The Transformation of Jesus to the Christ

In my last post, I wrote about how the disciples and Paul knew Jesus was the Christ, the son of God. Both the disciples and Paul knew Jesus was the Christ, not from knowledge of scripture, but by revelation from the Father who is in heaven. This leads us to another question.

What does it mean that  to know that Jesus is the Christ?

To know Jesus as the Christ means that we know Jesus as he really is. In other words, we know Jesus’ true self. To know Jesus as the Christ means we no longer know him as a poor Jewish man considered to be a rabbi who lived 2,000 years ago in the Roman empire. Instead of seeing Jesus, we see the Christ in whom is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, rich nor poor. Jesus’ true self was none of these things. His true self was the Christ. The Christ is the image of God. The Christ is exact representation of God’s character and nature. The Christ is the son of God.

In 2 Corinthians 5.16, Paul said, “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.” To say that we once knew Christ according to the flesh is to say that we once knew Christ as Jesus. But, we no longer know Christ by the flesh, by Jesus. We now know Christ as the true self hidden behind or under the flesh of Jesus.

What does it mean that the flesh, Jesus, hid the true self, Christ?

We have tended to think of the flesh as the natural, physical body as opposed to the spirit our soul of a person. However, I believe this makes a mess of what Paul meant and what all scripture, all sacred text (Jewish, Christian, or otherwise) actually is trying to say.

The flesh is our personality. It is our view of the world that has been shaped by nature and nurture, genetics and the events that have happened to us. While I don’t have the space of skill to go through it all, in some sense, the flesh is a combination of the defense mechanisms that we have built up to protect ourselves from the world around us.

In Philippians 2, the Christ took the form of a slave and the likeness of a man. That’s not what the Christ truly was. Rather, the Christ took the form of Jesus. Or, as John 1 says, the Word, which is to say the Christ, became flesh, which is to Jesus the person or personality we know as Jesus, and dwelt among us.

Therefore, to know Jesus as the Christ the personality, the flesh, that is Jesus has to be removed. When Jesus is removed, then we know the Christ. When we no longer see a poor, Jewish man, then we see the Christ.

How is that we no longer see Christ after the flesh?

How is it that we see no longer Jesus but the Christ?

Jesus was transformed or transfigured.

The personality, the flesh, of Jesus was transformed into the Christ.

In my last post about the disciples knowing Jesus as the Christ, I focused on Matthew 16..13-20. In this passage, Jesus asked the disciples who he was. Peter answered, “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said Peter was blessed because the Father in heaven, not flesh and blood, had revealed this to him.

But, look at what happens next.

It was from the moment that the disciples declared that Jesus was the Christ that Jesus began to teach them that he had to go to Jerusalem, suffer, be killed, and rise on the third day (Matthew 16.21-23). It’s fascinating that Jesus never taught this to the disciples until they could declare that he was the Christ.

However, Peter refused to accept this. He rebuked Jesus for saying that he had to suffer, be killed, and rise on the third day. Peter thought that this could not be true of the Messiah, the Christ, the son of God. Of course, Jesus corrected Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Immediately after this (Matthew 16.24-28), Jesus told the disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life, will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” In other words, if you wan to follow Jesus, then you are going to have to go through the same thing that Jesus went through.

The very next thing in Matthew is the transformation or transfiguration of Jesus. Matthew 17.2-5 says, “And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. And Peter said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is good that we are here, If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and Elijah.’ He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased, listen to him.'”

Jesus was transfigured or transformed. To be transformed means to change in composition or structure, to change the outward form or appearance of, to change in character or condition. In Matthew 17, Jesus was changed into a face that shone like the sun with clothes that became white as light. Jesus told Peter, James, and John not to speak of this vision until he was raised from the dead. I take this to mean that what is described is not literal but metaphorical, symbolic.

What does it mean that Jesus was transformed into a face shining like the sun with clothes as white as light?

I believe it means that the disciples got a vision, a foretaste of Jesus as his true self, the Christ, before he actually went through his transformation. The personality of Jesus was removed and they saw the Christ, the amazingly bright, pure light of God that had been hidden underneath the personality of Jesus. The poor, Jewish man had been removed and the Christ shined forth.

Peter, James, and John had conceived of Jesus as a rabbi, a teacher, of the law and prophets. Hence, in the vision of transformation Moses and Elijah appear. But, Jesus was not this personality. So, when the three disciples try to fix Jesus as a rabbi and teacher of Jewish law, Moses and Elijah disappear. The personality of Jesus was removed so that the disciples could see the true self, the Christ, hidden behind Jesus. Therefore, the voice from the cloud tells the three disciples to listen not to the Jewish rabbi that they knew but his son with whom he was well pleased.

The transformation of Jesus to the Christ came about through his suffering, death, and resurrection. This had to happen so that everyone could know Jesus the poor, Jewish man as the Christ, the son of God. This is what Jesus was trying to tell the disciples once they had identified him as the Christ. But, even though the disciples had identified Jesus as the Christ, they rebuked Jesus for it. They didn’t want Jesus to be transformed. This is why Jesus said, “Get behind me, Satan.” It is the accuser (Think our ego) that doesn’t want our personality, our defense mechanisms, to be killed so that our true self can come through. Again, this is why Jesus said the disciples were not about the things of God but the things of man.

Jesus also told the disciples that just as he had to suffer, die, and rise from the dead, which is to say be transformed, that they would to if they wanted to follow him. To be transformed like Jesus to the Christ was the only way to truly follow Jesus.

We once knew Jesus after the flesh, the personality, as poor, Jewish man that was a rabbi. But, now we know him that way no longer. Instead, we know him as the Christ, the son of God.

Jesus was transformed into the Christ through his suffering, death, and resurrection.

How Did the Disciples and Paul Know that Jesus Was the Christ?

