A Personal Attack

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

20. A TESTIMONY CONCERNING WITNESS LEE

For the past eight years, I have been closely associated with the work, ministry, and person of Witness Lee. I can testify from intimate personal experience that I have seen hundreds of people genuinely born again, delivered from sin and the world, and presently following the Lord Jesus Christ with their whole heart as a result of his ministry.

I have visited all the local churches in this country and also in Africa, New Zealand, and Australia. These churches are the fruit of the fundamental, Bible-oriented, Christ-exalting ministry of Witness Lee.

It grieved me to hear the speaker at Melodyland attack, mock, despise, and ridicule Witness Lee and yet claim to be speaking in the spirit of Christian love. To me this is clearly a case of character assassination of the lowest sort. I am grieved because I know that Witness Lee is a blood-washed, born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who has been greatly used by God for more than forty years.

The speaker strongly accused Witness Lee of not keeping his word concerning a taped conversation between himself and Witness Lee. According to documented evidence in our possession, we declare this to be absolutely unfair and dishonest, and charge the speaker himself with not keeping his word and the agreement he made with Witness Lee.

As to Witness Lee’s keeping his word, I can testify that I have been to his home many times and can say concerning his daily life that it is according to the Scriptures. I know him to be a person who absolutely keeps the Word of God and lives a life that exemplifies the highest Christian character. I have known personally many of the well-known Christian speakers in this country and have never met a man that compares even slightly to Witness Lee in character, daily living, or humanity.

In my opinion, he has been severely mocked and made to look foolish. The speaker used sarcastic and caustic remarks about his education and his knowledge of the Scriptures. The speaker insults Witness Lee by saying, “He is venerated as an authority, yet the man has no theological training to justify it whatsoever. He uses Greek terms in his writings and he can’t read the Greek alphabet.” This kind of comment reminds me of the words of the Jews concerning the Lord Jesus: “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” (John 7:15) and “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed” (John 7:48-49).

It is a shame that Christians should blatantly attack one another without thorough research on the man and the content of his ministry.

The speaker also maligns Witness Lee as a self-styled recovery agent, implying that we, the people in the local church are just following Witness Lee and not submitting our lives to the Holy Spirit. This comment is very insulting and false. I can testify that no other man that I have ever known turns so many people to the Lord to love Him and follow Him. How wonderful Christ is to us in the local church! He is renewing and transforming us to be conformed to the image of His Son. Never have I been so helped in knowing the Word of God, loving the Lord Jesus Christ, and being led by the Holy Spirit as since coming to know and be with Witness Lee.

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Concerning the Bible

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

14. THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE

After hearing a recent message given at Melodyland, I was quite troubled concerning the remarks about Witness Lee and the study of God’s Word in the local churches. The speaker’s remarks reveal that he knows little of the real situation, and I question whether he has ever attended a meeting.

Bible Studies In the Local Churches

“How many have your Bibles here?” the speaker asked in that meeting at Melodyland. After the Bibles and hands were raised, he commented, “Not enough!” But I have observed that in all the local church meetings, everyone brings his Bible. In my experience as a pastor I found this situation at Melodyland to be typical, revealing not only neglect to bring the Bible to the meeting, but more than that, neglect to open the Bible daily and spend time in individual Bible study. The speaker, while addressing that same audience, and knowing very little of the lives of those in the local churches, made this accusation: “The local church does not have individualized Bible study. All study is exactly in harmony with Witness Lee.” On the contrary, however, my experience and observation these past six years in the church in Los Angeles has been the opposite. My own individual study of the Word of God has increased and surpassed that which I did as a seminary student and as a pastor. Also, I have observed that this is the experience of those who are in the local churches in Orange County and throughout the world. I have to say also that I praise the Lord for Bible study in harmony with Witness Lee. Having had the opportunity to sit under the ministry of some of the best Bible teachers, no one that I know of ministers the riches of the Word like this man. And yet, it is ironic that rather than receive these abundant riches, there are those who would rather occupy themselves with the same art as the Pharisees and scribes of the Lord’s day who sought only to find fault, “…that they might find an accusation against him” (Luke 6:7).

Recovery Version Bible

The speaker went on to deride the Recovery Version of the Bible. He says, “One of the other traits that mark this as cultic is that they have in their so-called Bible studies Recovery Versions of the Bible.” Does the translating of the Bible make the translator cultic? What a slander this is! He goes on, “The Recovery Version consists of the text of Scripture, sometimes altered or added to by Lee.” I have had six years of Greek and three years of Hebrew, and I find that the Recovery Version is an accurate and true translation of the original language of the Bible, not the Scripture text “sometimes altered or added to.” In comparison, Letters to Street Christians, a paraphrase of the Epistles, whose author, Jack Sparks, the writer of The Mindbenders is endorsed by the speaker, is written in language that not only is of the street, but at times goes into the gutter. I would be ashamed to give a copy to my sister, mother, wife, or daughter.

Having spent fourteen years under some of the best Bible expositors, I was surprised when I came to the church in Los Angeles to find that the Lord had gone on and had opened the Word of God through the ministry of Witness Lee in a way that was far beyond what I had seen or heard. For this rich ministry of the Word I am grateful because this ministry has changed my life and living.

15. A PROTEST CONCERNING BIBLE RESEARCH

In the meeting at Melodyland opposing Witness Lee and the local churches, the speaker made a very serious charge. He said, “One of the other traits that mark this [the local churches] as cultic is that they have in their so-called Bible studies Recovery Versions of the Bible. The Recovery Version consists of the text of Scripture, sometimes altered or added to by Lee.”

Not Altered or Added To

He is charging Witness Lee with altering and adding to the text of the Scripture. We want to answer this charge strongly and clearly. I personally, together with Witness Lee and two other brothers, am responsible for the text of the Recovery Versions. I can state with absolute certainty that the words of the text have never been altered or added to. Every week we meet together and cover a large table, four feet wide and eight feet long, with all kinds of versions of the Bible, together with the inter-linear Greek-English text and numerous word studies and lexicons. Our goal is to ascertain from the original language, by comparison with many versions, and with the help of word studies and lexicons, the most precise wording in modern English to utter the sacred text. We do this work very strictly, carefully, and prayerfully, word by word, phrase by phrase, verse by verse.

Every time before we translate, we pray, “Lord, renew our minds and cover us with Your precious blood. Keep us fully in the Spirit, and may Your Word come forth just as You would want it.” We seek to be those who are poor and contrite in spirit, who tremble at His word (Isa. 66:2, Heb. ), and not be “as many, which corrupt the word of God” (2 Cor. 2:17). Thus, we are absolutely not altering the text or adding anything to it. We consider our version to be the most accurate.

We ask the speaker at Melodyland to point out which word, which verse, in which chapter, we have altered or added. Let him show us, if he can, one instance in the Recovery Version that is not true to the original language of the Bible. He has made a serious, and we believe, a reckless and unsupported charge.

Because of the nature of this charge, having to do with the Word of God and our fundamental faith, we declare that this is something for which the speaker is legally responsible. We all know that if anyone alters or adds to the Word of God, it is a most despicable and abominable thing, deserving of the curse of God (Rev. 22:18-19). So to charge us with such a sinful act is not a light matter. We must make this matter very clear. We ask the speaker to respond. If he really considers that some part of our text is at fault, he should point out specifically the problem. If he is unable to do this, he certainly should apologize and make public rectification, for he has made such a gross charge in public.

“Is It Cultic To Have Another Version?”

Moreover, the speaker says that the fact that we have made another version of the Bible is “one of the…traits that mark [the local churches] as cultic.” But, we ask, “Is it cultic to have another version?” Because some heretical cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own translation, does it make us cultic because we have been burdened to produce another version? This is not sound reasoning. Because the unbelievers build houses and we also build houses, does that make us unbelievers? “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

The Motivation For The Name “Recovery Version”

Furthermore, the speaker at Melodyland, in a mocking tone, said that he “was not under the impression that the text [of the Bible] had been lost, but according to Witness Lee it has now been recovered.” At no time have we ever said that the text of the Bible has been either lost or recovered. This is the speaker’s unfounded sarcasm. We praise God that the text of the Bible has been preserved through all the centuries. We have chosen to call our version of the Bible the Recovery Version because God today is in the process of recovering the testimony of His church among His people, and we are in His recovery. May the Lord vindicate His testimony.

16. A PROTEST CONCERNING BIBLE INTERPRETATION

It is an understatement to say that the speaker at Melodyland has a blind spot, which becomes obvious in the way he quotes the Bible. He omits what is in the blind spot and quotes only what he can see. This is due to what we call deductive reasoning. With deductive reasoning, one begins with a premise which he already holds. He then brings it to the Bible, and because he already has the premise, he quotes only what agrees with the premise and omits what disagrees with the premise.

