically and emotionally stressed. See Psalm 69:19-22.

The key phrase here is that “he shall bear their iniquities.” The word “bear” is the same word as in verse 4, sabal. It means iniquities were removed, not imputed to Christ. In such passages as Leviticus 16:25, Numbers 5:26, sabal is translated as an “offering.”

The Septuagint of this verse uses the word anaphero for sabal. Anaphero is found in such passages as Hebrews 7:27, James 2:21, I Peter 2:5 and translated as “offer up” sacrifices. See the comments on verse 5. There is no imputation or substitution in this passage, either.

Verse 12 - Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

He poured out His soul unto death - the word “soul” is nephesh in the Hebrew text and psuche in the Greek Septuagint and the preposition is correctly rendered as eis, unto. It refers to the time where it says of Jesus that “He gave up His spirit.”

Bare the sin of many - “Bare” is from nasa. See the comments on Verse 4. It means to remove or forgive, which is certainly what He did. BDB says that among its meanings are “to take, take away, carry off, forgive.”

      Made intercession for the transgressors - Intercession is from paga. See the comments under verse 6. Bagster’s Septuagint Greek/English, page 889, translates this “and was delivered because of their iniquities.” The preposition is dia. There is no hint at all of imputation/substitution in this verse or any of the verses in Isaiah 53:4-12, but to the contrary.

The “cross” is used literally in scripture to refer to the actual wooden beams on which Jesus was killed. But, it is also used as a symbolical figure of speech of the sacrifice of Jesus that involves more than just the literal crucifixion. It is used figuratively in various passages, such as I Corinthians 1:18-23, to stand for the entire gospel, all that was necessary for our salvation; when they “preached the cross” they did not just talk about the literal wooden beams. This is made clear by I Corinthians 15:16-17, which says, “For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” If Jesus had just died only, there could have been no salvation. Just His death was not enough to accomplish reconciliation with God. This is why the heart of gospel preaching is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. We must also add the thought that He had to ascend to heaven to complete the offering for sin; He had to be raised from the dead in order to do that.

The death of the goat and the sprinkling of his blood by the High Priest on the day of Atonement, Leviticus 16, was but a shadow pointing to this role that Jesus would play in our reconciliation with God. Two essential acts were performed at that point on the day of Atonement. First, the animal was slain by taking its blood, its “life.” This goat was designated “for Jehovah,” as an “offering for sin.” Second, the High Priest took the blood of that animal into the Holy of Holies to sprinkle there for atonement. Both acts were essential to making that atonement!

This shadow of what was to come is clearly indicated in Hebrews 9. That chapter begins with describing these two acts and then says in verse 9, “which is a figure for the time present.” In verse 22 it emphasizes, “apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.” Jesus was, first, the sacrifice slain: He shed His blood on the literal cross, gave His life. Following His resurrection, He ascended into heaven, and, acting as High Priest, offered His own blood before God in the heavenly Holy of Holies to complete the offering for sin. Hebrews 9:23-26, speaking of the necessity of blood shed, “It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens (earthly Holy of Holies, MB) should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place year by year with blood not his own; else must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This is why just the death of Jesus on the literal cross was not sufficient to bring remission of sins. For us to focus all attention and emphasis involved in redemption at the time of the death of Jesus is to ignore the scheme of redemption, nullify the gospel, violating scripture. But, where does the scapegoat enter the picture? It is usually used to support the substitution theory that Jesus took our place on the cross, and that it refers to Jesus literally “bearing” our sins while on the literal cross. None of this is true.

As the first goat is designated “for Jehovah,” the second goat is designated “for Azazel.” There has been some controversy over the meaning of Azazel. Its most likely meaning is in keeping with what was done with the scapegoat, it means “removal.” That is, it symbolized the removal of the sins of the people. Indeed, the word “scapegoat” comes from the old English “escapegoat,” that is, the goat “escaped” into the wilderness. Let’s look at some facts concerning the scapegoat to help us put it in its proper place.

First, Jesus is never likened to the scapegoat! He is connected only to the first goat, the one for Jehovah, the one whose blood was shed and then sprinkled in the Most Holy Place, as we have already seen.

Second, the scapegoat appears in the scenario only after the offering for atonement in the Holy of Holies, Leviticus 16:20, that furnishes the shadow of what Jesus did. If one should say that the scapegoat was also chosen to “make atonement” as was the other goat, keep in mind that when the poor offered fine flour for a sin-offering it was also referred to as “atonement,” Leviticus 5:11-13; no blood was shed. The fact that the English word “atonement” was used does not establish that the scapegoat’s place was in the death of Jesus on the cross. The scapegoat was not slain, none of its blood was shed; it could not have portrayed any of what Jesus did on the literal cross. Remember that only by blood that is shed and offered can there be remission of sins.

Third, if the scapegoat enters the picture at all in the New Testament order, it would have to be after Jesus ascended into heaven and completed His offering for sin. If the scapegoat has any counterpart in what Jesus did for redemption, it could only have come after He sat down at the right hand of God, “when he had made purification for sins,” (Hebrews 1:3). It could only be a symbol of the “removal” of sins just as it was on the day of Atonement.

