It has always amazed me to consider how missionaries and pastors know when the Lord is calling them into a different field. I think of Harley and Martha Shield who were called to the mission field of the Alaskan Northwest Arctic. If you ask Martha today how they knew this was the Lord’s leading, she’ll say Harley had just graduated from seminary and this was an opening to work with Native peoples, something he’d wanted to do since he accepted the Lord while working as a school teacher on the Navaho reservation years before. I pointed out that he could just as easily have returned to teaching on the Navaho reservation or applied as a missionary to the reservation. Well, yes, she’ll say, but “God somehow made us know this was where He wanted us.” Sometimes the Holy Spirit moves in mysterious ways, but always to perform God’s wonders.

Chapter 13 of Acts records the first planned “overseas missions” carried out by representatives of a particular church rather than solitary individuals. Antioch was an overseas mission carried out by individuals as they fled persecution. Antioch’s missionary team to Asia Minor was a deliberate church decision, inspired by the Spirit, rather than the result of persecution. Antioch and Samaria, the Ethiopian official, were all examples of evangelism, not missions. The saints shared their faith as they fled to save their lives; they weren’t truly seeking to save souls in their travels. That was an incidental benefit. Now the church at Antioch, prompted by the Holy Spirit, made a conscious decision to send Barnabas and Saul for the purpose of what we would recognize as “missionary work.”

We don’t have all the details here. The account is brief. We should be wary of putting too much emphasis on what might well be a synopsis of events. However, there are several features about this church project that differ from modern-day missions practice, so it is worth delving into those differences so that we might learn somewhat for “missions” in our own day.

“Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” Acts 13:1-4

Luke never gave us the names of the evangelists who shared their faith with the people of Antioch. We know they were Hellenistic Jews from Cyrene and Cyprus; perhaps Lucius of Cyrene was one of them. Isn’t it marvelous that Antioch was blessed with five men who fulfilled the vital role of prophet and teacher? This was a key position in churches prior to possession of the New Testament. James’ letter might have been penned about this time (AD 45-47), but it wasn’t in wide circulation yet and Paul wouldn’t write to the Thessalonians for another few years. The three men who would remain in Antioch when Barnabas and Saul departed for the mission field would need to be men of faith and vision. The fact that Luke named these other three tells us clearly that leadership was ready for transition in Antioch. It’s also interesting to note that they seem to have formed a team, none of them more important than the others. Saul, for example, was listed last.

Barnabas and Saul did not receive the missionary call alone. It would appear that the church as a whole received this call. They would send forth the best men they had for the job, even if it challenged the church in its growth and ministry. Such challenges are often very healthy. Antioch was in the midst of service to the Lord. I don’t think this time was anything special. This was their normal way of doing things. I believe this to be the case because Acts records that almost every time God moved sovereignly, the church was looking in the other direction. I don’t think the leadership at Antioch was any different than the apostles, except they may have been a bit more responsive. The leaders were fasting and praying as part of their normal routine. Fasting was a normal part of Judaic life and it seems to have been a normal part of the early church. When the revelation came that they should send missionaries to Asia Minor, the entire church entered into fasting and prayer to determine the meaning of the prophesy. There’s no evidence that God gave them details about exactly what Barnabas and Saul were to do other than “Set apart for the work to which I have called them.”  What was that work? Important decisions require gravity of thought and fasting brings us to that point. They wanted to be certain that they were doing that which would be pleasing to God.

Upon arriving at a clear sense of direction, they acted! There seems to have been little delay. They commissioned their two beloved leaders to indicate that God was with them and they sent them out as the Holy Spirit was guiding.

There are a few things that come to mind from this passage. As I said, missions today are done differently than they were back then.

Barnabas and Saul were divinely appointed by the Holy Spirit. They were mature men of the faith, with proven leadership experience. The church at Antioch received the call to send them out as a team.

I would note that current missionary practice is to send out young, inexperienced people. Why is our practice so different from this Acts account? Note that Mark, the young and inexperienced, left early in the mission trip, though he later redeemed himself as Peter’s assistant and the writer of the gospel ascribed to him.