Blinded By A Preconceived Premise

Take for instance 2 Corinthians 3:17: “Now the Lord is the Spirit.” The speaker at Melodyland brings the premise to this verse that Christ cannot be Spirit. He begins with that premise, so he reads it like this: “The Lord is the Spirit,” but all the time he knows in his mind that the Lord here cannot be Christ, because he already has the premise that Christ cannot be the Spirit. This is so even though in this passage the word “Lord” can absolutely be proved to mean Christ. It can be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to anyone who does not have a blind spot, that in this passage “the Lord” is Christ.

In chapter three, verse 14, Paul says that the veil is taken away by Christ. Then he says in verse 16, “Nevertheless, when it [the heart] shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” Is the Lord who takes away the veil in verse 16 different from the Christ who removes the veil in verse 14? Is the Lord who takes the veil away in verse 16 Christ or someone else? Surely the Lord spoken of is Christ. “Now the Lord is the Spirit.” You can only arrive at a different conclusion if you have a big blind spot.

The Son Being the Father

The speaker at Melodyland quoted John 1:1 according to his premise. These are his words: “Witness Lee says the Son is the Father. He is? If the Son is the Father, you’ve got a terrible problem with John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was face to face with God. Who was He face to face with?” Then he makes the joke: “A cosmic mirror looking at Himself?” He doesn’t finish quoting John 1:1; he only quotes the first part, which says, “The Word was with God.” The blind spot causes him to omit the last part, which says, “And the Word was God.”

The teacher at Melodyland has no problem with the aspect of the three. He does have a problem with the aspect of one. I have never heard him refer to the aspect of one, although I have heard him speak a number of times. He always refers to the aspect of the three of the Trinity, never to the aspect of the one of the Trinity.

It is the same with Isaiah 9:6: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Quoting the Melodyland speaker again: “Ah, says Witness Lee—there it is. The everlasting Father is Jesus. He should take some lessons in Hebrew, and he should take some lessons in what the Jews meant when they wrote titles.” I would like to ask why he didn’t give us the lesson in Hebrew. We are open to any lesson that is valid. We will listen to anything that is genuine. Why did he not give us the Hebrew lesson? I am disappointed. And what did the Jews mean when they quoted titles?

I do not know Hebrew, but I can read English. For instance, I have read Isaiah in three volumes by Edward J. Young, a man whose credentials are impeccable in the matter of Hebrew. He was for many years head of the Old Testament Department at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, one of the most conservative, fundamental seminaries in the United States. It says on the jacket of his book that he writes not primarily concerning textual problems but with the meaning of the text in view. On the section where it says in Isaiah 9:6, “And his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father,” this is what he says:

The thought is that the Child is worthy to bear these names, and that they are accurate descriptions and designations of His being and character. In the Bible the name indicates the character, essence or nature of a person or object. [He is telling us what the speaker at Melodyland failed to tell us concerning the meaning of the title. ] When, therefore, it is stated that He shall be called, we are to understand that the following names are descriptive of the Child and deserve to be borne by Him. …To maintain with George Adam Smith that the text merely says he will be called, not that he actually will be what the names indicate, would be a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the prophecy, indeed, of the nature of the Biblical language generally.

I would ask, do the words in Isaiah 9:6 mean what they say? Take all the words and ask concerning each one—does it mean what it says? “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” Does this really mean a child? Or does it have some other meaning in view? Is this really a son, or does it mean something else? “And the government shall be upon his shoulder.” Does this really mean the government, or does this mean a chair, a house, a scroll, or something else? “His name shall be called Wonderful.” Is His name wonderful? “His name shall be called…Counselor.” Is He a counselor to you? It says that He is the Mighty God. Do you believe that? And “the Eternal Father.” Does that mean what it says or not? It does—if you do not have a blind spot. But if you have a blind spot and begin with a preconceived premise, when you get to this point in the verse, you will twist it, turn it, or do something with it to explain it away because you cannot allow it to say what it actually says. “His name shall be called…The Eternal Father.” This means Jesus Christ.

The Twofoldness of Divine Truth

At this point I call the reader’s attention to a little book entitled The Twofoldness of Divine Truth by Robert Govett. He says this:

Two hedges define the road; from two abutments springs the bridge. Does the bird fly with one wing? No—with two. Cut off one and it must forever keep to the surface. Thus does God try His people. Will they trust Him when He affirms that view of truth which runs counter to their temperaments and intellectual bias? or will they trample on one of His sayings in their zeal for the other? The humble, child-like saint will acknowledge and receive both; for his Father, who cannot err, testifies to each alike.

Again he says,

It must not be forgotten or denied that there are continually exhibited within its [the Bible’s] pages truths seemingly opposed to each other. It is the glory of man’s intellect to produce oneness. His aim is to trace different results to one principle, to clear it of ambiguities, to show how, through varied appearances, one law holds. Anything that stands in the way of the completeness of this, he eludes or denies, as something destructive of the glory and of the efficiency of his discovery. But it is not so with God.

This is exactly what the Melodyland speaker does. This is why we say he has a blind spot. He cannot accept the two, which seem like opposing sides, but are in reality two sides of one thing. He simply has to make everything fit. He has to force it into his theological mold. What he cannot make fit he either does not quote, or else wrenches, in order to make it say what his premise already holds. So he either eludes it or denies it.

It is so good to be able to come simply to the Word of God with no premise and derive our premise from within the Word; not to superimpose our premise upon the Word. We love to study the Bible to find out what is in the Bible.

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Summary Comments from 1977

On October 2, 1977, Walter Martin, “The Bible Answer Man,” criticized Witness Lee and the local churches in a lecture at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, California. Because of the public nature of his talk, members of the local churches wrote responses that were published as advertisements in The Santa Ana Register (now The Orange County Register). The current Bible Answer Man and President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI), Hank Hanegraaff, was not a party to that controversy. After a six-year primary research project under Hanegraaff’s oversight, CRI withdrew its earlier criticisms of Witness Lee and the local churches and recognized them as representing authentic New Testament Christianity (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The articles published in response to Martin’s criticisms are included on this site because they address important points of truth; because some of Martin’s criticisms of the local churches still circulate, particularly on the Internet; and because these responses are part of the local churches’ history of attempts to correct misrepresentations of their beliefs and practices.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

The Introduction and Conclusion below were published in The Orange County Register in 1977 along with the following eighteen articles by members representing the local churches.

1. INTRODUCTION

The teaching and person of Witness Lee and the practice of the local churches were attacked and misrepresented at a meeting held Sunday night, October 2, 1977, at Melodyland, Anaheim, California. We in the local churches feel constrained to respond to the groundless and unwarranted accusations made by the speaker. We have no desire or intention to fight against any person or group. The following articles, written by several brothers representing all the local churches in the U. S. A. and Witness Lee, are presented so that the Christian public may judge for itself what is the truth.

2. CONCLUSION

Through the centuries genuine Christians have held many different views of doctrinal matters, especially concerning the Trinity and the church. Even though we may differ with one another and even debate concerning the truth, we must maintain a proper attitude of love and respect toward one another. To attack other believers or mock those who differ from us in our understanding of Scripture certainly does not represent the spirit of Christian love.

Matthew 7:20 says, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” A tree can surely be known by the fruit it bears. The life and ministry of Witness Lee have resulted in the salvation of thousands personally brought to the Lord by him, and the raising up of over 230 churches established directly by his ministry in the past forty years. In addition, another twenty churches are directly under the nourishment of his ministry. Scores of books on practical Christian living, essential truths of the Scripture, and the truths concerning the church and church practice have been published and are readily available. Also, over 300 Life-study Messages by Witness Lee on the books Genesis, Matthew, John, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation, containing the richest exposition, have been released.

Where today can one find a life and ministry so fruitful as this?

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

God in Trinity

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

4. THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE TRINITY

The public statements made at Melodyland on October 2, 1977 regarding what Witness Lee and the local churches believe concerning the Trinity contain at least fifteen errors. Some of these errors are now openly stated and refuted by the local churches:

1. The error of public misrepresentation. The speaker charged that “Witness Lee and the local church are anti the historic view of Trinitarian theology…and have adopted an ancient church heresy known as Monarchianistic Modalism.” This is false and grossly misrepresents our own testimony. We have published several booklets available to the public for almost two years fully exposing and denying as heresy every form of Monarchianistic Modalism. These booklets also contain our belief and experience of the Triune God according to the Bible with positive affirmations concerning the historic statements contained in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed regarding the Trinity. Yet, the speaker refuses to acknowledge our confession and has publicly misrepresented Witness Lee and the local churches.