Godhood refers to the “quality or state of being God.” That’s what makes God to be God. “Godhead” is found in the KJV in three places from three related words, Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9.  Colossians 2:9 says of Christ that “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily.” That is, all the characteristics of being God were within that bodily form. This is in keeping with John 1:14 that says “the word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” or Hebrews 1:3 that says Jesus is “the very image of his (God’s) substance.” Or, see it in II Corinthians 4:4, “the image of God,” Colossians 1:15, “image of the invisible God.” Likewise, Jesus says in John 14:9, “if you have seen me, you have seen the father.” Since God is a spirit, seeing the physical Jesus was not “seeing” the Father. He was, otherwise, the exact image of the Father. John 5:17-18 says— “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

Jesus had the same rights as the Father. He specifically acknowledged the connection here, as He did in John 10:30-33. The Jews in both places readily understood what Jesus was claiming, in reality, that He was God, just as the Father was God. Not only did Jesus have the right to do whatever He wanted to do on the Sabbath, but He could forgive sins, Mark 2:7-10. The Jews understood that God alone could forgive sins and this showed in another way that Jesus was God. The Jews well understood the claims of Jesus to be God. They refused to believe Him.

But, what of the Holy Spirit? Is He a distinct person of the Godhead or just some impersonal power?  Buzzard and Hunting, in their book, The Doctrine Of The Trinity, Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, pages 227-228 claim the following—

“It is going beyond the evidence of Scripture to equate the Spirit of God with a person distinct from the One God, in the same sense as the Son is distinct from the Father. There are clear differences between what the Bible says about the Father and the Son and what it says about the Spirit. God and Christ are obviously separate individuals worthy of receiving worship, the father in His capacity as creator, the Son Jesus as instrument and agent in the salvation of mankind. Yet the Holy Spirit has no personal name. Why is it that in no text of Scripture is the Holy Spirit worshipped or prayed to? Not once does the Holy Spirit send greetings to the churches. When the Apostles write to their churches, greetings are always sent from two persons, the Father and the Son. It is quite extraordinary that Paul would constantly omit mention of the third person of the Trinity, if he believed him to exist. When he charges Timothy to keep the faith, he speaks in the invisible presence of ‘God and of Christ and of his chosen angels’ (I Tim. 5:21).”

These comments make one wonder if the authors have ever even read the New Testament. We will look at some of their assertions in this and succeeding chapters. But, to present yet another view of this issue, Gary T. Cage, in his book, Clothed with Power, says on page 124—

“I do not see why we should say that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit in the Bible is more of an aspect of the one God. ‘The Spirit of God’ or ‘the Holy Spirit’ is a term which the biblical writers used when they wanted to speak of God’s power, especially as it became immanent in the physical creation. It is significant to me that the idea of a binity (the notion of a twoperson Godhead) does not seem to come up with the reading of the OT. Instead, the Holy Spirit becomes a third person only after reading the NT back into the old, especially since Jesus during his earthly ministry clearly was a person distinct from his Father in heaven. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then, represent three ways in which the one God has manifested Himself in the world: as the Father through the creation, as the Son through Jesus, and as the Holy Spirit through prophecy and miracles.”

It seems evident that Cage is contending, like the oneness Pentecostals, that there is only one person who composes the Godhead. God manifested Himself in three ways, like an actor merely changing masks.  Thereby, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit only appeared to be distinctly separate persons. The Father is the Son as He is also the Holy Spirit.

Concluding that there are three personal beings that make up one Godhead is not just reading the New Testament back into the Old as Cage asserts. The Old Testament does reveal facts about the Godhead.  However, the Old is but a shadow of the real substance, the New Testament, Hebrews 10:1. See this also stated in the following—

“...how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, 4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; 5 which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.” Ephesians 3:3-5

“Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, ccording to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, 26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith.” Romans 16:25-26

Even the prophets of the Old Testament did not understand what they were writing, but they didn’t need to know, I Peter 1:10-12, Daniel 12:8-9. That is the nature of inspiration. But without the New Testament record, neither would we understand, because the New explains the Old. Looking back from full revelation in the New Testament, we can readily discern the nature of the Godhead. It is no wonder that the Jews through the ages did not understand this, because it took the gospel to reveal the full truth.

The Jews did not grasp just who Jesus was and why He was here. Neither did they understand their wn scriptures, especially the prophecies and promises written there. Indeed, this is exactly what Paul said to the Jews in Acts 13:27-46. Paul also said it a little differently in II Corinthians 3:12-16. Read it for yourself.

The Jewish mind was hardened; they did not and would not understand until they turned to Christ.  Read the New Testament back into the Old? We must do that on many subjects; we are instructed from God to do that very thing; Jesus pressed others several times with, “Have ye not read?” Yet, even by making the accusation that “Trinitarians” are reading the New Testament back into the Old, Cage is admitting that there is a greater amount of information in the New Testament that reveals the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father.

Something else Cage said that is misleading is in reference to “the Spirit of God.” We cannot say that the Holy Spirit is just an attribute of God simply because He is said to proceed or come forth from God or from Christ. Neither can we say that He is just a power of God. Acts 10:38 says that God anointed him with “the Holy Spirit and with power...” Was it that he was anointed with the holy power and with power?