Current missionary practice is to send missionaries who feel they are led of God to go. I know with the SBC, missionary boards do a vetting procedure to validate this calling, but why aren’t local churches more involved in the process of discerning God’s guidance? Why do we accept a young person’s feeling that they have been called to missions and rarely consult the local church who knows their service, character and theology?

Current missionary practice emphasizes the need to send out a lot of missionaries, but they are usually sent out as singles or husband and wife, rarely as teams. Antioch sent only two missionaries and they sent them together. I would note that the impact of these two men was phenomenal. Maybe more is not always more and quality should be emphasized more.

“So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. And when they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John as their helper. And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened, became amazed at the teachings of the Lord.” Acts 13:5-12

Barnabas and Saul traveled to Seleucia, downstream of Antioch on the Orontes River, then sailed to Cyprus, where Barnabas had been born. The island is approximately 150 miles long and they traveled from one end to the other, preaching the gospel at every synagogue. This was already an established pattern of evangelism as practiced by the apostles. They were thus enabled to preach the gospel “to the Jew first” (Romans 1:16; Acts 13:46; 17:2; 18:4, 19; 19:8), but also they came in contact with Gentile proselytes and God-fearers, who were already knowledgeable with the Old Testament and the promise of Messiah, and many were prepared to receive Jesus as this Messiah.

In Paphos on the western coast, Barnabas and Paul encountered Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus and Elymas, also called Bar-Jesus. Sergius Paulus was identified by Luke as an inquisitive man much interested in religions who kept Elymas around because the Jewish magician seemed to know something about Judaism, which Sergius thought might hold the keys to salvation. Elymas was a non-orthodox Jew who likely mixed his Judaism with pagan worship and doctrine. (It is possible that the name Bar-Jesus indicates that he claimed some relationship with Jesus, but that’s probably not likely. Jesus was a common derivative for Joseph in those days.) When Barnabas and Saul appeared on the scene, the proconsul must have seen this as a golden opportunity to learn more of the Jewish faith from them, so invited them to share their message with him. This threatened Elymas, because his Judaism was not the same as theirs. Do remember that Paul was a very orthodox Jew prior to his conversion to Christianity. Elymas knew that Sergius was intelligent enough to see the differences, so he actively opposed these new visitors, probably correcting every thing they were trying to say.

I have never conceived of Saul as a humble man. I think he was usually the smartest person in the room. Unlike Barnabas, who seems inclined to give a person some slack, Paul took a harder line. Filled with the Holy Spirit, he strongly rebuked Elymas, exposed him as a fraud and demonstrated the power of God by casting a spell on this poser. I have to wonder what was in Paul’s heart as he cast the spell of blindness on Elymas. Did he remember his own time in the dark? How this blindness affected Elymas is not recorded, but Sergius Paulus became a believer in Jesus Christ that day.

“Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John left them and returned to Jerusalem.” Acts 13:13

We see a transition at this point. Paul took the lead. It is no longer Barnabas and Saul, but Paul and his companions. Again, God moved sovereignly to structure this team as He saw fit. Note also that Saul is heretofore called Paul. Saul was his Jewish name. Paul was his Gentile name. He had probably used it in Gentile contexts in the past; it was a common Grecianization of a Jewish name. This doesn’t seem to be a change of name as God did Abram to Abraham, but just a change in usage, in the way that people addressed Paul. Paul had become an apostle to the Gentiles, as signaled by this subtle change of names.

Leadership was changing hands in the early church and its first missionary team. Previously, it had been the 12 apostles with Peter as their leader, then it was Barnabas and Saul and now Paul became the leader. As we move from Jerusalem as the sending and supervising church to Antioch, we see Gentile salvations overwhelming Jewish salvations. A new era of church history dawned that profoundly affects almost every Christian alive today.

It’s been nearly a week, during the feast of unleavened bread, and you know that your trial is tomorrow and you already know the outcome. Convinced of the Lord that you are doing His will, you have tried to witness to your guards about salvation and now, in the dark of the night, you fall asleep.