2. The error with historical data. The speaker presents to the public that there are two types of Modalism or two classic modes of modalistic theology which he says are heretical theology. These two types or two classic modes he identifies as “logical” and “illogical.” The illogical he says “recognize[s] that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit somehow exist at the same time and yet are each other.” This is a false presentation of historical data in order to identify Witness Lee with heresy. The fact is that no form of modalism believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed at the same time; otherwise, they would not have been classified as Monarchianistic Modalism.

3. The error of the wrong interpretation of Witness Lee’s writings. The speaker and his associates claim that it took them hundreds of pages of wading and documentation to come up with the fact that the Holy Spirit is in the process of becoming the church so that the church ends up as God. What was conveyed to the public was that Witness Lee believes in a pantheistic evolution into God. This is a subtle accusation under the guise of having read Witness Lee’s writings. The speaker and his associates have not interpreted Witness Lee in the way these truths were intended. The Christian public has been deceived by the speaker’s false presentation of Witness Lee’s belief in the Triune God and His relationship to the church.

4. The error of changing the Scripture. The speaker advised Witness Lee to take some lessons in Hebrew concerning Isaiah 9:6. The speaker stated that the word for Father means “author, source, and origin” of the everlasting according to the Jews, evading the clear title Father. This is a bold thing for the speaker to do in changing the meaning of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 9:6 for “Father.” This same Hebrew word is used over one thousand times in the Old Testament, and every time it is translated “father.” This Father in Isaiah 9:6 can only be the Father in the Godhead or else you hold two Divine Fathers. To have two Divine Fathers is heresy. The speaker should reflect on what is stated in The Pulpit Commentary by Dr. George Rawlinson on Isaiah 9:6:

The Everlasting Father; rather, Everlasting or Eternal Father. But here, again, there is a singularity in the idea, which makes the omission of the article unimportant; for how could there be more than one Everlasting Father, one Creator, Preserver, Protector of mankind who was absolutely eternal? If the term “Father,” applied to our Lord grates our ears, we must remember that the distinctions of Persons in the Godhead has not yet been revealed.

Regardless of how the speaker may interpret “The everlasting Father,” whether as “the Father of eternity,” “the Father of creation,” “the Father of the age to come,” “the Father of Israel,” or the Father of something else, they cannot twist away the title, “the Father” in Isaiah 9:6. There is only one Divine Father in the whole universe. Hence, “the everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6, regardless of how people twist it, must be the unique Divine Father in the Godhead.

5. The error of omission. The speaker did not say anything about 1 Corinthians 15:45b, which says, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit” (ASV) and 2 Corinthians 3:17, which says, “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” Probably he ignored dealing with this aspect of the truth because he has no way to answer without twisting the Scripture and ending up with two life-giving Spirits. The whole history and weight of exegesis on these two passages indicate (without theological speculation) that Christ is simply the Spirit.

What heresy to have two Divine Fathers and two life-giving Spirits! We must tell people of these heresies, and these heresies must be exposed. We are absolutely scriptural, but those who have two Divine Fathers and two life-giving Spirits as the result of twisting these verses are heretical. Let us wait and see how they can clear themselves from this charge.

5. A PROTEST CONCERNING HISTORICAL MISREPRESENTATION

On behalf of Witness Lee and all the local churches, we go on record before the Christian public to protest against the meeting held at Melodyland on October 2, 1977. The speaker grossly misrepresented the truths of the gospel that we have experienced and proclaimed. Our speaking and writing are our response to these misrepresentations, lest silence be construed as agreement with the Melodyland meeting. The reason the speaker and his research associates make such false charges and distortions concerning what we believe is obviously ignorance on their part of what we believe and mean. This ignorance has led them into the error of misrepresentation. The areas of ignorance and misrepresentation are as follows:

A. Ignorance concerning Biblical Theology

The speaker and his associates have read into our quotations of 2 Corinthians 3:17a, “Now the Lord is the Spirit,” and 1 Corinthians 15:45b, “The last Adam became a life-giving spirit,” and given them a modalistic meaning that we ourselves do not believe. In March of 1977, we had a personal talk with the speaker’s associates in which we related that our use of the above verses did not mean modalism. They refused to accept our clear testimony on this point.

Then we inquired of them if they were aware of the area in biblical theology called “Pneumatic Christology.” The associates of the speaker were totally ignorant that such an area existed in the study of biblical theology. We challenged them to go outside the local church and study the contemporary theological discussions on this subject.

The emphasis of “Pneumatic Christology” is a fresh attempt to come back to the simple and clear statements of the Bible concerning the action of Christ as the Spirit. An example of other biblical theologians speaking to this issue is Dr. Hendrikus Berkhof of the University of Leyden in Holland in his book, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The following is a sample found on page 21:

The Spirit as the action of the exalted Christ: So far our main interest has been focused on the consequences of Christ’s being the bearer of the Spirit, and as such also the sender. Now we have to shift our attention and to lay full emphasis on that second aspect: Christ the sender of the Spirit, the Spirit sent by Christ. How are Christ and the Spirit related here? This difficult question is of the greatest importance. It has found different answers in the course of church history, and these answers have created different types of Christian life, institutional as well as individual.

Then continuing on pages 24 and 25 he says:

In the field of biblical theology, several studies have been published in the last years which throw a new light on the relation between the Spirit and Christ, primarily in the letters of Paul. From these studies and from an open-minded examination of the New Testament, we must draw the conclusion that we have to think of the Spirit in strictly christocentric terms. This means that we have to start where the first group starts and to say that the Spirit is always and everywhere the Spirit of Jesus Christ. When we go a step beyond the traditional position, it is not to weaken it but to strengthen it. That the Spirit is bound to Christ is far more true than is meant and expressed in classical pneumatology. In John 14:18, Jesus, aiming at the sending of the Spirit, says: “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.” We find a parallel saying in the last words of Matthew: “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (28:20). This identification of the Spirit with Christ is found in all the New Testament traditions. We think of 1 John 3:24 which says that we know Christ abides in us “by the Spirit which he has given us.” In the letters to the seven churches, it is the risen Christ who speaks, but who at the same time says: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Rev. 2:7, etc.). We think, however, mainly of Paul’s words: “Now the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:17a). Some think that we have to reverse subject and predicate, and to translate: “Now the Spirit is Lord,” the Spirit wields lordship; but the word “Lord” in verses 17 and 18 always means Christ. He himself is the Spirit; as the close of verse 18 repeats: “this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” Other features of this conception in Paul are found in 1 Corinthians 6:17: “he who is united to the Lord becomes one Spirit with him,” and in Romans 8:9-11, where the divine principle which dwells in the faithful alternately is called the Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, and Christ. It is also clear that the Pauline expressions en Christoi and en pneumati are synonymous.

Dr. Berkhof’s book is sold at Melodyland Bookstore. In fact, we would encourage the speaker, his associates, the faculty and students of Melodyland School of Theology, and the Christian public to make an objective and honest study of the history of the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6:17, 1 Corinthians 15:45, 2 Corinthians 3:17, Romans 8:9-11, and Acts 16:6-7 from the great expositors of the Bible in the past centuries to see whether on the level of experience others have not said the very things for which we have been charged as heretical.

B. Misrepresentation concerning the History of Modalism

The speaker at Melodyland on October 2, 1977, said:

Witness Lee has perverted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and has adopted an ancient church heresy known as Monarchianistic Modalism. That’s a fifty-cent word, but translated it boils down to this. There are two types of modalism, the logical person who realizes that God cannot be both Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time and then they say God was first the Father, became the Son, and then became the Holy Spirit. The illogical ones recognize that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are spoken of at the same time and therefore try to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit somehow exist at the same time and yet are each other. That’s the two classic modes of modalistic theology…

With the above statement the speaker then charged Witness Lee with both of the classic heresies. The first classic mode is surely that type of modalism represented by Sabellius. The second classic mode of modalism which the speaker calls “illogical” is in fact not the second classic mode of modalism. All students of Christian doctrine know that the other classic mode of modalism is called dynamic modalism represented in the unitarian, Paul of Samosata, who denied the preexistence of Christ and reduced the Son and the Spirit to “virtues” or “powers” rather than “Persons” in the Godhead.

The speaker, however, misrepresented a man named Callistus as one who represented one of the classic modes of modalism, and utilized him to charge Witness Lee with a so-called classic heresy.

The section that the speaker twisted for his own use is found in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Volume II, page 579. The following is what was referred to over the radio, October 8, 1977, by the speaker and his associates:

Callistus differed from the ditheistic separation of the Logos from God, but also from the Sabellian confusion of the Father and the Son, and insisted on the mutual indwelling (perichoresis) of the divine Persons; in other words, he sought the way from modalistic unitarianism to the Nicene trinitarianism; but he was not explicit and consistent in his statements. He excommunicated both Sabellius and Hippolytus; the Roman church sided with him, and made his name one of the most prominent among the ancient popes.