No. Romans 15:13 says that “ye may abound in the power of the Holy Spirit.” Did they abound in the power of the holy power? That is a terrible redundancy. Romans 15:18 says “by the power of the Spirit of God.” Was it by the power of the power of God? No. I Corinthians 2:4 speaks of the “demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” Was it demonstration of the power and of power? No. The Bible is not guilty of such nonsense. It is true that in some passages power is highlighted when the Spirit of God is mentioned but that is due to the fact that the Spirit uses, as well as imparts, power.

First, the word “Lord” on either end of the sentence is a translation of the Hebrew word for Jehovah.  So, it is literally, as in some translations, “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” As we will see a little later, there are passages where the word Jehovah applies to more than one individual being. That must be considered in an understanding of Deuteronomy 6:4.

Second, the word “God” in the passage is elohim. This is the same word as in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God....” In verse 26 of the same chapter, God says, “Let us make man in our own image after our likeness.” We will discuss elohim in detail in the section below. Suffice it to say at the moment that in many verses, it refers to the Godhead, three persons in one God.

Third, the word “one” means a united singular as it does in some other passages. For instance, Genesis 1:5 says, “the evening and the morning were the first day.” The word “first” is the same word for “one,” (echad), in Deuteronomy 6:4. Echad is found again in Genesis 2:26 that says a man is to cleave to his wife and “the two shall become one flesh.” It took the evening and the morning to make “one” day and the man and woman together to become “one” flesh. Or, consider Judges 20:8, “The people arose as one man,” and I Samuel 11:7, “They came out with one consent.” It may also be translated as together, Ezra 2:64, 3:9, 6:20 and Isaiah 65:25.

Oneness writers insist that the sole meaning of echad is an absolute singular and could not include more than one person or item. There is a singular involved, true enough, but, that singular is composed of more than one person or thing. So, Jehovah our God (plural) is a united Jehovah. We will proceed to expand on this by investigating both elohim and yaweh, Jehovah, to establish the truth of this.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”

It is easily seen in the translation that the pronouns used with the plural, elohim, are also plural. It is claimed by some oneness writers that there are no plural pronouns in any place that elohim is found.

Translators, they say, have made the pronouns plural without any evidence. That is not true. In Genesis 1:26, the Hebrew verb for “make” contains the pronoun in the verb construct itself. It is plural. The translation is correct.

Other oneness writers admit that the pronoun is plural, but insist that it shows God talking to angels.  This position is taken by Buzzard and Hunting, op.cit., page 22—

“It is most likely that the plural pronoun ’us’ contains a reference to the one God’s attendant council of angels, who themselves had been created in the image of God and had been witnesses to the creation of the universe (Job 38:7). It is fanciful to imagine that this verse supports the idea that God was speaking to the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where in Scripture does God ever speak to His own Spirit? The text says nothing at all about an eternal Son of God, the second member of a coequal Trinity. Moreover, the ‘us’ of the text gives no indication of two other equal partners in the Godhead. If God is a single person, His use of the word ‘us’ means that He is addressing someone other than Himself, i.e., other than God.”

First, the authors are begging the question. Their claims are assumed, based on their own belief of only one personal being who is God.

Second, the reference to Job, along with the other verses in a footnote, have nothing to do with what they contend. Angels have certainly carried out instructions from God but angels are servants and messengers, not creators.

Third, no one knows how the persons in the Godhead communicate with one another, or how they express that communication except we know that they do communicate. The prayers of Jesus in the garden are one of several pieces of evidence. See also Hebrews 1:8. Further, seeing that the Holy Spirit was sent from the father to accomplish certain tasks, just as Jesus was sent from the father into the world, how could they be sent if there were no communication between them? The fact that the plural pronouns are used shows the unity of purpose of elohim.

Fourth, note in the Bible text that it says, “And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Man was created by God in His image and likeness.

God is the model. It does not say nor imply that man was created in the image of angels. See Genesis 1:7,22, Isaiah 40:13, 44:24.

Fifth, the Word, who became Jesus, was the agent of the Godhead as creator of all things, even the creator of angels. Look at it—

“....who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; 17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; 20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.” Colossians 1:15-20.

All things were created through Him and unto Him. He is before all things. In Him, all things hold together, consist. There are two persons and two wills discussed in these verses. How is it that all things were created “through” Him, unless there were truly two persons? This was the way the Godhead operated in creation.

It is true that elohim is found along with the singular form of asah, such as in Genesis 5:1, 9:6. This only highlights the fact that elohim can be viewed from the standpoint of more than one person, with plural pronouns to indicate individuality, but it can also refer to the three as one unit, a collective, with attendant singular pronouns. The word Jehovah is used similarly. We saw one part of this in Deuteronomy 6:4—Jehovah (singular) our God (plural) is one (united) Jehovah.  Let’s explore that some more in the light of Colossians 1:15-20, John 1:1-3, Hebrews 1:8-12. Look at these passages—

“Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I established the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and that shall come to ass, let them declare.” Isaiah 44:6-7.

This identifies the one who created all things, who is also the first and the last. He is the Jehovah who is speaking.

“For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that stablished it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in a place of the land of darkness; I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I, Jehovah, speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” Isaiah 45:18-19.

“Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am Jehovah, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth.” Isaiah 44:24.

“Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called: I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. 13 Yea, my hand hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spread out the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.” 14 Assemble yourselves, all ye, and hear; who among them hath declared these things? He whom Jehovah loveth shall perform his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him; I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord Jehovah hath sent me, and his Spirit. 17 Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am Jehovah thy God, who teacheth thee to profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.” Isaiah 48:12-17.

The one who created the heavens and the earth is the Jehovah who is speaking. But, the Word, Jesus, is the one who did that, John 1:1ff.

“And I will strengthen them in Jehovah; and they shall walk up and down in his name, saith Jehovah.” Zechariah 10:12.

This shows one Jehovah speaking of another Jehovah but both answering to the same name. It doesn’t take much investigation to discover that the Word (Jesus) is Jehovah in some contexts. Here is more evidence—

“And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, 18 and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” Revelation 1:17-18.

“ And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the first and the last, who was ead, and lived again.” Revelation 2:8.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end...16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star.” Revelation 22:13, 16.

He is the first and the last, beginning and end. It is a statement of His eternal nature from both the Old and New Testaments. At the same time, He is one of three. The same names identify all three as individuals or as a Godhead. Jesus was as much identified by the name Jehovah as any other of the Godhead. But, here is another interesting passage—

“Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” Genesis 11:7.

This is Jehovah speaking, verses 1 and 8, along with a plural pronoun. Here is communication within the Godhead; as in Genesis 1:26, a joint action is proposed.  Now, note the following indications of the nature of the Godhead—

“The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert  highway for our God.” Isaiah 40:3.

“Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts. Malachi 3:1.

“For this is he that was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Matthew 3:3.

John testified that he, himself, was the fulfillment of this prophecy, John 1:19-24, and Jesus said the same in Matthew 11:10. The work of John was to prepare the way for an individual, a person. That person was Christ. John prepared the way for the coming of Jesus by his preaching and his witness to others about Jesus. However, notice in the prophecy that John was preparing the way for God. It identifies Jesus with the words “Jehovah” and “God.”

Numerous Old Testament passages, which we detail in other chapters, speak of the Holy Spirit performing various works. Note the following verses. In one passage, it is God under discussion and in the parallel, the Holy Spirit. First, Isaiah 6:8-9 connected with Acts 28:25-26—

“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.”

“And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Spirit through Isaiah the prophet unto your fathers, saying, Go thou unto this people, and say, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive.”

Next, Jeremiah 31:33 with Hebrews 10:15-16—

“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

“And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said, This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart, And upon their mind also will I write them...”

There are numerous names applied to the three beings of the Godhead collectively. There are also names that apply to these three individually. In the New Testament, they are referred to as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, though the word “God” is used in places to refer to each of the three. The Son is called the Word in John 1:1. He is referred to as God in such places as John 1:1-3, 10:33, Hebrews 1:8. He is also said to be “equal” with God, John 5:18, Philippians 2:5-6. He is said to be the “fulness of the godhead, bodily,” Colossians 2:9 and “the image of the invisible God,” in Colossians 1:15 and the “very image of his substance,” with “his” referring to the Father in Hebrews 1:3. In the New Testament, the word “God” most freqently refers to the Father but not exclusively.

First, The conception of Mary that produced Jesus of Nazareth was an event involving all three persons directly. In announcing to Mary the conception and birth of Jesus, the angel, Gabriel, said, Luke 1:35—

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.”

Second, At the baptism of Jesus by John, all three again are mentioned together. Matthew 3:16-17—

“And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Third, The promise of Jesus to His disciples concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit involves all three in the work the Holy Spirit was to do, John 14:26—

“But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.”

Fourth, Baptism was “in the name of” all three persons. Matthew 28:19—

“Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Fifth, Paul mentions all three in his request to the Romans in Romans 15:30—“Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me.”

Sixth, In I Corinthians 12, Paul discusses the reality and use of spiritual gifts, given by the Holy Spirit.  The three are mentioned together in I Corinthians 12:4-6—“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all.”

Seventh, The benediction of Paul in II Corinthians 13:14 included all three as well—“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion (fellowship) of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

Eighth, In the well known section of Scripture that speaks of keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, Paul said in Ephesians 4:4-6—“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.”

In addition to these passages that speak of all three together in specific passages, numerous scriptures show two of the three with equal status. Some show the Father and the Holy Spirit and others Jesus and the Holy Spirit and others the Father and Jesus. Let’s look at some of those here.
In John 14:16, Jesus told His disciples that He would “send another comforter...the spirit of truth.”  he word “another” is from allos in Greek. It means another numerically but can mean another of the same kind. Indeed, I John 2:1 says that Jesus is “an Advocate with the Father” for us. “Advocate” is translated from the same word, parakletos, as is “Comforter.” Jesus is our “Comforter” and He sent another “Comforter,” the Holy Spirit. That is, a Comforter just like Jesus but another person than Jesus. The Greek word, heteros, means another of a different kind and is often translated as “different.” In Galatians 1, Paul writes about “another gospel (heteros), which is not another (allos).” What the Galatians had turned to as another gospel in that it was a different one (heteros) from what Paul preached. It was not another gospel of the same kind (allos) as what Paul preached. Paul told Timothy, in I Timothy 1:3, that he was to remain in Ephesus to instruct certain ones not to teach a different, [hetero]didaskaleo, doctrine. That was a doctrine different from the one Paul had preached to them, just like in Galatia.