Suddenly a bright light shines through your closed eye lids and something slapped your side. You have entered a curious dream state better than even the vision you experienced a while ago at Joppa. Oh, but an angel of God has come to rescue you! In your dream, a voice commands you, “Get up quickly!” and your chains fall noisily from your wrists to the floor. Amazingly, the crack Roman guards are asleep and unresponsive to even the noise this angelic being is making. This must be a dream! Groggily you follow the angel’s orders to get dressed.

The vision continues as the angel leads you out of the cell, through the prison and into the street. Gate after gate and units of guards simply allow you through. Oh, what a wonderful dream!

But, wait, you feel the cool night air on your skin. The angel departed as quickly as it had come, leaving you standing in the street, completely awake.

“And when Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I know for sure that the Lord has sent forth His angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.” Acts 12:11

These events probably happened in AD 43 or 44 because Herod died shortly after them. Herod had James killed and arrested Peter as one part of an overall campaign to destroy the church. We don’t know why Herod wanted to do this, except to guess that he didn’t like the competition for authority that Jesus offered.  Dictators rarely like divided loyalty among the masses and they especially don’t like the undivided loyalty that Christians offer to Jesus.

The death of James served as a signal for a fundamental change in the attitude of this Herod compared to the attitude of his predecessor, under whose authority Jesus had been executed. When Jesus was killed, the political powers acted as they did because they were forced by the religious authorities. No one was pushing Herod by the time of our subject events. He was acting on his own initiative, for his own purposes. He was delighted that the people approved, but that was not his primary reason for acting.

The people did approve of Herod’s actions this time. Most of the time the masses were enthusiastic about Jesus while their leaders opposed Him. We see in the Gospels that the leaders had to act carefully not to stir up the people (Luke 22:2, 6). Many people don’t seem to have approved of Jesus’ crucifixion and after the resurrection and the birth of the church, the church (and the apostles) were highly regarded by the masses. The Sanhedrin took the masses into account when they persecuted the apostles in Acts 4. Now, however, there are no religious leaders present. It is the people, the masses, who seem to have changed their attitude toward the church. The Bible doesn’t explain this, but it may be that the Apostles were traveling abroad to such places as Samaria and were not as evident in Jerusalem as they had been. There may have been resentment brewing over the news of Gentiles coming to salvation. It may have occurred to the Judean Jews, as it had occurred to the pagans of Antioch, that Christianity was not a sect of Judaism.

This was no attempt to frighten the church into silence. Herod put James to the sword and the arrest of Peter clearly was intended to lead to a similar execution. Herod kept Peter under “maximum security” perhaps remembering the earlier escape by the apostles. Peter was guarded by 16 soldiers in six hours shifts, some of them in the cell with him. Escape by normal means was impossible! I would note that, similar to Elijah’s “soaked” sacrifice (1 Kings 18:32-35), the more intense the efforts to prevent whatever God has purposed, the more evidence of God’s presence and power.

“So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God.” Acts 12:5

We do not know what the church prayed for, but we are told they prayed fervently, as befits a group of people who see themselves in grave danger. Peter’s life and safety were not all that concerned them. The church knew that if Herod was successful in carrying out his plans, the church could be eliminated, or at least greatly damaged. It was an impossible situation! There was little the church could do. They were restricted to prayer. In our day and time there would probably be phone call campaigns to Washington D.C. and protest marches in front of city hall. All kinds of human endeavors would be launched, and there’d likely be no time for prayer.  “All” the Jerusalem church could do was pray. Prayer would certainly “change things” on this particular night.

This escape was not Peter’s plan or his doing. Peter was sound asleep when the angel appeared and hardly awake until after the entire incident was over. The angel had to tell Peter how to put on his own clothes. Peter was not sitting up, awake, with shadowed eyes, agonizing about the events of the next day. He was sound asleep! He was not trying to pick the lock on his chains or dig a tunnel. He did not scold the angel for coming so late nor did he propose an escape plan. Peter’s deliverance, like the salvation of every saint, was the work of God, and not of man. Peter participated, but he did not plan nor produce the escape.