Firstly, according to Philip Schaff, Callistus is surely not represented here as one of the “classic modes of modalistic theology,” but on the contrary “sought the way from modalistic unitarianism to the Nicene Trinitarianism.” In fact, J. F. Bethune-Baker’s book The Early History of Christian Doctrine, pages 103-104, indicates that, with Callistus’ statements related to the distinction of the Father and the Son, the essential principle of modalism is lost. Therefore, this is a direct misrepresentation of historical facts in the name of scholarship and research in order to label Witness Lee and the local churches with heresy.

Secondly, the speaker indicated that Callistus represented the illogical ones who recognize that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit somehow exist at the same time and yet are each other. This is an outright falsehood in relation to what Callistus actually believed according to Schaff. Callistus “insisted on the mutual indwelling (perichoresis) of the divine Persons.” The speaker represented Callistus as believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are each other, but Callistus actually believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are indwelling each other. The omission of the word “indwelling” by the speaker was a subtle falsehood. To say “are each other” is modalism. To say the divine Persons mutually indwell each other is the proper biblical understanding of the relationship between the Persons in the Godhead.

Therefore, the speaker’s so-called classic mode of illogical modalism is exposed as a fabrication of his own mind and not a fact in the history of doctrine. This is irresponsible misrepresentation in the name of research and scholarship in order to falsely charge Witness Lee and the local churches.

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

The Mingling of God and Man

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the “Bible Answer Man” (Vol. 1)

6. THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE MINGLING

Since the speaker at Melodyland is confused concerning the proper understanding of the mingling as taught by Witness Lee and the local churches, we take this opportunity to relate the scriptural and historical points concerning mingling.

Mingling Seen in the Type of the Offerings of the Old Testament

Firstly, the truths in the New Testament, being spiritual and abstract, are often pictured by the types in the Old Testament. Concerning the testimony of the Old Testament, the type that portrays Christ mingled in His humanity and divinity is the meal or meat offering in Leviticus 2:1-16. Specifically, the one verse that uniquely brings together the humanity and divinity of Christ is Leviticus 2:4: “And when thou offerest an oblation of a meal-offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil” (ASV). Here two substances, fine flour and oil, which in type depict the humanity and divinity of Christ, are united in the most wondrous relationship. The word selected by the Holy Spirit to denote the mode of that relationship is mingled.

Mingling Communicated Clearly in Verses of the New Testament

Secondly, the testimony of the New Testament concerning the mystery of the mingling of man with God is expressed in 1 Timothy 3:16 which declares that God manifest in the flesh is a great mystery. The New Testament, however, does not attempt to explain how the divinity and humanity of Christ are interrelated. Although no word is supplied in the pages of the New Testament to describe this mysterious inner relationship, the facts of the mystery are clearly presented: Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Person. The Old Testament type of the “fine flour mingled with oil” portrays the facts of the New Testament revelation, and both type and facts must be held as a great mystery.

Also, in 1 Corinthians 6:17 the fact of a believer’s spirit being mingled with the Holy Spirit is clearly stated: “He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” How could man’s spirit be one spirit with the Holy Spirit without being mingled? Let the speaker answer and describe the nature of this oneness of spirit with the Lord.

“Mingled” Being the Proper Term to Describe this Wondrous Mystery

The relationship between the humanity and divinity of Christ is a divine mystery which cannot be fully explained or understood by man. To utter this mystery the Word of God in Leviticus 2:4 uses the term “mingled.” Early in church history this term was used in a proper sense by the church fathers, but in the fifth century it became associated with heresy and its proper meaning was damaged. In the ensuing church councils and creeds, non-scriptural and substitute terms were introduced. Consequently, the scriptural term received a wrong connotation and was lost to the common language of the church.

However, despite the historical and traditional problem concerning the term mingle as it describes the relationship of the humanity and divinity of Christ, the Word of God and the actual testimonies of several of the church fathers, reformers, and evangelical writers confirm the use of the term mingled as the unique scriptural term to convey and utter this mystery.

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Concerning the Church

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

7. THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE CHURCH

Why do we call ourselves “the church in Anaheim,” “the church in Huntington Beach,” or “the church in Los Angeles”? We have been fully misunderstood concerning this matter and even charged by the speaker at Melodyland with “enormous egotism.” This is mainly due to ignorance concerning God’s revelation of the church.

In the heart of God in eternity past was an “eternal purpose,” and the means by which this purpose would be fulfilled is called “the church” (Eph. 3:10-11). Therefore, this name “the church” came out of the heart of God. Then the Lord Jesus gave this same title to this same marvelous entity when He spoke in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church.” In Revelation 2 and 3, the Holy Spirit is revealed again and again as speaking to “the churches.” Furthermore, throughout the narrative of Acts and the writings of the apostles, the same unique title “the church” or “the churches” is used repeatedly. No definitive adjectives are used before this title, denoting which church. There is only one church, “the church.”

Although this simple title—planned by God, spoken by the Lord, addressed by the Spirit, and referred to by the apostles—has been persistently misused and abused, we still would return to the Bible to call ourselves what the Triune God and the apostles have called us, “the church.” What church? The church. This does not mean that we are the church and others are not the members of the church. Every blood-washed, regenerated child of God is part of it. They were born into it. But many are not meeting as the church, but in a divided and confused situation. To prefix “the church” with adjectives, such as Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc., and to meet as such is to divide the church and separate members one from another. To call it a “fellowship” or a “center” is to miss the mark. God wants His people today to forsake every divisive name and standing and to meet together with other Christians simply as the church in their locality. This is what the Bible shows us.

Let us consider God’s Word. In the beginning of the New Testament, in Matthew, and at the end of the New Testament, in Revelation, the Lord Jesus Himself speaks of the church. However, in Matthew it is singular (“my church”), and in Revelation it is plural (“the seven churches”). In Matthew, He is speaking of the one universal church, whereas in Revelation He is speaking of the local churches. The one universal church must have an expression, and it is expressed practically in many localities as the local churches. “Local churches” is not their title, but merely a description of their nature.

Now notice the passage in Revelation 1:11. The Lord said, “What you see write in a book and send it to the seven churches.” Then He immediately proceeded to mention seven cities: “To Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” The Lord, as always, spoke very precisely and meaningfully. He said seven churches, and then mentioned seven cities, indicating that the city is equivalent to the church, or, in other words, the city is the boundary, the jurisdiction, of a local church. Nothing could be more clear.

This principle is repeated by the apostles in many instances in the Epistles and the Acts, and it is never violated. The Scripture says, “The church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), never, “The churches which were at Jerusalem.” It says, “The church that was at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), never, “The churches that were at Antioch.” If there was one city, there was only one church. When the Scripture refers to a district, with many cities, it consistently refers to the churches (plural) in that district: e. g. , “the churches in Judea” (Gal. 1:22), the churches of Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41), “the churches of Asia” (1 Cor. 16:19), and so forth. In one district there may be many churches, but in one city there can only be one church.

The saved ones are the called-out ones, but since they are still living among men, the Lord gathers them in the place where they are living. If you are living in Dallas, you must simply meet together with the other saved ones as the church in Dallas. If you are living in Seattle, you must simply meet with the other Christians as the church in Seattle. How simple and pure this arrangement is! There is no room for human opinion or human choice. The church that is built in Dallas is just the one church; the church that is built in any place is the same church, for the church is one in the whole universe. There is no difference in nature, but only in geography. If all God’s people could see this, there would be no divisions. Only geography is unavoidable. All other distinctions separating Christians are absolutely unnecessary and violate the unity of the church. Herein we find the wisdom of God. In one locality after another, in order to keep the unity of the church, God establishes only one church.

As further proof, consider Acts 14:23: “And having chosen them elders in each church…” Now compare this with Titus 1:5: “And establish elders in each city.” In Acts Paul says “elders in each church,” and in Titus he says “elders in each city.” These verses prove that the elders of a city are the elders of a church. They also prove that the boundary of the church is just the boundary of the city. If the church is smaller than the city or greater than the city, it is not a proper local church as delineated by the Scriptures.

Our standard must be the Word of God. We must be true to the light God has given, or our conscience will give us no rest. The proper standing for all genuine Christians as the one church in each locality is clearly set forth in God’s Word. There is no need to search for it, we only need to return to it. That is what we have done, and we are being condemned for it. But we strongly reject all charges of being divisive. We are simply standing on the ground where all Christians are one. This is not Witness Lee’s church. It does not belong to him, and he has never attempted to take it over. To make this charge manifests an utter ignorance of the facts.

