Bible Study

There is only one God. Believers and some unbelievers would agree with that. But, “How many expressions of God are we aware of?” I believe most would say, “One.” Any other answer treads on thin, controversial ice, and yet going out where others fear to tread opens a wealth of otherwise missed opportunity and blessings. The safe, comfortable attitude is always, “Go along to get along.” But therein is the spiritual death of the church in the world.

As an example of “church” attitudes and complacency in “religion” ask anyone, “Do you sin?” I believe the majority on either side of the religious fence would say “Yes!” But some believers would answer, “I miss the mark.” Ask the question again in an attempt to get a more direct answer and some... a few, one said, “I believe I fall short of the goal.” That’s the response of a political religionist. 

What’s my point? With regard to the church, I believe we have spiritual problems which everyone admits (“there is no perfect church” is the crutch) but most are unwilling to correct (by WANTING to be perfect). The “routine” of Sunday morning and Wednesday evening is too comfortable. It fits our life’s schedule. We can make time for God, but only between the hours of 9:00 am and noon... or 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm. Do you know what you are doing to yourself? Do you know what your complacency is doing to me?

So, getting back to “How many expressions of God are we aware of?” Without going beyond the basic “catechism” or the “milk” of Bible teachings, the answer will usually be “One” and for most people that One is Jesus the Christ. But that answer of “one” is incomplete. Now... let me preface what I’m saying with the qualifier of “before the cross” meaning His earthly ministry. It is an even more complex narrative “after” the resurrection.

So let us look at the ways God has expressed Himself to man.
From the very beginning we have God in PLURALITY, “Gen. 1:1, God created the heaven and the earth. (btw... do you know Earth is the only planet not named for mythological gods? God named it.)  The English word “God” whether capitalized or not, is singular. The Hebrew word is Elohim which is plural. The confusion begins. In that definition we come to learn later (if we study) that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Most of us call Him a Triune Being.

From Gen. 1:1 until Gen. 2:4, God is manifesting Himself in His plurality. The “concept” of the Trinity is hard to explain because it cannot be explained other than what we learn from studying the different ways God has interacted with man and creation as a whole... by Word, deed, and Spirit. The interesting (and revealing) thing about God beginning in Gen. 2:4 is that He is now introduced as the LORD God, which taken together is Jehovah Elohim. In Ex. 6:2 it says, And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD, and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

The interesting thing about Jehovah is that this is considered the proper name of the Self-Existing One True God. The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until the 1500’s, but modern “religion” has pretty much abandoned “Jehovah” because it is “too Jewish.” And there began MORE confusion. Jehovah, or Yehoshua, translates to “The LORD is salvation” and “LORD” is Jehovah. Get it? Study it!

Which brings me to the serious situation in churches... Bible Study, or the lack thereof. Without serious group Bible study ...not one person telling us what it says... we will not come to the unity of the faith mentioned in Eph. 4:11-13, And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: until we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.


What do I mean by “serious” Bible study? Well, Acts 2:42 says, And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And Acts 5:42,  They, daily in the temple, and from house to house, did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ (Messiah). Jesus was not and is not the Messiah for the Gentiles. Do you understand this?

THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH - the Body of Christ - should be concerned with the Apostles’ doctrine. We, being Gentiles, should be concerned with the teachings of the Apostle to the Gentiles... PAUL. For us today called in the New Covenant in Christ, it is about the Apostles’ doctrine, not Psalms or Song of Solomon... which are ALL for our “learning” but not for doctrine. Rom. 15:4, agreed and accepted... Whatever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Historical facts and DOCTRINE are  two different things.

The New Testament was yet to be written. The Apostles and Jesus Himself quoted from the Old Testament because that’s all they had. But their referencing the Old Testament was to demonstrate and PROVE the fulfillment of prophecy. It was Paul that received the revelation of the mysteries concerning the Body of Christ. The distinctions are crucial and not obvious, requiring devoted study. And furthermore, Jesus specifically called Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, even though Paul did in fact go to the Jews as well, he was not ordained to do so.

Rom. 15 Paul writes, Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision (Jews) for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (Jews): Brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. And again it is verified and confirmed in Gal. 2:9 where Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit says, When James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Jews).

It should be understood and accepted that this was no political stunt to end an argument. These were Apostles of God who came to understand and accept their roles in their respective ministries by revelation from the Holy Spirit. 

Let me further extrapolate on this position by mentioning that James, Peter and John each wrote letters (epistles) included in the New Testament canon which, to many people carry exactly the same weight of importance and doctrine as the rest of the Bible. They do not. First of all, we’re talking about NEW  doctrine. It should be obvious that the “old” Testament is NOT “new” doctrine. Secondly, James, Peter and John identify their “audience” as “the twelve tribes scattered abroad.” James 1:1... and “the sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” 1 Peter 1:1 ...and John in Rev. 1:4 addresses his letter, “to the seven churches which are in Asia.” ...which agrees with Peter’s letter to the “dispersed” in Asia.

Later on in his ministry, Peter came to appreciate Paul’s ministry of Grace and revelation when he wrote in 2 Peter 3:15, I account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you (book of Hebrews); As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Peter here finally has no problem with Paul or the NEW doctrine he brings to the church, even equating Paul’s writings with “the other scripture.” Do you understand the significance of this??

So my point is, be careful what you read or what you hear. Ask yourself, “Who is writing; to whom is it written; and what is it saying?” If there is no agreement in this, we will go no further together in unity. In fact, there is obviously already a schism.