All Greek nouns, adjectives and pronouns have gender. Most modern languages do also, except for English. Originally, even English had gender nouns, but that practice was eventually dropped. However, in Greek, even objects or things have gender. For example, a “wall” is masculine and the “door” is feminine while the “floor” is neuter. The Greek view of gender was not the same as we associate it in English.

The original meaning of pneuma was “wind,” which is impersonal. Later, a Greek philosopher assigned gender to words as he considered they should be. Gender in Greek was a human invention, not divine. But time changed the meanings of words, just as has happened in English through the ages. Pneuma came to have many other meanings besides wind and breath. Jason David BeDuhn, in his book, Truth in Translation, page 144, rightly says—“You cannot just choose one definition out of the dictionary and use it every single time to translate a term. Context shifts the possible meaning of a term, and must be carefully considered when making a translation.”

We have already seen the list of meanings attached to pneuma by the time of the first century while at the same time it retained the neuter grammatical form. But, does neuter gender prove an impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit? Hardly! Let’s examine the evidence.

First, as we have previously seen, John 4:24 says that “God is spirit.” Theos, God, is masculine but dentified by the neuter, pneuma. That makes the neuter gender “spirit” here refer to a person who is no less than the person who is God. Is God a neuter “it”? No.

Second, angels are spirits. The word, angelos, is masculine but they are spirits, pneuma, neuter gender, Hebrews 2:15.

Third, demons are called evil spirits. The word demon, daimonion, is neuter gender, yet demons had personality, Luke 8:27-30. The demons were called evil spirits. One mark of their personality is that Jesus had a conversation with them on one occasion. The demons had intelligence, emotions, wishes, names and could make requests. Sounds like intelligent beings does it not?

Fourth, humans have spirits; it is the inner man that lives on after the body decays. Personality is the nature of human spirits. That is what continues to exist after death.

Fifth, other terms that identify the Holy Spirit are masculine gender. For instance, in three passages, John 14:16, 26, 15:26, the Holy Spirit is called “Comforter.” It is a noun, masculine gender.

Sixth, pronouns that identify the Comforter are thus masculine. In John 14:26, Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, “he (ekeinos) shall teach you all things.” In John 15:26, Jesus said that “he (ekeinos) shall bear witness of me.” Ekeinos is a demonstrative pronoun, masculine gender. In John 16:7, Jesus said “I will send him (autos) unto you.” Autos is a masculine gender pronoun referring to the Comforter, the Holy Spirit.

And, we could as well show that there are other neuter nouns that indicate personality and are not just impersonal “things.”

It should be evident from just these points that pneuma may be neuter gender, grammatically, but that does not indicate any lack of personality. The neuter gender of pneuma is just a linguistic form that was decided by humans and not God. The fact that neuter pronouns are used with pneuma reflects only the nature of Greek grammatical form. Greek grammar dictates that pronouns agree with their antecedents in gender and number, and will agree sometimes in case as well.

Thus, because pneuma is neuter gender in the Greek language, the claim of oneness advocates is that the Holy Spirit is just a power, influence or temperament of God. From another source, here is a statement from a Church of God website that insists the Holy Spirit is just a power—“In some cases where the Holy Spirit is described in a personal activity, we should understand this as God using the Holy Spirit as the power or agency through which He acts. Consider, for example, that a man’s hand takes hold of a book and lifts it, this does not make the hand a separate person. The hand is merely the agency through which the man is acting. Even so, the Holy Spirit is the agency through which God—Father or son or both—acts. Of course, the Holy Spirit is far more than a hand. It is the very power, mind and life essence of God—pervading the infinity so that by it God is omnipresent.”

Notice that they start with “in some cases” and end with “it is” as though it refers to all cases. The fact is, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father to carry out plans that had been made. This is true in both Old and New Testaments. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not a person because that would also mean that Jesus was not a person because He was sent to perform certain acts.

Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that pneuma means only “wind” or the “breath” of man, the air that fills the lungs. Let’s see how this translates in some passages—

The particular definition of “person” from Webster that applies to our subject gives us the meaning of, “A being characterized by conscious apprehension, rationality, and moral sense.” The Holy Spirit not only has identifying marks of a personal being, but also those characteristics that identify Him as God. In this regard, we may speak of personhood, those qualities and characteristics that make someone a person.

The Holy Spirit has self-consciousness and self-determination, a will, intelligence, memory, ability to communicate, emotions, aesthetic sense and much more. These are all characteristics applying equally to all persons of the Godhead. Let’s look at the details.

First, The Holy Spirit gives instruction. Jesus said in John 14:26—“But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.”

Second, In guiding and sending men in the first century work of reaching the lost, He spoke to them in a manner they could understand and follow—“And as they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” Acts 13:2.

“So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.” Acts 13:4.

“But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.” I Timothy 4:1.

Third, He was the major revelator in both the Old and New Testaments—...knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” II Peter 1:20-21.

“But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” John 14:26.

“And it had been revealed unto him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.” Luke 2:26.

Fourth, He has emotions, just as the other persons in the Godhead; He can be pleased and can make ecisions and judgments, Acts 15:28—“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.”