The confusion found in Christianity today is mainly due to this matter. Christians are meeting together, perhaps ignorantly and unconsciously, on the wrong standing, a divisive standing, according to their own taste and choice. The sects and denominations of today could no longer exist if all would come together to express the one church in each city according to the Scriptures. Therefore, anyone who insists on keeping the denominations is divisive. In the light of this truth, the local churches are not dividing the Body of Christ, as we have been charged. The responsibility of division lies upon the denominations, fellowships, centers, and other groups who do not care for the practical unity of the Body in their locality. If a woman is married to Mr. Jones and yet insists on calling herself Mrs. Smith, it proves there is a serious problem. Such a practice would be extremely objectionable and even intolerable to Mr. Jones. The wife, if she would be proper, must return to her standing as Mrs. Jones and commence calling herself Mrs. Jones. The application to today’s situation is clear.

May the Lord lead many more of His children into the practical expression of the unity of His church.

8. THE TRUTH CONCERNING GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH

Ephesians 1:22-23 says that God “gave Him [Christ] to be the Head over all things to the church, which is His body. …” Hence, there is a marvelous Person in this universe: Christ is the Head, and the church is the Body. Paul in his Epistles, especially in Ephesians and Colossians, speaks much of this divinely human Person in the figure of a complete man, the Head with the Body. Just as in a normal human being, the body shares the same life and nature with the head; so in the relationship of the church with Christ, the church partakes of the very divine life and nature of Christ. Otherwise, she could not be His Body. Verses such as Ephesians 4:15-16 and Colossians 2:19 further substantiate the fact by showing how all the Body is built up by the life supply flowing from the Head.

To the speaker who has recently said that “we cannot participate in God,” we answer, “In His Godhead, no; but in His life and nature, most assuredly and blessedly.” To the Scripture already presented, we add 2 Peter 1:4, which says in plain words, “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…” What could be more clear?

In addition, the Scriptures tell us more. Christ is not only the Head, but also the Body. Very few Christians have seen this revelation in Scripture. Yet it is not obscure. I need not interpret, but only read 1 Corinthians 12:12, “For as the body is one, and hath many members and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.” Paul is speaking of the body with its many members, and says that although the members are many, they are one body. Then he makes a startling statement: “So also is Christ.” We would have said, “So also is the church.” But the inspired writer said that this one Body with its many members is none other than Christ. To God’s Word we say, “Amen.” But in the figure of our physical body, is it not so? Is my body not me, just as my head is me? When anyone touches my body, he touches me. When anyone hurts my body, he hurts me. The way my body is treated is the way I am treated, for my body is no less me than my head. The head certainly holds a distinct and unique place in the body, yet it is so absolutely identified with the body that the body together with the head bears the same name. So it is with Christ and the church. This is the inspired word in 1 Corinthians 12:12.

Therefore, it is perfectly scriptural to assert that Christ is no longer merely the individual Christ, although He holds alone His lofty and distinct position as Head of the Body, but is now the corporate Christ as the Body with all its members. Through His death and resurrection, He gained the church, His Body, as His fullness, His corporate expression. Where the church is practically expressed, there He is in practical, corporate expression. The speaker at Melodyland said, “There is no corporate Christ.” But the author of these words is ignorant of the revelation in Paul’s Epistles.

The Lord’s word in John 12:24 reveals more concerning this matter: “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” The metaphor is clear. A grain of wheat, by being sown into the earth, germinates and rises in resurrection, producing many more grains of identical life and nature. The one grain has been multiplied from one to thousands of grains like itself, both inwardly and outwardly. The speaker said that, “Jesus Christ has not expanded into thousands and thousands of persons at all.” Again, the author of these words does not know the Scriptures, for the Lord Jesus likened Himself to a grain, that through death and resurrection would be multiplied, expanded, many times. Paul in Romans goes on to tell us that we will all “be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). We will be fully like Him; He will have many brothers just like Himself. This is the marvelous grace of God’s salvation.

The obvious conclusion, then, is that since Christ is embodied and expressed in so many members as His Body, and since Christ is God, then the church is none other than God manifest in the flesh. This, the speaker said, is “the last great heresy of Mr. Lee.” But, again, the author of these words is destitute of sight.

Consider 1 Timothy 3:15-16, which speaks in plain words concerning God manifest in the flesh. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Verse 16, we acknowledge, refers to Christ, for He undoubtedly is God manifest in the flesh. Christ also was the One who was justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory. But we say also that this verse refers to the church as well. Allow us to prove it. The context of the whole passage is the church. Verse 15, the preceding verse, is speaking of the house of God, the church. The context of the whole chapter is the qualifications of the overseers and deacons in the church. Then this chapter on the church with its offices is concluded with verse 16: “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.”

Moreover, the order of the items following “God was manifest in the flesh” further substantiates our affirmation. If this verse were speaking only of Christ, the last item, “received up into glory,” should precede “preached unto the Gentiles,” for Christ was received up before He was preached. Since it comes last, it coincides with the history of the church, for the church at the last, just like her Lord at the first, will be received up into glory. Hence, both Christ and the church, or we should say, Christ with the church, is God manifest in the flesh.

The apostle Paul said, “Now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:20-21). Surely this means that God as Christ was manifest in his flesh. It does not mean that Paul became deity, as we have been charged with promulgating concerning ourselves. He did not mean that, and neither do we. When we speak of the church being God manifest in the flesh, we mean, as Paul, that God as Christ is manifested and magnified through us.

Finally, consider the case of the meeting described in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25. “But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned,…the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed” (ASV). This is none other than God manifest in the flesh. We often have the experience of this kind of meeting with this kind of issue in the local churches.

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

The Deviations of Christianity

The material on this page was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and the original “Bible Answer Man.” CRI has since withdrawn those criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this article is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

From: Answers to the Bible Answer Man (Vol. 1)

9. THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE HISTORIC CHRISTIAN CHURCH

In a message on Witness Lee and the local church, given recently at Melodyland, the speaker made several references to “Historic Christianity.” He said concerning the members of the local churches, “Our responsibility as Christians is to reprove them, rebuke them, and exhort them that they may turn…back again to Historic Christianity, because they are not in it now.” I fully agree that the local churches are not in what he calls “Historic Christianity.” In this brief essay I will try explain why.

The speaker did not give us his definition of “Historic Christianity.” Since he relied so heavily for his material upon The Mindbenders by Jack Sparks and recommended it so highly, I assume he agrees with its basic premise. “The Historic Christian Church,” says Sparks, is the “Church [of] the past”; the Church of “those who have gone before”; the Church of “the creeds, confessions, and writings of the saints”; and the Church which uses the creeds and councils as “ancient landmarks” to interpret the Bible and “the faith.” This kind of mentality can say, “Today, all orthodox Christendom holds to the Nicene Creed. Anyone who does not, embraces heterodoxy.” The truth concerning “the Historic Christian Church” is that she is essentially a conglomeration of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and takes as the standard of faith and practice the creeds and councils of the first five centuries. This “church,” if such she can be called, is a church which relies fully on the past. Instead of relying solely upon the Bible as the only “yardstick for truth,” she mingles the Bible with the ancient creeds, and if a choice is necessary between the two, takes her stand with the creeds, not the Word

The same council which composed the Nicene Creed also decreed in Canon III that the clergy should not marry. This was in fulfillment of 1 Timothy 4:1-3: “In latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and teachings of demons…forbidding to marry” (Gk. ). How, then, could such a council be considered reliable in interpreting the Word of God? When Martin Luther was required to appear before the Diet of Worms, he was told he had “no right to call into question the most holy orthodox faith…confirmed by the sacred councils, [and] defined by the Church.” To this he replied:

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

If Luther had been limited by “the Historic Christian Church,” there would have been no Reformation; the truth and experience of justification by faith would not have been recovered; the Bible would not have been liberated from its Latin prison; and we would all still be in the Dark Ages.

The creeds and councils do not equal the Bible. For example, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds say practically nothing about the Holy Spirit. It is clear that when the Council of Nicea met in A. D. 325, the truth regarding the seven Spirits in Revelation was still not recognized. But today we are in the age of Revelation, and while in substance and existence the Spirit is one, for God’s move upon the earth in this period of division and degradation, the Spirit is intensified sevenfold (Rev. 1:4). Surely, this is the up-to-date revelation concerning the Spirit. Are we then to be limited to the dim light men had when the Nicene Creed was written?

Today, on many matters, the light is shining brightly. In A. D. 325 the Nicene Creed was like a small pair of shoes tailored to fit the small feet of the church in that day. But the church’s feet have grown. We can no longer get our large feet into those small shoes. Even in the sixteenth century, Luther’s spiritual feet had far outgrown those small shoes of the councils and the creeds. If he could not wear the shoes of “Historic Christianity” four hundred years ago, how much more have we outgrown them today! Only the revelation of the entire Bible can afford a pair of shoes adequate to fit the church in the Lord’s recovery.