In my last few posts, I have written about the distinction between Jesus and Christ in the gospels. While the gospels seem to be about Jesus, they are ultimately accounts about Jesus as the Christ.

How did the disciples come to know that Jesus was the Christ?

The letters of the New Testament focus almost exclusively on the Christ. Even when the name Jesus is used it is tied to the Christ. Most of these letters were written by Paul, who was thoroughly trained in the scriptures.

How did Paul come to know that Jesus was the Christ?

Let’s start with the disciples.

As is commonly known, the disciples were not men studying to become rabbis. In other words, they were not students of the law and the prophets, which is to say the scriptures. Instead, the disciples were uneducated men. Acts 4.13 says that the rulers, scribes, and elders “perceived that they [specifically Peter and John in this case] were uneducated, common men.” While we don’t know what each disciple did, some were fishermen, another was a tax collector, and another was a zealot, which was not a profession per se but did describe what Simon was about perhaps is closest to some political activists today.

So, if Jesus’ disciples were not students of the scriptures, then how did they come to know Jesus as the Christ?

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus asks the disciples, “But, who do you say that I am?” But, I want to focus on the account in Matthew 16. Peter answers, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Was Peter able to name Jesus as the Christ because he had read the scriptures and logically reasoned out that Jesus was the Christ that the law and the prophets had foretold would rescue Israel from its exile?

Was Peter able to name Jesus as the Christ because he had a teacher who instructed him in the idea and belief that Jesus was the Christ?

The answer to both questions is no.

Jesus said, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Flesh and blood means that no person revealed to Peter and the other disciples that Jesus was the Christ. Further, I think we can understand Jesus as saying that nothing that flesh and blood has done, including writing the scriptures, revealed to the disciples that Jesus was the Christ.

I believe we are safe in taking Jesus’ statement this far because in John 5.39-40 Jesus said to students of scripture, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” The scriptures indeed bear witness about Jesus as the Christ, but the scriptures do not reveal Jesus as the Christ to you. For the only way to see Jesus as the Christ in the scriptures, which in the Bible means the Old Testament, is to have already had Jesus revealed to you as the Christ.

Matthew specifically records Jesus saying that it was not flesh and blood that revealed Jesus as the Christ, but it was the Father who is in heaven revealed this to the disciples. Jesus elsewhere says that the kingdom of heaven is within you. So, the Father that reveals Jesus as the Christ was in the disciples. And, if it wasn’t flesh and blood that brought about this revelation then it must have been spirit, or the Spirit. That the Spirit is the one who reveals Jesus as the Christ to the disciples fits with many other scriptures where Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will be our teacher who will bring to our remembrance everything Jesus said and no one is need of a teacher because they have the Holy Spirit. And, the Holy Spirit speaks of Christ only.

So, the disciples had Jesus revealed to them as the Christ by the Holy Spirit not the scriptures or the Bible.

It was only after this revelation that they were able to go back to the scriptures and see where they prophesied about the Christ (see Luke 24).

Interestingly, the disciples’ revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the son of God, occurred in Caesarea Philippi. Notice the word caesar there? That’s because the city received this name in AD 14 in honor of August Caesar. It was at this time that Caesar Augustus’ image was put on coin with the title “Son of God” on it. So, do you think that the revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the son of God, taking place in Caesarea Philippi has special significance? I sure do.

Surely, it must have been different for Paul who was a great student of the scriptures. If anyone could have reasoned Christ from the scriptures it would have been Paul. In Philippians 3.4-6, Paul said, “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law blameless.” Surely, if anyone could have known the Christ through flesh and blood and the scriptures then it would have been Paul.

Yet, Paul was admits that flesh and blood caused him to be nothing but a persecutor of the church, which Paul understood to mean that he was a persecutor of Jesus Christ himself.

So, if all of Paul’s scripture knowledge did not reveal Jesus as the Christ, then how did Paul know that Jesus was the Christ?

“For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” (Galatians 1.11-17)

How was Jesus revealed as the Christ, the son of God, to Paul?

It pleased the Father to reveal the Christ, his Son, to Paul. Once again, the Father revealed Jesus as the Christ.

Further, Paul says that what he preached, Jesus as the Christ, was not man’s gospel. Paul did not receive this revelation from any man.

Nor was Paul taught this revelation of Jesus as the Christ. Paul studied in Gamaliel, one of the most famous rabbis in Israel. Yet, despite all of Gamaliel’s scripture knowledge, he did not teach Paul that Jesus was the Christ. Paul did not learn that Jesus was the Christ from scripture. In fact, because of his scripture knowledge, which only puffed Paul up with pride, Paul became a persecutor of the church and the Christ. Despite what many Christians believe, scripture knowledge without a prior revelation of the Christ by the Holy Spirit leaves us proud and zealous, persecutors of those who truly know the Christ.

To receive revelation of Jesus as the Christ, Paul did not consult with anyone. Again, no man, no flesh and blood can cause you to know Jesus as the Christ. Nor did Paul go to Jerusalem to see the apostles. Going to the religious center of the world to learn from who already knew Jesus as the Christ was not have Jesus was revealed to Paul as the Christ.

What did Paul do instead?

He went away to Arabia. Paul went into the desert. He went into what is a dry and lonely place. It was in this dry, lonely place that Paul could clearly hear from God that Jesus was the Christ. Interestingly, Paul went to Arabia. There are some that believe this means that Paul went to Mt Sinai where the law was given. Why would Paul go there? He went deep into the place that his whole life was based upon and he allowed God to turn it upside down.

So, Jesus is revealed as the Christ by the Father in heaven through the Holy Spirit who dwells in our hearts.

This revelation does not come through scripture. In fact, it is only after this revelation has occurred within us that we are able to see Jesus as the Christ in scripture. The New Testament, which we call scripture, reveals that those who rely on scripture without this prior Holy Spirit revelation of Jesus as the Christ become persecutors of the church, who are those to whom the Holy Spirit has revealed Jesus as the Christ.