Peter was outside the gate, some distance from the prison, standing in the street, before he realized this was reality and not a vision. Can you not see him mumbling to himself all through the experience, “Wow, this vision is even better than the one about the animals coming down from heaven!”? He realized that his escape was God’s deliverance. Man proposes, but God disposes. It was God’s time for James to die, but it was not yet time for Peter to die.

“And when he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. And when he knocked at the door of the gate, a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer. And when she recognized Peter’s voice, because of her joy she did not open the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter was standing in front of the gate. And they said to her, “You are out of your mind!” But she kept insisting that it was so. And they kept saying, “It is his angel.” But Peter continued knocking; and when they had opened, they saw him and were amazed. But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, “Report these things to James and the brethren.” And he departed and went to another place.” Acts 12:6-17

The only door which failed to open that night was the door of Mary’s house. In her joy, Rhoda, the servant-girl who answered the door, forgot to open it and then there was the disbelief of those who had gathered to pray. They were willing to believe that Peter’s ghost was haunting them (perhaps it was another resurrection) but they could not believe that God had rescued Peter. Peter reported to these saints that which neither the guards nor Herod ever knew. He wanted them to know that he was safe, thanks to God’s intervention, and that he was going to drop “out of sight” for a time. Until Herod’s plan was somehow terminated, Peter would keep his identity and his address a secret, even, apparently, from his fellow-saints. This may well have been for their own protection, since Herod would not be above torturing any of them to learn his whereabouts.

I noticed that there were no leaders present, or at least acknowledged, at Mary’s house. If John also called Mark is John Mark, then Mary was Barnabas’ sister or sister-in-law, but Barnabas was apparently in Antioch by this time. James was dead. John was not mentioned. James, the half-brother of Jesus who was emerging as a key leader in the Jerusalem church, was not present but was to be notified of Peter’s deliverance. The other “brothers” who were to be told may have also been leaders in the church. I believe the church’s leaders were not present because it would have made it easy for Herod to kill off the church’s leaders at one time and in one place. The church leaders, at this point in time, had gone underground.

“Now when day came, there was no small disturbance among the soldiers as to what could have become of Peter. And when Herod had searched for him and had not found him, he examined the guards and ordered that they be led away to execution. And he went down from Judea to Caesarea and was spending time there. Now he was very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and with one accord they came to him, and having won over Blastus the king’s chamberlain, they were asking for peace because their country was fed by the king’s country.  And on an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. And the people kept crying out, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.” Acts 12:17-23

The prayers of the saints gathered at the home of Mary were answered much more fully than they imagined. Not only was Peter spared execution by Herod, but the opposition of Herod was ended by his own death. God removed Herod. This too was an answer to the prayers of the saints beyond what they asked or thought.

What an understatement we see here in verse 18! “There was no small disturbance among the soldiers.” It was sheer panic! These men recognized not only that Peter was missing, but that Herod was furious. They knew that they were now the endangered species. There was no one to deliver them from the wrath of Herod. They did not have the foggiest idea what had actually happened. Peter could not be found, and no explanation could be found either. Imagine finding the handcuffs fixed to the hands of the soldiers, and yet Peter’s hands somehow extracted, with the cuffs locked. Imagine finding no evidence of a tunnel, and no clue of any typical escape effort. There was only one human explanation: the guards had to have let Peter go, and all of the guards on duty had to play a part in this. These men experienced the death to which Peter was sentenced, in which they were to play a part. I wonder how many soldiers would be eager to guard a Christian after this.

Although some time seems to have passed between Peter’s escape and Herod’s death, Luke made it very clear that Herod’s death was directly related to the death of James, the deliverance of Peter, the prayers of the saints, and the end of the persecution which kept the apostles in hiding.

“But the word of the Lord continued to grow and to be multiplied.” Acts 12:24

This is surely not a new statement. All through the Book of Acts we have seen periodic reference to the growth of the church. It is never more fittingly applied than here. It contrasts the results of God’s work against the resistance of men like Herod and the Jews. Herod had commenced an attack on the church at Jerusalem, focusing on the execution of the leaders of the church. God purposed for James to die for the sake of the gospel and to save Peter for the sake of the gospel. He also purposed to remove Herod and some of the prison guards, bringing his opposition to a halt. We see the beginning contrasted with the end. If all is well that ends well, then all is well here. James may have died, but the church was not dead. It was alive and growing still, even when the masses and their king opposed it.