Fifth, He also can be grieved and be vexed, but only a person can have those emotions—“And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption.” Ephesians 4:30.

Sixth, He can be resisted and blasphemed just as the Father was in the Old Testament and can be now—“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye.” Acts 7:51.

“Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.” Matthew 12:31-32.

Seventh, He has, as so many passages say about God, the emotion of love, Romans 15:30—“Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me.”

These are but some of the characteristics of the Holy Spirit in the Bible. As we observe the Holy Spirit at work, His personality becomes clearer to us.

The Bible Only Affirms A Literal
Bodily Resurrection Of Christ
In John 2:19 Jesus declared: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. So that everyone would understand what He meant, the Bible then plainly informs us: “But He spake of the temple of His body” (vs. 21).

This is the only resurrection of Christ which the Bible teaches and defends. It would therefore be error for anyone to allege or suggest any resurrection other than that of the body of Jesus:

For example, Jesus did not mean it would be His teachings that would be resurrected after He died, as some want us to believe.

Neither did He mean His religious cause was what would be resurrected. Neither did He mean it would be a resurrection of Christ in our thoughts, which would be only an imaginary resurrection motivated by our fondness for Him. His friends, the wicked mob, the soldiers, and Pilate were not deceived, thinking Christ was dead when He was not; meaning that Christ only fainted and revived in the coolness of the tomb, so that when He came out it only appeared to be a resurrection. His resurrection was not a fabrication, a lie, for the tomb was empty.

What Jesus declared and meant is that He would miraculously resurrect His Own body—on that basis His tomb would be empty! Since His literal bodily resurrection is the only resurrection of Christ taught by the Bible, this means all other resurrection ideas taught or imagined about Christ have therefore come from unbelievers or ignorant people.

The Problem Christ’s Resurrection
Presents For Some

The resurrection of Christ’s body presents a problem for those who deny that the Bible was authored by God. For if they were to accept the facts that His resurrection occurred, to be consistent they must also accept the reality of all the Bible miracles, the Bible’s Divine authority, and also obey It’s teachings (Acts 17:30-31; I Thess. 2:13; John 20:30-31; John 12:48). Instead they make the impossible claim that science can disprove Christ’s resurrection.

The problem for them is the Scientific Method of determination pertains only to matters which can be duplicated as in a laboratory setting. Thus it is impossible for science to prove, or disprove, that any historical event occurred, whether it be the resurrection of Christ or that you were even born. Both can be proven, but not by the Scientific Method of determination.

Only The Historical Method Of Determination
Can Prove Or Disprove Christ’s Resurrection

The resurrection of Christ’s body back to life after being dead for three days is an historical event, thus can only be proved or disproved by the Historical Method of determination. And like all actual historical events, Christ’s resurrection is established to be true by eyewitness testimony.

Depending upon how long in the past since an event occurred, eyewitness testimony is preserved in either oral or written form depending upon whether the eyewitnesses are still living or are dead.

In those cases where the historical event is reported by an abundance and diversity of sources (as from both enemies as well as friends), as well as reported in an abundance and diversity of locations, the evidence is presumed to be true. For the possibility in such cases that something reported never actually happened, or that it happened, but in a manner different than reported, because of fraud or otherwise, is beyond the realm of credibility.

The problem for unbelievers here is that all the miracles of the Bible, including the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead, were both seen and recorded by credible witnesses (Acts 2:32; Acts 10:38-41; Acts 13:29-31; John 20:30-31; I Cor. 15:3-8). They always maintained that their eyewitness accounts of them were true throughout years of personal persecution, torture, and even violent death which was brought upon them because they made such bold claim. Their eyewitness accounts of them are also supported by the unassailable proofs for the Divine origin and authority of the Bible, as well as by secular histories, documents, and quotations from ancient times which affirm the events to be true.

While all of us living today must honestly admit that we have never seen the risen Christ, we also must honestly admit that we have never seen Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar. Yet all of us, except only the most unreasonable among us, believe without the slightest hesitation or doubt that all of them were real, because they have been attested to by credible witnesses, both numerous and diverse as to source and location, so that to disbelieve in them would be the incredible response to the evidence.

Similarly, only the most unreasonable or uncaring among men deny the eyewitness evidence that Christ is risen.

Facts And Examination:
“What Happened To The Body Of Jesus?”

The Bible accounts of the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John record:

1. That His body was placed in a new tomb cut in solid rock (Luke 23:53;
Matt. 27:60).
2. That it was sealed with a great stone (Matt. 27:60); Mark 16:4).
3. It was then guarded against theft by Roman soldiers (Matt. 27:62-66).
4. In addition to the Bible, it is also admitted by leading skeptics of both
that time and today, that Jesus actually died and was buried.
5. It is also admitted that after three Jewish days His body was gone from
the tomb.
6. It is also admitted that His disciples came to believe without doubt that
He arose from the dead.

The exact issue here before all of us has reference to the last two facts, and may be expressed thus: “Did Christ’s body disappear by miraculous resurrection, or in some other way?” And, “Did the belief of the disciples originate from the reality of His resurrection, or from some other cause?” (see J. W. McGarvey,“Evidences Of Christianity”, Part III, pages 117-118)

What the evidence proves

1. The Roman soldiers would not have removed Christ’s body, for it could have cost them their lives. But they did lie to save themselves when the tomb they were guarding was found empty, the Jewish leaders scheming with them and creatingthis fraud in order to blame Christ’s disciples (Matt. 28:4,11-15).