What Is Significant about the Proclamation that Christ Is the Son of God?

In my last post, we saw that the Christ is not simply Jesus. Nor is the Christ the son of David. Rather, the Christ is the son of God.

What is significant about the early church’s proclamation that Christ is the son of God?

  1. Jesus Christ is the son of God, not Caesar or any other king, politician, or military ruler.
  2. Jesus is the image of God.

Early Christians were making a politically charged and radically revolutionary statement when they declared Jesus Christ the son of God. Why? Because they were living in the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar, the first emperor of Rome, was declared to be a god, which was why statues and temples were to be built in his honor. When Julius Caesar died, his adopted (interesting) son, Octavian, better known as Augustus, became Caesar and known as the son of God. So, to declare that Jesus Christ was the Son of God was to declare that Caesar Augustus, and every Caesar after him, was not the son of God. Instead of pledging allegiance to Caesar, early Christians were pledging allegiance to Christ and the Father.

But, it wasn’t just the Caesars who were declared the son of God. In almost every culture, kings and rulers were thought to be divine and, in some form or fashion, declared to be the son of God. So, the declaration that Christ is the son of God is a statement of allegiance in every culture and every nation at any time because all rulers – kings, presidents, prime ministers, etc. –  believe themselves to be closer to the divine, if not divinity itself, than the people they rule. This is why Jesus Christ said in Matthew 20.25 (and Mark 10.42), “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles, lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.”

As the son of God, a king or military ruler had all power. He needed to be militarily victorious and conquer his enemies with strength and power. These kings did not yield, submit, or surrender. Often, when they died, it was assumed they ascended to heaven and lived forever. And, it wasn’t just the Gentiles that had this kind of king. According to 1 Samuel 8.4-5, “Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, ‘Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.'” Israel wanted a militarily powerful king that would defeat their enemies with strength and power too.

God’s response to Israel’s desire for a king, a son of God, like every other nation was, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.” (1 Samuel 8.7) So, Israel got Saul, David, Solomon, and all of their other kings to lord it over them as sons of God like every other nation. Eventually, the Messiah, Israel’s true king, was to come as the son of David. But, remember from my last post that Jesus never affirmed he was the son of David while he did affirm that he was the son of God.

Why is this important?

Jesus Christ did not use power and military force to conquer his enemies. Instead the greatest military force the world had known at that time was used against him to crucify him. Crucifixion was the most shameful death possible and meant to be a political deterrent to those who even had a mere thought of not giving their full allegiance to Caesar, the son of God. Instead of using power and military force to conquer his enemies, Jesus Christ died. Therefore, Paul wrote in Colossians 2.14-15, “…the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”

Not only did Jesus Christ, the son of God, not use power and military force to conquer his enemies, he suffered, which is to say he yielded, submitted, and surrendered to others. This was how Jesus Christ was delivered over to the authorities of the Jews and Gentiles. in Matthew 20.26-28, Jesus Christ also came to serve, saying, “But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Caesar, the son of God, or any other king, president, or ruler would never say this. They would never make themselves a slave or servant. Instead, they made other people slaves and servants to them.

All of this feeds into understanding Paul’s opening to his letter to the church in Rome. Paul writing to Christians at the heart of Caesar worship says that Christ, who was crucified is the true son of God, not Caesar. And, even though the one Paul worships and serves Jesus Christ as the true son of God died, Paul is not ashamed of this gospel, this good news.

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ…For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” (Romans 1.1-6, 16)

Everything that Paul writes here subverts the allegiance and worship due to Caesar as the son of God and transfers it to Christ, the true son of God. Imagine writing this to people in Washington D.C., Moscow, Beijing, Riyadh or the capital city of any other kingdom and then declaring your desire to come to that city to preach the message that the ruler of that nation is really not the one in power, but Jesus Christ is the true president, king, emperor, premier, or prime minister.

Stating that Jesus Christ is the son of God is also significant because as the son of God Jesus Christ is the image of God.

I work in a family business. So, I worked in the office with my dad for a quite a long time. We were in lots of meetings together. During one meeting, I noticed that my dad and I were sitting in the same position in our chairs. Then, at the exact same time, we shifted to the exact same position. This happened several times without either one of us consciously deciding to do it. My dad didn’t tell me to do this. I just did it. We were in sync with another because I was his son. I was the image of my dad.

Jesus Christ is the image of God because he does everything exactly as he has observed his Father doing it. He doesn’t consciously try to do it. But, he has been in his Father’s presence so much and watched him for so long that he can’t help but do exactly what his Father is doing exactly when his Father is doing it.

Colossians 1.15, 19 says, “He is the image of the invisible God…For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.”

Hebrews 1.3 says, “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.”

To declare that Jesus Christ is the son of God is to say that God is exactly like Jesus Christ. We can’t see God, but we can see Jesus Christ. The disciples saw and lived with him for three years in the flesh. Today, we see Jesus Christ in the spirit when we see love in action – feeding the poor, clothing the naked, healing the sick, visiting those in prison, causing the blind to see, and making the lame walk.

But, there’s another aspect to Jesus Christ as the image of God that ties back my first point. In ancient cultures, kings routinely set up images of themselves in far away and foreign lands. While the king could not be physically present everywhere, he could put up an image to represent his authority and rule in that place.

God is invisible. But, Jesus Christ was the physical image of this invisible God. Jesus Christ was what could be looked to to see the authority of God in the earth. And, as we will see in a future post, we are to be images of God to so that his authority is established in us as well as expanded to every place as more men and women become images of God, sons and daughters of God, by pledging their allegiance to Christ and the Father and not the kings and rulers of the world.

When Was the Son of God Begotten?

In my previous post, I asked the question “Who is the Christ?” Of course, Jesus is the Christ, but there is far more to the answer to this question than Jesus. Repeatedly, the New Testament declares the Christ to be a mystery. And, the gospels proclaim the Christ to be the son of God.