“And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, taking along with them John, who was also called Mark.” Acts 12:25

Yes, it would seem that Barnabas and Saul were on their way to, in, or headed back from Jerusalem when this incident took place. The death of James and the deliverance of Peter were set in the midst of the offering of the saints of Antioch to the saints in Judea. Context is everything!

We are at a clear point of transition in the Book of Acts and the history of the church. Peter didn’t die, but he did become absent, signally a strong emphasis on Paul’s ministry. Similarly, we see the rise of the Gentiles over the Jews within the church. Paul explained the reason for this in Romans 9-11. From this time forward, many Gentiles will be saved, but few Jews. The Jews had hardened their hearts to Jesus and now the leadership was actively seeking to destroy Christianity. The persecution we see in Acts 12 was the final opposition movement in Jerusalem and Judea, before the destruction of that city by the Roman armies in 70 AD. It was not a religious movement, but a secular movement of Herod and the Jewish people. Almost every segment of Jewish society had now come to reject Jesus and His church. This near-total rejection was the basis for God to turn His back upon this people and this place for many years to come. The day of salvation for Israel had passed. No wonder Jesus wept over this city and its fate.

We see God’s sovereignty once more and, finally, Peter recognized it as well. In verse 9 he explained the lessons that had so graphically been taught to him, “God is able to deliver His saints from even men and to deliver evil men to divine judgment.” Acts 12:9

If we were to consistently live our daily lives on this principle, our lives would be radically transformed. We need not fear men, only God. Those who fear God as a loving Father need not fear His divine wrath, for we are assured that evil men will be judged by God in the end. God will deliver His saints from evil men, and He will deliver evil men to eternal judgment.

What is the nature of the deliverance with which God will deliver you? Will God deliver you from the snares of evil men into the blessings of His kingdom, or deliver you to judgment? The difference in these two destinies is determined by your response to the person of Jesus Christ. If you receive Him as God’s Savior, as the One Who died for your sins, and Who gives to you His righteousness, you will be delivered to the blessings of heaven. If you reject Him, you have the fate of Herod awaiting you. God grant that you make the decision to trust in Jesus and to be delivered from divine wrath.

One final word. In this sense of deliverance, James too was delivered from evil men. James was delivered from evil men by his death as he passed from their presence to the glory and presence of God. Peter was delivered from Herod by Herod’s death and delivered to a further time of earthly service.  Both men were delivered, just in different ways. God always delivers His own!

Probably the most frequent challenge to the gospel throughout the centuries has to do with Who Jesus Christ is and was. Heretical teachers down through the ages have advanced their own concepts of Jesus’ identity and nature, with varying degrees of success. The central figure of Christianity is really a Biblical mystery. Many portions of Scripture completely affirm His deity, showing that at no time did He lose His divine nature. Yet with equal strength the Bible teaches that Christ became fully human. This leaves room for heresy to creep in. One might wonder why God did not simply state it clearly, but we must always remember that we come to Jesus in faith. If we were 100 percent certain of everything about Him, it would not be faith.

Jesus was called God in the Bible. The prologue to the Gospel of John reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God” (John 1:1 NET Bible). John makes it clear that this Word is Jesus Christ: “Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.” (John 1:14). Jesus Christ is therefore called "God" in John 1:1.  The same is true of Hebrews 1:8: "but of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom'" (Heb. 1:8). Paul addressed Christ as "God" when he wrote, “… as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13; also see 2 Peter 1:1). The Gospel of John recorded Thomas’ response to the resurrected Christ: “Thomas replied to him, 'My Lord and my God!’” (John 20:28).

Jesus Christ is called "the Son of God" in numerous passages (Luke 3:22; Matt. 16:15-17; John 10:36). He is also called "Lord" in many passages (1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11).