2. But Christ’s disciples could not have removed His body. It would have been a physical, moral, and psychological impossibility.

Physically, the Roman guards had certainly prevented its removal with their presence.

Morally, the morality of Christ required of them would not permit them to remove the body and then invent a lie that it was a miracle instead. Psychologically, it would have been impossible for such people to have removed the body themselves, then invent a lie of it being a miracle instead, and then live out their lives despised and rejected among men as His disciples, many of them receiving a martyr’s death, all for the purpose of their lie. Dishonest men do not lie so they may suffer, they lie that they might find some kind of gain, or to remove themselves from undesirable punishments, circumstances, etc.

3. The Jews would not have stolen Christ’s body. The last thing they wanted was for anything to make it appear that His body had been resurrected (Matthew 27:62-64). Yet certainly if they had stolen His body, they would have produced it at some point in order that they might disprove the claims of His eyewitnesses and thereby destroy the religious order Christ established and which
they hated.

The fact that the Jews, the enemies of Christ, could not deny His empty tomb, but had to bribe the Roman guards to lie about His body, and then use political influence to keep them out of trouble (Matt. 28:4, 11-15), is proof positive that they could not account for His empty tomb by any natural means.

Conclusion

In keeping with the facts admitted by both the Bible and leading skeptics both then and now, concerning the death, the burial, and the empty tomb of Christ after three Jewish days; and also in keeping with the Bible’s affirmations (Matt. 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6; John 20:11-14; Acts 17:30-31; Acts 2:32) and the eyewitness testimony of credible witnesses of Christ’s bodily resurrection (Acts 2:32; Acts 10:38-41; Acts 13:29-31; I Corinthians 15:1-8; John 20:18-20 & 24-28; Luke 24:36-40); the only logical conclusion is that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead (Acts 2:32).

We thereby have conclusive evidence of His claims that He is both “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Christ is therefore worthy of our trust and worship (Revelation 5:12-14). And we must give Him our obedience that we might be saved from our sins (Matthew 16:24; Matthew 7:21; Romans 10:17: Hebrews 11:6; Acts 17:30; Romans 10:9; Acts 2:38; Revelation 2:10; I Corinthians 15:58).

Let us all therefore faithfully acknowledge and obey our holy risen Savior at all times! (Matthew 7:21; John 12:48)

    The person standing before them, Jesus of Nazareth, was not of this world and was about to go away. He follows this a few verses later, speaking of the manner of His death and a continuing relationship with the Father.

“Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he hath not left me alone; for I do always the things that are pleasing to him.” John 8:28-29.

    The Greek verb form of “is with me” is Present, Active, Indicative. The present tense in Greek is the tense of continuing action. The context of verse 29 is what He says in verse 28, the time of His being lifted up, the cross. He follows that with a negative that includes an Aorist tense verb in “hath not left me alone.” The aorist tense in Greek indicates, in some way, an act. It means that not one time has the Father left Him alone. All of the time up to that point, the Father was with Him. This would not change, as indicated by the Present tense. The contrast of the Aorist tense shows that the Present tense verb is to be understood in it usual meaning of action continuing. This is even more clearly seen in the next verse.

“Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.” John 16:32.

    The time He referred to was when they would be scattered and leave Him alone. This was from His capture in the garden through His crucifixion. There is a contrast made here. Both “be scattered” and “leave me alone” are Aorist, Active verbs. Yet, “I am not alone” and the Father “is with” me are both Present, Active, Indicative. There would be a time when the disciples would leave Him alone, but, during the time of their being scattered, the Father would continue to be with Him. The phrase, “I am not alone,” is also found in John 8:16 - “Yea and if I judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.”

    John 8:16 and 16:32 have the same Greek phrase. It is different in John 8:29 only in that “leave” is injected into the sentence so that the word “alone” is accusative instead of nominative. Otherwise, all three verses say exactly the same thing - that there was never a time that the Father left Him alone. That included His time on the cross.

“Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour.” John 12:27.

    How is it that Jesus could make a statement like this and turn around in the garden very shortly afterward and plead for the Father to save Him from this hour? That’s a contradiction and makes Jesus to be a liar and deceiver. Further, note the following passages - “Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and ye took me not. But all this is come to pass, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples left him, and fled.” Matthew 26:52-56.

“For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned with transgressors: for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment.” Luke 22:37.

“And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me.” Luke 24:44.

“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” Matthew 16:21.

“And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.” Matthew 20:17-19.
Jesus knew what the Scriptures said about what He must do and was determined that they be fulfilled. Exactly what the prophets foretold, as well as what Jesus said would happen, came to pass. Jesus knew it, and worked with it. To say that Jesus wanted to change the plan in the garden and begged the Father to drop the whole thing pictures Jesus as being an unstable, vacillating, sniveling, fearful individual, besides being a liar and deceiver because He did what He said He could not do..