Sons (and daughters) are born. So, a natural question would be, “If Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, when was he born?” Or, in more biblical terms, “When was Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten?” Was Jesus the begotten son of God at his physical birth when he was conceived by the Spirit in Mary’s womb? Was Jesus the begotten son of God at his baptism when the Spirit came down from heaven and rested on him like a dove? Some even argue if Jesus begotten or was he created.

To begin to answer these questions, we need to understand the word begotten. For most of us, I think the word begotten immediately brings to mind someone being born. So, we read John 3.16 in the King James Version, which says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son…”, and assume that it means Jesus was born of God as we were born of our parents. I don’t care to debate whether or not that is true on some level, because I don’t think that strikes at the heart of the idea being expressed about the son of God.

In the Greek, the phrase “only begotten” is the word monogenes. Depending on your Greek dictionary, monogenes can mean only, one and only, unique, only begotten, alone, kind, or the only member of a kin. Many of these definitions move us away from the idea of Jesus being born, or begotten, the son of God toward the idea of Jesus being the one, the unique, the only son of God.

How was Jesus the one, unique, only son of God, the Christ?

A look at the uses of monogenes in the New Testament will help us answer this question.

Monogenes is used just nine times in the New Testament – three times in Luke, four times in John, one time in Hebrews, and one time in 1 John. But, not all of these are in reference to Jesus.

Luke’s three uses of monogenes are not about Jesus, but they each share a similar context that does relate to Jesus. Luke 7.12, 8.42, and 9.38 all mention a son or daughter as the only child of their father or mother. The common thread of these stories about the only child is that the first two were raised from the dead and the third was delivered from an unclean spirit.

What does Luke’s use of monogenes teach us about when Jesus Christ, the son of God, was begotten?

In a sense, all three stories are about resurrection. Therefore, we can understand that Jesus was the son of God when he was begotten at his resurrection. The resurrection was a process of going from suffering to death to life. In other words, the resurrection was a transformation. Jesus was transformed into the Christ, at least from our perspective. Transformation is a key concept about the Christ, the son of God, that I will address in a future post.

Just like Luke’s three uses of monogenes, the one time the word is found in Hebrews does not refer to Jesus. Hebrews 11.17 says that when Abraham was tested he was in the process of offering up his “only” son. Of course, Isaac was not Abraham’s only son as Abraham had an older son, Ishmael.

What does this teach us about Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God?

That Jesus was the only begotten son of God doesn’t mean that God does not have other sons and daughters, for example you and me. In Acts 17.25-28, when Paul was witnessing to the Greeks at the Areopagus, Paul quotes Greek poets to declare that all people are children, sons and daughters, of God. However, it does mean that there is a special sense in which Jesus Christ is the son of God and we are not.

(Yet.)

It is this special sense of Jesus Christ being the son of God that comes through in the gospel of John and 1 John. We need to remember why John wrote. John 20.31 says, “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you may have life in his name.” While we all may be children of God, Jesus is the Christ. In this sense, he is unique. Even in John’s statement for his purpose in writing the gospel we can understand what made Jesus Christ unique – life.

John 1.14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only [monogenes] Son from the Fahter, full of grace and truth.”

And, John 1.18 says, “No one has ever seen God; the only [monogenes] God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

Jesus Christ, and perhaps more accurately just the Christ, was unique because he had the glory of the Father and has always been at the Father’s side throughout eternity. This means that Christ shared the Father’s life. As John 1.4 says, “In him was life.” This life, this Word, became flesh and dwelt among us.

Another way of thinking of this is that the Christ became Jesus. Of course, this is from God’s perspective. From our perspective, Jesus became the Christ. Again, we have the idea of transformation. This idea comes through in the very word monogenes. Genes is from the Greek word ginomai, which means to be, to become, to come into being. Jesus is the Christ in the sense that he is the only (mono) one who has come into being, or into the life of God, who is being and life itself.

John 3.16, 18 and 1 John 4.9 all speak of the “only” (monogenes) son of God as being given or sent. Jesus, the man, was born in a particular time and place. He was not sent or given by the Father. But, the Christ, the son of God,, was given or sent by the Father. And, the Christ, the son of God, dwelt among us in the person of Jesus.

While I believe the Christ was always in Jesus, we did not recognize this until the Christ had suffered, died, and was resurrected. In other words, we do not recognize the Christ as begotten in Jesus until his process of transformation is revealed in us by the Father.

So, when was the son of God begotten?

At the resurrection when we understood Jesus to have become the Christ, the son of God, which is why we see such a distinction in the use of “Jesus” and “Christ” in the New Testament in the gospels (pre-resurrection and focused on Jesus) and the letters (post-resurrection and focused on Christ) that I wrote about in a previous post. Again, this stresses the idea of transformation through resurrection, which is an idea that, for the most part, seems to have been lost to Christianity.

Next, we will look at what it means that the Christ is the son of God or what it means that Jesus became the Christ, the son of God.

Who Is the Christ?

Who is the Christ?

The obvious answer is Jesus.

But, as I wrote in my two previous posts, the New Testament seems to clearly provide a distinction between Jesus and the Christ based on its language. Further, while the gospels seem to be about Jesus because “Jesus” is the overwhelming focus of the stories, their structure actually reveals the writers were really focusing on “Christ.”

So, is the obvious answer that the Christ is Jesus the best and  most complete answer to the question “Who is the Christ?”

Galatians 3.28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Jesus was a Jew and not a Greek. But, in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

Jesus was a slave and not free. But, in Christ, there is neither slave nor free.

Jesus was male and female. But, in Christ, there is neither male or female.

So, when we answer the question “Who is the Christ?” with Jesus, we have unnecessarily and artificially limited the Christ to a Jewish male slave. But, the Christ is not just a Jewish male slave. The Christ includes all people. So, our vision of the Christ tends to be too small.