Jesus Christ not only accepted worship due only to God but also demanded it (Matt. 4:10; John 5:23). Christ claimed to be the supreme object of faith, demanding of men the same kind of faith that they placed in God (John 17:1-3). He said, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30).

The scriptural case for Jesus Christ as God is further supported by Christ’s divine attributes and words. He is eternal (John 17:5; Heb. 1:11-12), omnipresent (Matt. 28:20), and omnipotent (Heb. 1:3). The Scriptures show Him to be the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb. 1:2), the One who holds all things in the universe together (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). He alone as God offers forgiveness of sins (Luke 5:20-24), and all men will face Him in judgment (John 5:24-28). Christ’s full deity has clear Biblical support.

If the Bible stopped there, I submit there’d be few if any heresies revolving around Christ’s nature. The Bible is clear in asserting that Jesus is God. Enough said. However, the Bible builds an equally clear case for Christ’s full humanity through the Incarnation. Several passages indicate that Christ had a human birth (Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 2:4-21; John 1:14; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 John 4:1-3). He also experienced human development (Luke 2:52). He had all the human elements: a body (John 2:21), a soul (John 12:27), and a spirit (Luke 23:46). Christ possessed all of the human limitations except sin. He got tired, hungry, thirsty, sorrowful, and He died.

The Bible gives clear testimony to the humanity as well as the complete deity of Jesus Christ. Paul summarized this: “For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9).

The mystery comes because humanity is not the same as deity. If Jesus were 50 percent God and 50 percent man (as some have taught), there would be no problem, since one-half plus one-half equals one. But the Bible does not allow this because it testifies that Jesus is a total man and fully God. Such a statement is far easier to make than to explain because there is no way we can truly comprehend one plus one equals one. That defies our math. It is like trying to put one quart of water and one quart of oil into a one-quart container.

Human reasoning denies that one can be fully human and fully divine, but the Bible tells us that Jesus was and is. And this is where faith comes in. By faith, we can choose to accept what the Bible teaches and not argue with God. When we do that, He provides us with an assurance that the Bible is correct, even if our human reasoning struggles with the concept. But that is not how human beings like to handle intellectual mysteries.

Historically, most people confronted by this mystery have chosen to either reject the biblical testimony concerning the God-man or they have juggled or ignored certain passages in an attempt to make this compatible with human comprehension. This has led to two inevitable extremes.

One extreme rejects the deity of Jesus Christ, thus reducing Him to the level of being merely a man. Oh, they try to be kind in their reductionism. They say that Jesus was a “great teacher” or a “true prophet.” Statements like these shouldn’t fool anyone, since almost all false systems want to give lip-service to Jesus and put Him on their bandwagon in spite of their rejection of His deity.

This extreme undermines all Christianity. It would mean that the Bible is not true and salvation is still not available, since the death of a mere man (no matter how noble) cannot provide the infinite purchase price required to redeem other men from their sins. If this extreme be truth, we’re all in deep trouble, since nobody can hope to please a holy God with his own efforts.

This first extreme viewpoint concerning the God-man would imply that it is an utter waste of time to study the Scriptures and become a Christian. If Christ is not God, the Bible is wrong, there is no salvation, and each person must become his own authority for “truth”.

The opposite extreme is equally devastating. The deity of Christ is affirmed, but His humanity is minimized or rejected. Interestingly, the results of this extreme are essentially the same as those of the first extreme. The Bible would not be the Word of God, and salvation would not be available for men.

Since the Bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ was completely human, a rejection of His humanity is tantamount to a rejection of the Bible. Salvation would not be available because the substitutionary atonement requires that Jesus Christ must die as a man to bear judgment for the sins of all men. As Scripture says, “ … there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purpose at his appointed time” (1 Tim. 2:5-6). The Messiah could not have become the mediator between God and man apart from becoming the God-man by taking on human flesh. Many other important biblical doctrines would be destroyed with the notion that Christ never became a man, but the two that have been discussed here are the most critical.

Church history affords a number of illustrations of how people have tried either to reject or rationalize this God-man mystery. The two erroneous extremes have appeared in many forms throughout the centuries and will continue to arise as long as people refuse to bow to the authority of God’s revelation of Himself in the Scriptures.