Again quoting from the book which the Melodyland speaker so highly recommends, the author says:

The [historic] Church has failed…miserably; it has moved an embarrassingly great distance away from its original foundations; [and its condition is referred to as] this apostasy. In the Protestant Reformation, [he says] justification by faith in Christ and a renewed emphasis on Holy Scripture were gained. [But] we have never fully regained worship. Authority in the Church has not been reclaimed. And whatever happened to our oneness as a body?

Surely, any church which has failed miserably, has moved from its original foundations, is in apostasy, is short of adequate worship and authority, and has lost the oneness of the Body, is in a divided, degraded condition. What is needed is a recovery of the “original foundations,” a recovery from “this apostasy,” a recovery of the reality of worship, a recovery of “authority in the Church,” and a recovery of the oneness of the Body in its expression. When the speaker says we in the local churches are not in “Historic Christianity,” we agree with him. Historic Christianity is in exactly the poor condition Jack Sparks says it is, and we have no desire to either be in it or return to it.

I myself am not without some experience in “Historic Christianity.” I was ordained to the priesthood of the Episcopal Church and am presently listed in her clerical directory as a priest in good standing. I have lived and breathed the atmosphere of the Book of Common Prayer. The tradition of the “church” and the ecumenical creeds are quite familiar to me. But what I finally came to realize was that what is called the church of history, from the first century until now, has always been composed of two widely different classes of people: those who are merely nominal, traditional, and formal and those who are real, vital, and living. There have been in every age those who represented a real, vital, and living reaction to the nominal, traditional, and formal kind of Christianity. In the sixteenth century Luther and others were the living alternative to dead, traditional Christianity. There is also an alternative today.

10. THE TRUTH CONCERNING BABYLON

It was recently alleged by a speaker at Melodyland that the local churches have called Melodyland, “Babylon.” I do not know where this can be found in print or when it was ever said. It may be that some irresponsible person said it, just as irresponsible people from Melodyland have called us a cult. Wherever the elements of Babylon are present, there is Babylon. If the elements of Babylon are present in Melodyland, Babylon is there. If the elements of Babylon are present in the local churches, Babylon is also there.

In the Bible, the word Babylon is equal to the word Babel. Babel is first mentioned in Genesis 11 where the tower of Babel issued in division and confusion. Many Christians today are in division and confusion. That is, they are in Babylon and do not even realize it. If you are in the division and confusion of today’s present situation, you are in Babylon. Speaking of Babylon, Revelation 18:4 says, “Come out of her, My people.”

There are those who wonder why the local churches call the present Christian situation, Babylon. It is because the present Christian situation is filled with division issuing in confusion. In the New Testament the church was one. Today, however, the church has been divided into many different segments. These divisions have caused confusion. Whether they realize it or not, those who are in the divided situation are in Babylon.

11. THE TRUTH CONCERNING DENOMINATIONS

First, we must ask, “What is a denomination?” A denomination begins as a division brought about by Christians exercising personal preferences. The preferences include certain leaders, doctrines, practices, association with a certain race, etc. Eventually those with like preference form a group and denominate themselves by taking a name. Thus, you have the Lutheran Church, the Baptist Church, the African Methodist Church, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, ad infinitum. All such denominations are unscriptural divisions of the Body of Christ. We will now prove this from the pure Word of God.

From the book of Acts through Revelation, it is a simple, obvious truth of biblical history that all the Christians in one city formed only one church. In Ephesus, in A. D. 60, it was absolutely unnecessary to consider which kind of church to join. All the saints there were one as the church in Ephesus (Eph. 1:1; Rev. 1:11). A first-century Christian, visiting the churches, would have encountered no division among Christians in a city until he came to Corinth.

Twenty years ago as a Baptist pastor, I questioned within myself, “Specifically what ‘body’ is it that Paul said should not be divided in 1 Corinthians 12:25?” The context of the chapter and the whole book makes it clear. It was the body of all the Christians in Corinth who daily functioned together as the one church in that city. Several facts prove this point. (1) The book was written to “the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). This clearly includes all the believers in the city. (2) Paul had received a report of quarrels and divisions resulting from the saints’ preferences for various leaders (1 Cor. 1:11-12). (3) Paul rebuked the divisive ones on at least three major points. First, to divide the Body is to divide Christ (1 Cor. 1:13). Second, to be divisive is fleshly (1 Cor. 3:3-4). Third, by not discerning that the Body is one, they were suffering great loss at the Lord’s table (1 Cor. 11:18, 29-31).

In Galatians 5:19-21, Paul also condemns division as a work of the flesh, categorizing it with immorality and idolatry. The last two words of verse 20 should be translated “divisions, sects.” Since denominations, groups, centers, etc. , divide the Body of Christ, they are works of the flesh. This is the inevitable conclusion from the Word of God.

Deep within him, every denominational Christian’s conscience testifies that he is, in fact, divided from other Christians by the organization to which he belongs. All agree there will be no denominations in the New Jerusalem. Even the unsaved recognize that the denominations are divisions. I have often been challenged by the statement, “If you are all Christians, why are there so many different ‘churches’ with some opposing each other?” In John 17:21, Jesus prayed, “That they all may be one…that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” This demands a visible unity of all Christians in a locality. Otherwise, the world sees not oneness, but division.

We in the local churches repudiate all division. After fourteen years’ experience in the local churches, I can testify strongly that we are not a division and we have no division among us. Neither are we dividing the Body of Christ as our opposers falsely accuse. Rather, we are open to all born-again believers.

We call upon all Christians to drop their sectarian preferences which bring about the formation of denominated groups and divide the Body of Christ. Drop your preference of denominational names, certain leaders, doctrines, practices, etc. All the saints in one city would then be one church without any element of division. One group of saints with the one Christ would form one unique church in a city.

“How good and how pleasant it is
for brethren to dwell together in unity!”
(Psa. 133:1)

Copyright © 1994 Living Stream, Anaheim, CA, USA. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

What a Heresy—Two Divine Fathers, Two Life-Giving Spirits, and Three Gods!

Witness Lee

When it comes to the matter of the Triune God, many Christians only care for their tradition, not for the clear, accurate word of the Bible. In order to preserve their tradition, they twist the words of Scripture and will not return absolutely to the pure word of the Bible. Because of this tradition, a fight is going on. Although we do not like to fight, we cannot avoid it. Therefore, we must point out that many Christians hold a concept, which is certainly heretical, of two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits, and some, even of three Gods. It may be that they are not aware of this or that they hold it unconsciously and, thus, they may deny that they hold it. However, the concept held by them actually is heretical because it implies two divine Fathers, two life-giving Spirits, and, in some cases, three Gods.

THE BASIC REVELATION OF BIBLE

According to the basic revelation of the Bible, God’s economy is to work Christ into His believers that they may become a living church to express God on earth. But in Christian history and in today’s situation, we do not see this. What we see is merely a Christian religion with the Triune God as their object of worship plus a Savior who saves sinners from hell to heaven. In today’s Christianity we see neither the enjoyment of the all-inclusive Christ nor the practice of the proper church life. For this reason, during the past fifty years the Lord has come to show us His recovery of the experience of Christ and of the proper church life. Throughout the years that we have been burdened by the Lord with His recovery, we have been attacked by religion. We have been attacked because we have received a clear vision from the Lord regarding who Christ is. The Lord has shown us that Christ is the all-inclusive, wonderful One. He is all in all. He is God, the Creator, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and also the proper man. He is the reality of all divine attributes and of all human virtues. The hinge of all the aspects of this all-inclusive Christ is the living Spirit. We have no choice except to tell our fellow Christians that our Savior, Jesus Christ, is the living Spirit. Undoubtedly, He is the Lamb of God and the Redeemer, but these are simply two aspects of this all-inclusive One. Christ, the all-inclusive One, is everything. The Bible even describes Him with the term “all in all” (Col. 3:11). Christ is the reality of every positive thing. He is light, life, righteousness, holiness, redemption, salvation, and everything. In our experience, He is the life-giving Spirit indwelling our human spirit. Because we proclaim this, we are accused of being heretical. Our critics say that we teach heresy in telling people that Christ, the Son, is the Father as well as the Spirit. Today, many Christians do not believe that Christ is not only the Son, but also the Father and the Spirit.