     Why would Jesus exclaim on the cross a statement that only proved to the unbelieving Jews what they already thought of Him. And this in view of the fact that He had said that when He was crucified it would prove that He was God??? The rulers thought that God had deserted Jesus. Now, He was proving they were right by crying out “Why hast thou forsaken me??” There had to be another reason for His statement than abandonment by the Father. Let’s compare a couple of passages from Psalm 22.

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?” Psalm 22:1.

“Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel. For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.” Psalm 22:23-24.

Verse 24 says that God does not hide His face from the afflicted. There must be some unique meaning placed either on this passage or verse 1. They are not contradictory.

“I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.” vs. 6.

    Was Jesus a worm? Was He a nothing? Of course not, but that’s what His enemies thought. There follows in verses 7-8 - “All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.”

“And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross. In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him. He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God.” Matthew 27:39-43.

    Jesus drew attention to Psalm 22 by quoting the opening line. Did He do that in order to confirm the erroneous opinion of the Jews that He was NOT God? If God had deserted Him, then the Jews were correct. To the contrary, Jesus quoted the passage to show His fulfillment of prophecy that proved He was God! Note how the crucifixion scene is further described in Psalm 22:12-17 - “Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.”

There was the scene at the crucifixion in stark detail. Psalm 22 mixes what actually was happening at the crucifixion with what others thought was happening, things about which they were wrong. God did not desert Jesus on the cross, or at any time, just as Jesus foretold it would be.

“After this Jesus, knowing that all things are now finished, that the scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst. There was set there a vessel full of vinegar: so they put a sponge full of the vinegar upon hyssop, and brought it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit.” John 19:28-30.

Psalm 69 is the prophecy behind the event of the sponge of vinegar just before Jesus died. Here is what the Bible says about His distress. The text says that His heart, He was full of heaviness. That was extreme distress. It wasn’t distress over abandonment of God, nor concern over the suffering He was to face. Notice that he was talking about those who would be benefited by what He was doing for them. He was not talking about the Father nor His disciples, but those who treated Him so shabbily, tortured and crucified Him.  He had created them in His own image, gone through thousands of years of plans and effort, came in the flesh and was now going to die and they were treating Him in this manner. The willful blindness and sinfulness of the people deeply distressed Him. Each member of the Godhead, as we have seen in other studies, is an emotional God.

“And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Genesis 6:6.

“And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the LORD: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.” Judges 10:16.

“In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.” Isaiah 63:9.
There is no doubt of the emotional makeup of God. Jesus showed that. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus, and bemoaned the fate of Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37. He grieved over the sins of man just as the Father did. God so loved the world, both the Father and Jesus, that the plans were made, carried out, and God the Word came in the flesh in order to become a sacrifice so that sinful man could have a way to eternal life. This is what we see in Jesus in the days leading up to the crucifixion. Take the great emotional character that God has, then fuse Him with a physical body and we can understand the effect His emotions would have on that physical body. Being much more than human, He felt more keenly than mere men the awfulness of sin and the treachery of His trial and crucifixion. Here now is another prophecy of what He would experience that fits exactly Psalm 69 above, reflecting His feelings in the garden and on the cross- “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” Isaiah 53:3.

Why does anyone assume that His distress in the garden was due to fear over what He was to face? After He had expounded on where he came from, what he knew of the after life, his promises of what would be true of life after death, of his promise to go and prepare a place for his followers, then return, after he had made the flat statement, “I am the resurrection and the life..” how, in the name of anything sensible, can one conclude that He was so frightened unto death that He wanted to call all off??!! Here is what the Scriptures say - “...and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that hath endured such gainsaying of sinners against himself, that ye wax not weary, fainting in your souls.” Hebrews 12:1-3.

    Some have Jesus fainting in His soul so severely that He was near death in the garden because He was frightened of what He had to face? Isn’t that a fine example for us?!! Hebrews 12 is a direct contradiction to such a view of Jesus in the garden but in perfect harmony with the prophecies and promises of both the Old Testament and the promises of Jesus, himself.

     The cup that Jesus asked to pass was the effect His distress was having on His body. He was heard and the effect passed. The cause of the distress remained throughout the time from before the cross to His death, but the effect on His body ceased. We will continue with this in the next section.

“Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages...” Isaiah 49:8.

These are prophesies of the Messiah; notice the context of each. The prophesies said that He would be heard, Jesus said that the Father always heard him. Martha said, “And even now I know that, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee,” John 11:22. Jesus said “And I knew that thou hearest me always,” John 11:42. Hebrews 5:7 says that He was heard, and I John 5:15 says that if our prayers are heard then we receive what we ask of Him. The only conclusion we can make from Scripture is that what Jesus asked for, that the cup would pass, was granted.

An angel came to tell Zacharias in response to his prayer, telling him that his prayer was heard, Luke 1:12ff. An Angel came to Cornelius, Acts 10:31, in response to his prayer to tell him that his prayer was heard. An angel came in response to the prayer of Jesus, strengthening Him, Luke 22:43, and Hebrews 5:7 says that His prayer was heard. In each of these instances, an angel appeared in response to prayer that God granted and the verb in each place is a Greek Aorist Passive. We must conclude that “heard” means the same in each instance. What Jesus asked was for the cup to pass. It did.

Some brethren make Jesus to be a simpering, unstable and contradictory liar who was as weak as the weakest human, instead of God in the flesh who was distraught over the weakness and sinfulness of those He came to save.