So, who is the Christ?

Romans 16.25 says, “Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages.”

According to Ephesians 1.9, God is “making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ.”

Ephesians 3.4 says, “When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ.”

In Ephesians 5.32, Paul says “this mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

Colossians 2.1-2 tells us that Paul struggled for his newly created communities so “that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ.”

In Colossians 4.3, Paul asks the churches he planted to pray for him and his co-workers “that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ.”

Jesus was a Jewish man that lived like a slave under King Herod and the Roman Empire. Jesus’ life is attested to by many ancient writers. It’s actually quite shocking how much is written about Jesus outside of the New Testament given who Jesus was. Therefore, Jesus is fairly well known.

But, the Christ?

As the scriptures above declared, the Christ is a mystery. But, there is something we can definitively say about who the Christ is.

So, who is the Christ?

In Matthew 22.34-46 (Mark records a similar account in Mark 12.28-37), Jesus is engaged in discussion with the Pharisees. Jesus had just silenced the Sadducees, but one of the Pharisees, a lawyer, asks Jesus which is the greatest commandment. Jesus responds that the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. And, he says there is a second commandment – to love your neighbor as yourself – that is like the first. All of the law and prophets depend on these two commandments.

Having given this answer, Jesus asks the Pharisees a question. “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” Jesus didn’t ask them “Who am I?” or “Who do people say that I am?” His question has clued them the Pharisees in to the fact that he is the Christ. And, Jesus has clued the Pharisees in to the fact that he is a son. The question is whose son?

The Pharisees respond that Jesus is “the son of David.” There are several instances in Matthew, the gospel of Jesus as king, where Jesus is referred to as the son of David. But, take note of Jesus’ response to the Pharisees answer that he is the son of David. “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet?”‘ If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”

Jesus did not affirm the Pharisees’ answer that he was the son of David. Rather, Jesus calls that answer in to question. For, if Jesus was the son of David, why would David call Jesus Lord? Since David called Jesus Lord, Jesus indicated he must be someone else’s son. So, he asked the Pharisees how he was David’s son. And, the Pharisees had no answer.

Why did Jesus not affirm that he was the son of David even though the Jews called him that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

I believe because David was a man of war. Speaking of David, 1 Samuel 16.18 says, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the Lord is with him.” As a man of war, David was deemed to be like the Lord because Exodus 15.3 says, “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name.”

However, because David was a man of war, David was not allowed to build a temple for God. In 1 Chronicles 22.8, David says to Solomon, “But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth.”

We should pay careful attention to the fact that Matthew records the Pharisees’ declaration that Jesus is the son of David, and therefore a man of war, immediately after Jesus says the two greatest commandments are love for God and neighbor and that indeed all the law and prophets depend upon love. Therefore, by not affirming the Pharisees’ answer that he is the son of David, Jesus is rejecting the notion that he is a man of war because he is rejecting that he is the son of David, meaning that he is like David and will act like David. The Jews expected the Christ to be a king like David. But, Jesus is telling the Pharisees that the Christ does not wage war and does not shed blood. For, if the Christ did those things, then he would not be able to build a house for God.

Interestingly, Jesus is not called the son of David in the gospel of John, and it will become clear why in a moment and in future posts. Further, the phrase “son of David” is never used in the New Testament outside of the first three gospels. Jesus, in physical lineage, may have been the son of David, but in reality, in truth, as the Christ he was not David’s son.

If Jesus is not the son of David, then whose son is the mysterious Christ?

In Matthew 16.16 , Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Mark 1.1 says, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

When Jesus laid his hands on people and healed them, Luke 4.41 says the “demons also came out of many, crying, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.”

In John 11.27, Martha said, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”

John tells in John 20.31 that he wrote his book “so that you may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” John’s entire gospel was written to reveal that Jesus was the son of God, which is why the phrase “son of David” is never used by John.

Jesus is the mysterious Christ, the son of God. The Christ, the son of God, is far bigger, far grander, far more marvelous than a Jewish male slave.

When was the son of God begotten?

What does it mean that the Christ is the son of God?

What was the significance of the early Christian proclamation that Christ was the son of God?

These questions will be explored in upcoming posts.

The Gospels Are About Christ not Jesus

In my previous post, Is There a Distinction between Jesus and the Christ?, I showed how “Jesus” is found far more often in the gospels than “Christ.” Further, when “Jesus” is used alone without “Christ” in the New Testament, the vast majority of the time this occurs in the gospels.

Yet, the gospels are about Christ, not Jesus.

Wait a minute. The gospels are not about Jesus?

Admittedly, perhaps I am overstating the case, but, yes, the gospels are not about Jesus. They are about Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ, or Jesus who became Christ.

How so?

Well, let’s look at the introduction to each of the gospels.

Matthew 1.1 says, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

Oops…that’s not right.

It really says, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

As Matthew works through the genealogy of Jesus Christ, he concludes it in Matthew 1.16 by saying, “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.”

Then in verse 17, Matthew summarizes the genealogy, saying, “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.” Not the deportation to Babylon to Jesus, but the deportation to Babylon to the Christ.

Finally, in verse 18, Matthew writes, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place this way.”

Throughout the introduction to the gospel of Matthew the emphasis is on the Christ, or Jesus Christ, not Jesus. Although Herod inquires where the Christ was to be born in Matthew 2.4, the early emphasis on Christ in Matthew is all the more striking when we recognize that the word “Christ” does not appear again in Matthew’s gospel until 11.2. There are two more uses of Christ in chapter 16. Then, the gospel closes with a flurry of uses of Christ in chapters 22 through 26.