A FALSE ACCUSATION REPUDIATED

Some of our critics say, “When Witness Lee teaches that Christ is the Father and the Spirit, he is teaching modalism and denying the co-inherence and co-existence of the three Persons of the Godhead.” I deny this accusation. If the critics were to ask me whether I believe in Matthew 3:16 and 17, where the Son is standing, the Spirit is descending, and the Father is speaking, I would answer that I believe it at least as much as they do. All three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit were present at the same time. I fully believe in the co-inherence and co-existence of the Three of the Godhead. I not only believe Matthew 3:16 and 17, but all the verses that pertain to this subject. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 5 say, “Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ.…” In these verses, the Father is the One “which is, and which was, and which is to come”; the Spirit is the “seven Spirits”; and the Son is Jesus Christ, “the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” Here, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son are not only present after Christ’s resurrection, but even after His ascension and after Pentecost. Many other verses reveal the same thing. Second Corinthians 13:14 says, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (Gk.). Here we see the grace of Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Spirit. Furthermore, Ephesians 3:14-17 says, “I bow my knees unto the Father…that he would grant you…to be strengthened with might by his Spirit…that Christ may make his home in your hearts…” (Gk.). Once again, the Father, the Spirit, and Christ are all present at the same time. The charge that I am a modalist is false, and I absolutely repudiate it. Modalism teaches that God is not at the same time Father and Son and that the revelation of the Son ended with the ascension. The permanence of the Father, Son, and Spirit was denied by modalism. Modalism is a heresy, and we do not believe in it.

THE SON’S BEING CALLED THE FATHER

Some of the critics, however, may reply, “Don’t you say that the Son is the Father and that Christ is the Spirit? This is exactly what the modalists say.” To this I would answer that I do not care for modalism, but only for the pure word of the Bible. Isaiah 9:6 says that a child is born unto us, that a son is given unto us, that the child is called the mighty God, and that this son is called the everlasting Father. To say that the Son is the Father is not an interpretation; it is a quotation. If you read this verse carefully, you will see from the context that the mighty God refers to the child and that the everlasting Father refers to the Son. Throughout the centuries, all fundamental students of the Bible have agreed that the child born in the manger was the mighty God. Only Jews and unbelievers would deny this. However, the vast majority of Christians only believe half of this verse. They either neglect or twist the other half regarding the Son’s being called the everlasting Father. Let us now consider this verse in some detail along with the different ways of twisting it.

Isaiah 9:6 says, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” In this verse there are two lines with two points. The first line is, “Unto us a child is born,” and the second line is, “Unto us a son is given.” In the middle of the verse it says that He is the One who carries out God’s administration, for “the government shall be upon his shoulder.” This indicates that the child born unto us and the Son given unto us carries out God’s administration. In the latter part of this verse we see the name of the child and the name of the Son. “His name” refers to the name of the child and of the Son. His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Prince of Peace. Between these names, we have the mighty God and the everlasting Father. Undoubtedly, “the mighty God” is the name of the child and “the everlasting Father” is the name of the Son. Therefore, according to the two lines of this verse, the child born to us is called the mighty God and the Son given to us is called the everlasting Father. All Christians agree that the child born to us is the child named Jesus born in the manger at Bethlehem. Furthermore, we all agree that this child was truly the mighty God. Every bona fide, fundamental Christian recognizes this. Whoever does not recognize this is not a genuine Christian. However, a number of fundamental Christians have a problem with the second line. They simply do not believe that the Son is the Father.

Because we believe that Isaiah 9:6 means what it says, we are accused of being modalistic. Those who accuse us of this fall into the danger of being tritheistic. The divine Trinity has the side of the one and the side of the three. Modalism stresses the side of the one, misunderstanding and misappropriating the side of the three, and tritheism stresses the side of the three, denying the side of the one. But the pure revelation in the Bible contains both sides of the truth. All fundamentalists believe that the child born to us is the mighty God, but some neglect, or even oppose, the second point–that the Son given to us is the everlasting Father. They have a big problem here. Because they have a problem, they twist this verse.

VARIOUS TWISTINGS OF ISAIAH 9:6

The first twisting is exemplified by a brother who said, “The Son is called the Father, but He is not the Father.” I said, “Brother, isn’t it ridiculous to say this? Can we say that Mr. Smith is called Mr. Smith, but that he is not really Mr. Smith? Can we say that the Bible is called the Bible, but that it is not the Bible? The same is true with the matter of the Son’s being called the everlasting Father. How can we say that He is called the everlasting Father but is not the everlasting Father? What kind of logic is this?”

A second twisting claims that because, according to the Hebrew, “the everlasting Father” should be rendered “the Father of eternity,” the Son cannot be the Father. I agree that “the Father of eternity” is a better translation than “the everlasting Father.” But who is this Father of eternity? Is He not the Father among the Three of the Godhead? Apart from the Father in the Godhead is there another divine Father who is called “the Father of eternity”? Certainly not! Nevertheless, some twist Isaiah 9:6 to say that the Father of eternity is not the Father in the Godhead. They say that He is another Father, the Father of eternity, which, according to them, means the origin, the source, of the ages. This twisting implies that they believe in two divine Fathers–the Father in the Godhead and the Father of eternity. This is really heretical. According to the Bible, the Father of eternity is the Father in the Godhead. I appeal to you to be honest, fair, and sincere. Do you believe that besides the Father in the Godhead there is another Father who is the Father of eternity?

A third twisting claims that, according to the Hebrew, the everlasting Father is the Father of creation. To this, I would ask, “Who is this Father of creation?” If they answer that He is Jesus, I would reply, “Do you believe that besides the Father in the Godhead, Jesus is another Father, the Father of creation?” They would have to admit that they believe this. If they do, then they have two divine Fathers. While they condemn us for being heretical, they themselves are exposed as being heretical.

According to the fourth way of twisting, the “Father” in this verse is the Father of Israel. The ones who twist the verse in this way use Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 as their basis. They say that the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is the Father of Israel. But I would ask, “Who is this Father, the Father of Israel?” Surely, it must be the Father in the Godhead. If anyone says that this Father, the Father of Israel, is not the Father in the Godhead, he implies that there are two divine Fathers. This is certainly heretical.

A fifth twisting is based upon a note in an edition of the Septuagint. (The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.) This note renders “the Father of the age to come” for “the everlasting Father.” Some say that, based on this, the everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 is not the Father in the Godhead, but the Father of the coming age. They claim that He is the Father who brings in the new age, just as Edison was the father who brought in the age of electrical science. But the Hebrew word for “everlasting” in this verse means eternity, eternal, everlasting, evermore, perpetually, old, world without end (see Strong’s Concordance). However they twist this verse, they cannot twist away the title, “the Father.”

Actually, what is revealed in Isaiah 9:6 is very personal and subjective to us. It does not say, “A child is born, a son is given.” It says, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” The phrase “unto us,” especially by its repetition, indicates a strong emphasis, showing that whatever is revealed in this verse is “unto us” in a very personal, subjective, and experiential way. Not only is the “child,” the “son,” for our personal experience, but also all that His five names unfold is for our personal experience. Christ as the wonderful One, the Counselor, the mighty God, and the Prince of Peace is all for our personal experience. In this context, “the everlasting Father” must also be for our personal experience. He is our wonderful One, our Counselor, our mighty God, our Prince of Peace, and also our everlasting Father. Since the wonderful One, the Counselor, the mighty God, and the Prince of Peace are ours, the everlasting Father must also be ours. To interpret “the everlasting Father,” or “the Father of eternity,” as the “Father of the coming age” does not fit the context, but rather makes it objective and impersonal, thus rendering this aspect of the Lord meaningless as far as the context of the entire verse is concerned.

Furthermore, Isaiah 63:16 says, “Thou, O Lord, art our Father; our Redeemer from eternity is thy name” (Heb.). And Isaiah 64:8 says, “O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we are the work of thy hand.” The prophet Isaiah used these two verses as a further development of what he prophesied concerning Christ as the Father of eternity in Isaiah 9:6. In 64:8 Isaiah tells us that the Father of eternity in 9:6 is our Creator, and in 63:16 he tells us that the Father of eternity is our Redeemer. In the whole Bible, Christ is revealed as our Creator and especially as our Redeemer (John 1:3; Heb. 1:10; Rom. 3:24; Titus 2:14). The Father of eternity being both our Creator and our Redeemer not only confirms but also strengthens the understanding that the Redeemer, Christ, is the Father of eternity, the holy Father in the Godhead. Hence, to say that the everlasting Father, or the Father of eternity, in Isaiah 9:6 is some kind of Father, other than the Father in the Godhead, is not according to the context of the whole book of Isaiah.