The Gnostics were among the first who perverted the Biblical doctrine of the God-man. Because of their dualistic conviction that matter is evil, they refused to believe in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Docetism, a related heresy, was a doctrine that taught Christ only seemed to have a real body. They believed that Christ tricked the evil god of the Old Testament at the Crucifixion because His body was not real. This sounds sort of familiar (see Islam’s dealing with Christ).

The Apostle John fought against the developing Gnosticism of his day and urged his readers to “test the spirits,” for “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God” (1 John 4:1-3; see 2 John 7). John vehemently opposed this denial of the full humanity of Jesus, calling it “the spirit of the antichrist.”

Arius of Alexandria was a the center of another controversy related to the issue of the God-man in the early fourth century. Arius said that Christ was different from God and was of another substance. The conflict that arose from this led to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

Opposition to the deity of Christ was soon followed by a return to the other extreme. Apollinaris held a docetic view of Christ, saying that Christ was not truly human. Apollinaris placed his reason above Scripture and refused to accept that both the human and the divine nature were in Christ.

Nestorius, another church leader who stumbled over this mystery, postulated two persons, saying that Jesus as a man was energized by the logos of God. This was effectively a denial of the complete deity of Jesus Christ.

Eutyches, in the fifth century, arrived at the unusual viewpoint that Christ was neither truly human nor divine, but was a “third other”.

The Monophysite group, who stressed the divine nature in Christ and minimized His human nature to such an extent that His humanity was divested of all but a few human characteristics, represented another swing back of the docetic (not completely human) view of Christ.

Though representatives of both extremes regarding the God-man continued to persist, the major christological controversies beginning with the seventh century centered more on the work than on the person of Jesus Christ. The next major group to deny the deity of Christ in favor of His humanity were the Socinians in the 16^th. Since that time it is most common simply to reject the Biblical testimony concerning the deity of Christ. This has been supported by 18^th- and 19^th-century philosophy, the evolutionary hypothesis, and higher criticism. The docetic extreme of minimizing the true humanity of Christ was more common in the days of the early church and is not often found today.

Outside of the main lines of church history, many more examples of the two extremes (a denial of Christ’s deity or of His humanity) can be found by looking into the beliefs of cults and Eastern religion concerning the person of Jesus Christ. Several of these religions regard Christ as simply another prophet sent by God to help enlighten the people of His day. Along with this goes the claim that other prophets with an even greater message have succeeded Jesus, and people of today should first listen to them (for instance, Muhammad and Baha’u’lah). Other groups think of Jesus as “divine” in the same pantheistic sense in which all men are divine, thus rejecting Christ’s exclusive claims.

Another popular approach, which has been supported by various esoteric and occult teachings, is the separation of Jesus from Christ. This is an old idea that goes back to second- and third-century Monarchianism. Some, like Paul of Samosata, taught that “the Christ” (the divine power) descended upon the man Jesus at His baptism and left Him just prior to His crucifixion. This has been extended by some today into the idea that all of us can have this divine power or “Christ consciousness” within us.

All these erroneous teachings concerning the God-man place faith in human reason above God’s revelation. It is imperative for each true believer in Christ to accept by faith all the scriptural data. We must not rationalize or disregard those elements that tax our comprehension, or we will be guilty of subjectively choosing those parts of the Bible we like and eliminating the rest. This is not how Christians are supposed to deal with the Bible and this will inevitably bring us into conflict with those who rank human reason above God’s revealed word.

Another assault on the gospel message of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone is “believe and do good works.” The idea promoted is that one must both believe and do good works in order to be saved. If the good works are not present, then, you were either never saved or really believed, or you lost your salvation, or you never got saved because you lack the good works required.

Some would argue that we are saved by faith alone, but if faith is alone (if there are no works), then you are not saved, your faith was only an intellectual faith, not a heart faith. In this view faith is usually redefined to include turning from sin and surrendering one’s life to Christ. Assurance then, in the final analysis, is based on one’s works or record rather than on the work of Christ and the sure promises of the Word like 1 John 5:11-13 and John 5:24.