By emphasizing Christ at the beginning and end of his gospel, Matthew is signaling that he is not writing about Jesus, the son of Mary, or Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus, a carpenter’s son, or Jesus, a great teacher, or Jesus, a prophet, or Jesus, a king, or Jesus, a healer, or any other way we want to describe Jesus. Yes, Jesus was all of those things, and Matthew wrote about many of them. However, Matthew’s gospel is about Jesus the Christ.

The gospel of Mark primarily presents Jesus as a servant. Yet, the very first words of the gospel in Mark 1.1 state, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Like Matthew, Mark’s gospel uses “Christ” in its introduction but doesn’t use the term again until two isolated uses in chapters eight and nine. However, like Matthew, the gospel of Mark closes with a flurry of uses of Christ in chapters 12 through 15. Again, in ancient writings, this sort of bracketing in a story provides important insight into the true subject matter of what is written. This bracketing reveals what is really important, what is being stressed In the case of Mark, the true subject matter of the entire gospel is Christ.

Unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke does not use the term “Christ” in the opening sentence of his gospel. Instead, Luke gives a lengthy sort of preamble to the birth of Christ. So, in Luke 2.10-11, when the angel of the Lord announces the Christ’s birth to the shepherds, he says, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

Who did Luke say was born?

Not Jesus.

But, the “Savior, who is Christ the Lord.”

Just before the child Jesus was brought into the temple for purification, “it had been revealed to [Simeon] by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had the Lord’s Christ.” Luke emphasizes that Simeon was not going to see Jesus, a mere child like any other, but the Christ.

Just like Matthew and Mark, after the introduction and birth of Jesus Christ, Luke uses the term “Christ” quite sparingly with just three mentions in chapters three, four, and nine. However, Luke closes his gospel with seven uses  of “Christ” in chapters 20 through 24. Once again we see the bracketing of the entire story of Jesus with the term “Christ” to emphasize exactly who Luke is writing about – the Christ, or Jesus Christ, and not Jesus.

The beginning of John’s gospel, the famous prologue, is one of my favorite portions of the Bible. John begins by telling us about the Word. Everything was made by the Word. In the Word was life. The Word was the true light of all men. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word was the son of God, full of grace and truth.

Who was this Word?

Not Jesus.

Rather, the Word is Jesus Christ.

The conclusion of the prologue, John 1.17, says, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

We received grace and truth through Jesus Christ, and it was the Word that became flesh that was full of grace and truth. Therefore, Jesus Christ and the Word are one and the same.

Unlike the first three gospels, the gospel of John uses the term “Christ” throughout. Instead of introducing the gospel of the Christ, telling the story of Jesus, and closing with the recognition of the Christ, John’s gospel is about the Christ all the way through. I plan to cover why John’s gospel is unlike the others in this respect in a future post.

So, even though “Jesus” is far more prevalent in the gospels than “Christ,” even “Jesus” takes up the bulk of the story of the gospels, the construction of the gospels tells us they are not simply about Jesus. Instead, God’s good news, God’s gospel, is the Christ.

The gospels are about the Christ not Jesus.

Is There a Distinction between Jesus and the Christ?

Jesus Christ has been on my heart and in my mind a lot lately.

You might be saying to yourself, “Of course he is. You are a Christian. And, you write a blog about seeing Jesus Christ in the Bible.”

But, that is not what I mean.

Christians are very accustomed to saying “Jesus Christ” without truly thinking about what they are saying. As the cliche goes, Christ is not the last name of Jesus. At the very least, Christ is the title, the office, of Jesus. In reality, Christ is something much more than that.

Therefore, when I say that Jesus Christ, or, more clearly, Jesus the Christ, has been on my heart and mind a lot lately, I mean to say I have been meditating quite a bit on the difference Jesus and the Christ. In meditating on the distinction between Jesus and the Christ, I have come to understand that this distinction is important and significantly affects how we worship and trust God in our daily lives.

So, in this post and the ones following (I don’t know how many), I’m going to write about my meditations on the distinction between Jesus and the Christ.

I take lots of long walks, and these meditations started on those long walks with the simple question “Do the New Testament writers use the words ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ with different frequencies?” Based on the many times I have read through the Bible the last 10 years, I suspected the answer was yes, but I did not know for sure. And, if the answer was yes, then what does the different usage of “Jesus” and “Christ” by the New Testament writers mean for me and you?

Not only was my suspicion correct that the New Testament writers use “Jesus” and “Christ” in different frequencies, there is a staggering difference in the usage of the two words between the four gospels and Acts (hereafter “gospels”) and the rest of the New Testament (hereafter “the letters”).

Based on my best effort to count the uses in Greek, the word “Jesus” appears 909 times in the New Testament. Of these, “Jesus” is used 632 times in the gospels and 277 times in the letters. Therefore, 70% of the uses of “Jesus” are in the gospels while just 30% of the uses of “Jesus” are in the letters.

The word “Christ” appears 529 times in the New Testament. Of these, “Christ” is used just 79 times in the gospels. But, in the letters, “Christ” is used a whopping 450 times. Therefore, only 15% of the uses of “Christ” are in the gospels while an overwhelming 85% of the uses of “Christ” are in the letters.

Notice how the gospels and the letters make use of “Jesus” and “Christ” in almost exactly the opposite proportions. The gospels are very much focused on Jesus while the letters are very much focused on Christ.

Of course, the words “Jesus” and “Christ” often appear together in the New Testament as either Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus. So, the above analysis becomes more interesting when we consider how often “Jesus” appears on its own in the gospels and the letters.

OF the 909 times, “Jesus” is used in the New Testament it is used alone, that is, without Christ, 693 times. “Jesus” alone is primarily found in the gospels. In fact, 88% of the uses of “Jesus” without Christ occur in the gospels. So, in the letters we find “Jesus” alone just 12% of the time.

These numbers are virtually flipped if we consider the use of “Christ” alone. Of the 529 times “Christ” is used, it is used on its own 313 times. Just 19% of the uses of “Christ” without “Jesus” are found in the gospels while the other 81% are found in the letters.

Instead of looking at the use of “Jesus” and “Christ” across the New Testament, we could look at the use of the two words within the gospels and within the letters.

In the gospels, “Jesus” is used 632 times. Of these 632 uses, “Jesus” is used without “Christ” 612 times, which means that 97% of the time in the gospels the “Jesus” is used without the “Christ.” That means the phrase “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” makes up just 3% of the uses of the word “Jesus” in the gospels. However, in the letters, “Jesus” is used 277 times. But, “Jesus” is found alone just 81 times, or a mere 29%. In the letters, if we find “Jesus” we are far more likely to find “Christ” attached.

While the gospels are dominated by “Jesus,” eight out of the 22 books of the letters never use the word “Jesus.” A number of those do mention “Christ” either, but it is noticeable that “Jesus” disappears from many writings outside the gospels.

It’s not the case that the gospels were written first therefore they focus more on Jesus while the understanding of Christ developed later and therefore the letters contain more of Christ and less of Jesus. In fact, most of the letters were written before the gospels.

So, the gospels are about a particular man, Jesus, that the disciples lived three years with. But, the gospels rarely mention Christ even though by the time they were written the gospel writers would have had plenty of time to reflect on “Christ.” It would have been possible for them to mention Jesus as the Christ, or Jesus Christ, for more frequently like the letters.

The letters, even though they were written before the gospels, make far more mention of Christ of Jesus Christ than the gospels. Seemingly, the gospels are no longer about this particular man, Jesus, that the disciples lived with for three years. Rather, the letters are about someone the same as Jesus but distinct from Jesus.

What happened to cause such distinction in the use of “Jesus” and “Christ” within the books of the New Testament?

The simple answer is the eventual identification of Jesus as the Christ, which Peter makes before the crucifixion. In Luke 24, Jesus specifically says that it was necessary for the Christ, not Jesus, to suffer and rise from the dead to enter his glory.

And, the distinction in use between “Jesus” and “Christ” begs the question “Why?”

What happened to Jesus for him to be known as the Christ and why it matters to us will be the subjects of future posts.

The Scriptures Are a Shut and Open Case

An open and shut case is a court case, legal matter, or problem that is easy to decide or solve because the facts are clearly known or plainly obvious to all.

But, the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, are not an open and shut case. The truth within them is not clearly known and plainly obvious to all. There are problems and questions in the Old Testament that are not easy to solve or answer.

So, instead of being an open and shut case, the scriptures are a shut and open case. In a fascinating way, the gospel of Luke reveals just this to us. But, Luke’s gospel also reveals the one who can solve and answer the difficult problems and questions of the Bible for us – Jesus.

Take Zechariah.

An angel of the Lord came to Zechariah and told him that he would have a son that would be great before the Lord and turn the hearts of the children of Israel to God. But, Zechariah doubted the word of the angel. So, the angel told Zechariah, “And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place.” (Luke 1.20) In other words, Zechariah’s mouth was shut. But, when everything that the angel told Zechariah would happen happened, “immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed.” (Luke 1.64)

What had been shut was now open.

Take Mary.

She was a virgin. Her womb was shut. But, after Mary gave birth to Jesus, their time for purification came. So, Mary and Joseph took Jesus to the temple to present him to the Lord. Luke 2.23 says they did this because “as it is written in the Law of the Lord, ‘Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.'”

Take the heavens.

They were closed. But, “Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened.” (Luke 3.21) The heavens could not have been opened at Jesus’ baptism if they were not closed before it.

Take the door.

Jesus tells a parable about a man who goes to a friend at midnight asking for three loaves. The friend tells the man not to bother him because the door is shut. But, Jesus is that door. “And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.” (Luke 11.9-10)

Luke repeatedly tells us of things that were previously shut that have now been opened. This is an important theme throughout Luke’s gospel as each shutting and opening foreshadows the final opening of what was shut in Luke’s gospel.

So, take the scriptures.

They were shut to everyone. No one understood their true meaning.

Even the disciples did not understand the scriptures. Because of this, Jesus said the two disciples on the road to Emmaus were slow of heart to believe all the prophets, meaning the scriptures, had spoke. So, Jesus taught them from Moses and all the prophets about himself, how it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and enter into his glory.

Jesus simply teaching these two disciples where he was in all the scriptures did not reveal the true meaning of the scriptures to these two. The answers to they had were still hard to come by. The case was still shut and not open.

But, Jesus broke bread and gave it to them.

In other words, these two disciples experientially shared in the suffering of Jesus. They symbolically received the broken body of Jesus and ate it.

“And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?'” (Luke 24.31-32)

After doing this for the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus did it for the other disciples as well.

“Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.'” (Luke 24.44-47)

Over and over, Luke shows what was shut is now open.

By the end of Luke’s gospel, the shut and open case of the scriptures has been solved.

The difficult problem of understanding the truth of scripture was solved as the disciples shared in the suffering of the Christ.

Jesus solved the shut and open case of the scriptures for us.

Jesus opens that which has been shut.

Jesus, and only the suffering of Jesus, can open our minds to understand the truth of scripture.

How Did Paul Speak God’s Word Sincerely and Not as a Peddler?

TODAY’S READING: 2 CORINTHIANS 1-4

“For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.” – 2 Corinthians 2:17

Paul is comparing the ministry of him and his co-workers with others that have come to the Corinthians. Paul says that he and his co-workers speak in Christ in sincerity while the others are peddling God’s word.

So, how did Paul and his co-workers speak in Christ in sincerity and not peddle God’s word?

First, we need to understand that Paul is referring to God’s word and Christ as the same thing. You can be a peddler God’s word or you can speak in Christ. God’s word, or the word of God, and Christ are the same thing.

For Paul, the word of God is not the Bible. Elsewhere in his letters, when Paul is referring to what we know as the Bible, he uses the Greek word graphe, which means writings or scriptures.