The argument is that genuine faith always results in good works. Because of new life imparted to believers via spiritual regeneration, in response to the presence of the Holy Spirit in every believer’s life, those who have genuinely believed the gospel message will, as a general rule, produce some fruit, sometime, somehow.

As John 15 and many other passages of Scripture teach, the general maxim that believers will bear fruit does not mean that all believers will be fruitful or that a believer will always be fruitful (see Titus 3:14; 2Peter. 1:8). Both of these passages indicate that a true believer might be unfruitful; otherwise these exhortations would be meaningless. The same principle applies to the Lord’s admonition for us to abide in Him that we might be fruitful.

A person’s fruit will not necessarily be outwardly evident. A person’s fruit may be private or erratic. Just because we do not see someone’s fruit does not mean that some fruit has not been produced. We may see a man’s fruit, but we cannot see his heart. We don’t know what motivated his works. The works may have been motivated by selfish desires to impress or be accepted rather than by the Spirit.

Many unbelievers (those who profess no faith in Christ) will demonstrate all kinds of good works like helping the poor, ministering to the sick, caring for their family, self-control, and working for the benefit of the community in other ways. Does this prove they know God? No! Does it save them? No! While works may give evidence of new life and fellowship with the Lord, it is still never a proof because there are too many variables that we just cannot see.

According to Scripture, real fruit in the life of the believer is the result of pruning and abiding, the work of God as the Vinedresser, and the response of the believer through fellowship and faith. When our Lord said, “without Me you can nothing,” He was not saying believer’s could produce no works, but that there could be no real fruit--works that were the result of new life and the power of the Spirit, without God.

If a man claims to be a Christian by the things he does and says: he goes to church, prays, and says he knows the Lord, but refuses to help someone in need when it is within his power, what does this indicate about the man? It could indicate the person is not saved--but not necessarily. Remember, many who do not know Christ help the poor. Refusal can also indicate the person is out of fellowship and not walking by an active faith in the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 John 3:16-17; Gal. 5:22-23; Jam. 2:15-17).

What’s the point? Works do not necessarily prove a man’s salvation. Then what are some of the values of a person’s good works? Works are not designed to be the fundamental means of assurance of salvation. Assurance is based on something more absolute--the work of Christ and the Word. Good works glorify God especially when our motives are right and He is the source of those works because we are abiding in Christ (1 Cor. 4:5; 6:20; 2 Cor. 9:13; 1 Pet. 2:12; 4:16). Good works witness to others of God’s love and of the truth of the claims of Christ. They can give evidence of the authenticity and power of the gospel (2 Cor. 6:3-6; 1 Thess. 2:1-12; John 13:34-35). Good works minister God’s love to men (1 John 3:17). Good works promote peace and order in society (Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:14).

We should not compromise the gospel of grace by adding anything to what man must do other than believe the message of God’s saving love in Christ. We should be challenged as believers to grow in Christ, to submit to His lordship, and allow Him to change our lives as we walk in fellowship with the Savior. Let’s also remember that one of the evidences of salvation is the discipline of the Lord (Heb. 12:5f).

James 2:14-26 is one of the key passages used to support the need of adding works to faith in Christ. The thinking is something like this: We are saved by faith alone, but real faith is never alone, or the faith that saves is never alone,” and James 2:14-26 is used to support this position. Does James 2:14-26 support this position?

Those who see a support for salvation by works or salvation plus works included in James 2 assert that either James is contradicting the Apostle Paul and teaching salvation by works or he is teaching that real or genuine faith will produce works and fruitlessness is a sure sign that a person is unsaved. “That faith” in 2:14, the kind of faith that is without works and fruitless, cannot save from hell.

Yes, this is a difficult passage, but much of its difficulty stems from our own preconditioned thinking, theological bias, the nature of English translations, and our understanding of certain words like “save,” “salvation,” “soul,” and translations like “that faith” in vs. 14.

There is no question that faith without works is in some way defective, but that does not mean that the person is unsaved or that their faith in Christ is not real. Scripture teaches that faith begins as a grain of mustard seed and mus