Then, for Paul, what is God’s word, the word of God, Christ?

In Luke 24:25, Jesus asked the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, “Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Then, in Luke 24:46-47, Jesus said to all the disciples, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

It was necessary that Christ should suffer to enter his glory.

Why?

The Christ suffered and rose from the dead so that repentance and the forgiveness of sins could be proclaimed.

This is the word of God.

This is Christ.

As Jesus told the disciples, the scriptures – the law, the prophets, and the psalms – witness to this word of God, Christ. But, the scriptures themselves are not the word of God, Christ.

It is the word of God – the necessity of Christ suffering and rising from the dead for repentance and the forgiveness of sins – that was Paul’s singular focus. In 1 Corinthians 2:2, Paul said, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Paul was occupied with the word of God, Christ.

According to Paul, this word of God, Christ, can be handled in one of two ways. It can be peddle. Or, it can be spoken of in sincerity.

What is the difference?

The Greek word translated peddler is kapeleuo. It means to trade in, to peddle for profit, to traffic in something for gain. Kapelos were small retailers or shopkeepers in comparison with emporos who were much larger merchants. Kapelos were often resellers, trading in second-hand goods.

How does a kapelos sell?

They haggle. They negotiate. They wheel and deal. These traders had a reputation for lying about their product and/or cheating on the price of their product for their own personal gain at the expense of their customers.

Tradition says that a kapelos was typically a wine merchant, but there is little written evidence of this. However, the Septuagint does make this association.  Isaiah 1:21-22 says, “How did a faithful city, Zion, full of justice, in whom justice slept, become a harlot, but now murderers are in her? Your money is not genuine; your innkeepers mix the wine with water.” The word innkeepers is the Greek word kapelos.

How do peddlers sell?

Mixing water into wine. Mixing something of lesser quality into the product they are selling.

But, consider Jesus’ first miracle in John. He turned water into wine. He did not mix wine with water. Therefore, “When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, ‘Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.'” (John 2:9-10)

John says this was the first of Jesus’ signs that manifested his glory (remember the Christ must suffer to enter his glory) and caused the disciples to believe in him. Turning water into wine was such a powerful sign of Jesus’ glory because he said, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).

Jesus came to give life, abundant life. Jesus never mixed anything, especially death, with the life he came to give.

So, a peddler of God’s word mixes something else into the pure message. The pure message is that the Christ needed to suffer and rise from the dead so that repentance and the forgiveness of sins could be proclaimed. The peddler, though, mixes other things into that pure message.

Why?

For their own personal gain.

But, Paul is not preaching the word of God, Christ, for his own person gain. He just said that through him and his co-workers God “spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him [Christ] everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.” (2 Corinthians 2:14-15)

What does Paul mean that they are a fragrance, the aroma of Christ?

In the Old Testament, when a sacrifice was offered it was done to emit a pleasing aroma to God. So, when Christ was crucified on the cross, his sacrifice emitted a pleasing aroma to God. Not because God was pleased to harm Jesus, but because of the love of God that Christ revealed on the cross. So, Christ’s suffering love emitted this pleasant aroma.

Paul says that he and his co-workers are also emitting this pleasing aroma of suffering love. Therefore, their preaching is a sacrifice. It brings suffering to them. It is not for their own personal gain. It is sincere.

The Greek word for sincerity Paul uses here is eilikrineia. it is a compound word of krinos and eile or eilo. Krinos means judge, discern, distinguish. Eile meas sun. And, eilo means cause to turn.

Some think that that eilekrineia means distinguished from or by the sun. The idea was that the thing being done was suspended from the rays of the sun. Therefore, the thing was pure, without spot, and immaculate.

But, it seems likely that eilo, not eile, is the actual word combined with krinos. In this case, the idea would be a judgment that causes turning. According to the Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, the metaphor was that of grain or wheat sorted and purified by rolling or bouncing on the screen. You would end up with pure grain, or grain without mixture.

Therefore, Paul and his co-workers did not mix anything with the pure of God, Christ. Paul preached in sincerity, without mixture, that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead for repentance and the forgiveness of sins.

What does preaching a mixed word of God look like versus preaching it purely?

That’s what Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 3.

To preach a mixed word of God means that you are a minister of the letter. A peddler teaches the literal scriptures. Instead of sticking purely that Christ suffered for you to give you life, the peddler adds the letter of the Old Testament to the pure message of the word of God, Christ. And, the letter of the Old Testament says that you need to offer sacrifices to God, you need to kill, in order to have your sins forgiven.

This is why Paul calls the ministry of the letter, the ministry of the literal reading of the Old Testament, a “ministry of death” and a “ministry of condemnation.” “For the letter kills.”

When you are a peddler of God’s word, you mix in death, condemnation, and causing suffering to the pure word of God, which is dying, justification, and suffering for others so that their sins are forgiven. Having your sins forgiven is life.

Paul contrasts this with his ministry, which is “of the Spirit.” “The Spirit gives life.” Therefore, Paul has a “ministry of righteousness.”

People peddle God’s word for their personal gain. They mix into the pure word of God – Christ must suffer and rise from the dead for repentance and the forgiveness of sins – the need to obey rules, tithe, make sacrifices, etc. to receive forgiveness. Peddlers personally gain from this because they can control those who are following them. This is religion.

Paul’s ministry is not for his personal gain. He himself is suffering by speaking the word of God, Christ, in sincerity, without mixture. Paul’s ministry is of the Spirit, and the Spirit only says what Jesus said – that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead for repentance and the forgiveness of sins.

Therefore, Paul says, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” (2 Corinthians 3:17). Freedom, not control, is the result of Paul’s ministry.

How did Paul preach the word of God, Christ, in sincerity and not as a peddler?

Without adding anything to it.

By the Spirit and not the letter.

Always speaking life, never death.