THE HERESY OF TWO DIVINE FATHERS

When our critics twist the verse in these ways, we would ask them this question: Do you mean to say that besides the Father of the Three of the Godhead there is another divine Father? If anyone would answer this question with a yes, we must tell him clearly that there are not two divine Fathers in this universe and to say that there are is a great heresy. Any Christian who holds the concept of two divine Fathers must abandon it immediately. However the critics interpret this verse, they must recognize that the Son is called the Father and that in the whole universe there is only one divine Father and that this Father is of eternity, without beginning or ending, not the Father of any one age with a beginning and an ending. Regardless of how they interpret “the everlasting Father,” whether as “the Father of eternity,” “the Father of creation,” “the Father of the age to come,” “the Father of Israel,” or the Father of something else, they cannot twist away the title, “the Father” in Isaiah 9:6. There is only one divine Father in the whole universe. Hence, “the everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6, regardless of how people twist it, must be the unique divine Father in the Godhead. While some twist the phrase “the everlasting Father,” they do not twist the phrase “the mighty God.” But if “the mighty God” should not be twisted, then neither should “the everlasting Father” be twisted, for this is against the principle. We should not accept the first term according to the pure Word and then twist the second. Some twist the second phrase because they are influenced by the traditional teachings concerning the Trinity. But we do not care for traditional teachings; we only care for the pure word of the Bible. Isaiah 9:6 says that the child born unto us is called the mighty God, and we believe that the child is the mighty God. This verse also says that the Son given to us is called the everlasting Father, and we also believe that the Son is the everlasting Father. We say this according to the Bible, but others twist this verse to fit their traditional teaching. People may twist Isaiah 9:6, but they cannot change it. This verse has two lines, and if we accept the first line without twisting it, then we must also accept the second in the same way.

Let us go on to John 14. In John 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, shew us the Father.” To this, the Lord replied, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 14:9-11). The Lord Jesus seemed to be saying, “Philip, I have been with you such a long time. Don’t you know Me? You have been seeing Me for three and one-half years. If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.” In John 10:30 the Lord Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” These verses in the Gospel of John support what is revealed in Isaiah 9:6. Isaiah 9:6 reveals that the Son is the Father of eternity. When the Son came, He told His disciples that He and the Father were one. Since the Son is called the Father of eternity, how can people say that He is not the Father in the Godhead, but another Father, the Father of creation or of the age to come? It is heretical to say that besides the divine Father in the Godhead there is another divine Father of creation or of the age to come.

There are, then, two main views of Isaiah 9:6–the view which says that according to the clear, printed word of the Bible the Son is called the everlasting Father, who is the Father in the Godhead, and the view which says that this Father is not the Father in the Godhead but some other Father. If you were the judge in the heavenly court, what decision would you give on these two understandings of this verse? As for me, I would stand with what the Bible says, not with any twistings. Those who twist this verse do not believe the Bible according to the clear word. Instead, they believe the Bible in their twisting way. Whatever fits their understanding they take, but whatever does not fit their understanding they twist. If you twist the words of the Bible, you will suffer a loss, for you are changing the holy Word. You are either taking something away from the Word or adding something to it. This is very serious. Whether or not I understand what the Bible says, I believe whatever it says. When the Bible says that the Son is called the everlasting Father, I say, “Amen, the Son is the Father.” I do not care how men interpret this verse; I only care for what the Bible says.

THE HERESY OF TWO LIFE-GIVING SPIRITS

Let us now turn to 1 Corinthians 15:45. This verse says, “The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (Gk.). According to this verse, the last Adam, who is Christ, became a life-giving Spirit. Some twist this verse, saying that it speaks of “a life-giving Spirit,” not the life-giving Spirit.” But besides the Holy Spirit who gives life is there another Spirit who gives life? To say that there are two Spirits giving life is to teach another great heresy. Whether the article is definite or indefinite, the last Adam, who is Christ Himself, became a Spirit, a life-giving Spirit. At this point we must refer to John 6:63, where the Lord says, “It is the Spirit that giveth life” (Gk.). In this chapter the Lord Jesus said that He was the bread of life to give life to people. Eventually, He indicated that in order to be life to people as the bread of life, He must be the Spirit, for it is the Spirit who gives life. Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 3:6 says, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Is not the Spirit in this verse the Holy Spirit? Can we say that besides this Holy Spirit who gives life there is also another Spirit who gives life? No, we dare not say this.

A second way of twisting this verse is to say that the life-giving Spirit here is not the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of Christ as a person. Those who twist the verse in this manner say that just as we have a spirit, so Christ also has a spirit. Then they proceed to say that the spirit here is the spirit of Christ, not the Holy Spirit. Certainly, the Spirit in this verse is the Spirit of Christ. But do you believe that besides the Holy Spirit there is another Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ? Or, to put the matter another way, do you believe that besides the Spirit of Christ there is another Spirit called the Holy Spirit? If you believe this, your mind must be darkened. No one with an enlightened mind would believe this.

Those who twist 1 Corinthians 15:45 in this manner do not know that the Holy Spirit today is not only the Spirit of God, but also the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9) and even the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7, Gk.). Romans 8:9 testifies that the Spirit of God today is the Spirit of Christ, and Philippians 1:19 testifies that the Spirit of Christ is also the Spirit of Jesus Christ. In a chapter entitled, “The Spirit of the Glorified Jesus,” in his book, The Spirit of Christ, Andrew Murray says that after Christ’s ascension the Holy Spirit did not come as before. In the Old Testament, He came only as the Spirit of God, but after the resurrection and ascension of Christ, the Spirit came not only as the Spirit of God, but also as the Spirit of the man Christ. Furthermore, John 7:39 says that prior to Christ’s death and resurrection this Spirit was “not yet.” However, the Spirit of God was already there. The critics apparently do not know that the Holy Spirit today is not only the Spirit of God, but also the Spirit of Christ. This Spirit, who is the Spirit both of God and of Christ, is the life-giving Spirit. After and through His resurrection, Christ became such a life-giving Spirit. Undoubtedly, this Spirit is the Holy Spirit.

Paul was careful in writing I Corinthians 15:45. He did not say, “The last Adam became a spirit.” He added the modifier, “life-giving,” saying, “The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” There is no ground for argument. Who is the Spirit who gives life? Do you believe that besides the Holy Spirit there is another divine Spirit who gives life? This is impossible.

A third twisting of this verse says that the spirit here is the human spirit of Christ. But if the spirit here merely denotes the human spirit of Christ, then there was no need for Him to become a spirit it because he had a human spirit already. Several times in the Gospels there are references to Christ’s human spirit. For example, He “perceived in his spirit” (Mark 2:8); He “sighed deeply in his spirit” (Mark 8:12); He “groaned in the spirit” (John 11:33); and He “was troubled in spirit” (John 13:21). Hence, there was no need for Him to become a human spirit.

A fourth twisting claims that Adam, as a whole, became a soul; that Christ as a whole, became a Spirit; and that this Spirit is not the Holy Spirit who gives life. I definitely agree that Adam became a soul, for the Bible says so. I also believe that Christ altogether became a Spirit. But I cannot believe that this Spirit is other than the life-giving Holy Spirit. Do you believe that besides the Holy Spirit there is another Spirit who gives life? This is illogical. Which will you accept–the twistings, or the clear word of the Bible? We all should be simple and should say, “Amen” to whatever the Bible says.

THE LORD’S BEING THE SPIRIT

Now we come to 2 Corinthians 3:17, which says, “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” This verse is so clear and simple that there is nothing for the critics to twist. The Spirit in this verse is the Spirit mentioned in verse 6, where we are told that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now the Lord is the Spirit who gives life. According to Darby’s New Translation, verses 7 through 16 of 2 Corinthians 3 are in parentheses, showing that verse 17 is the continuation of verse 6. Verse 17 says, “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” The Spirit mentioned here is the very Spirit who gives life spoken of in verse 6. The Lord in 2 Corinthians 3:17 certainly is Jesus. A number of Christian writers, including Dean Alford and Andrew Murray, have said that the Lord is Jesus and that the Lord is the Spirit.

Although there is actually nothing to twist in this verse, some still try to twist it in at least two ways. Firstly, some say that the Lord here is not the Lord Jesus Christ, but merely the Lord God. In the book of 2 Corinthians, the title, “The Lord” is always attached to the Lord Jesus (1:2, 14; 4:5; 13:14) and God is called “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:3; 11:31). So the Lord in 3:17, as in 3:16 and 18, undoubtedly refers to the Lord Jesus, not to God the Father. To say that the Lord in this verse refers to God is clearly a twisting to fit the traditional teaching and to avoid the pure revelation concerning the matter of the Trinity.

According to the second twisting, to say that the Lord is the Spirit does not mean that the Lord is actually the Spirit, but that the Spirit represents the Lord. This is more than a twisting of the verse; it is a changing of the Bible by adding to the pure revelation a thought which the Bible does not have. Where is the verse in the Bible giving us the thought that the Holy Spirit represents the Lord? There is no such verse. Why do some twist the Bible in this way? Just because they do not like to stay with the pure revelation concerning Christ’s being the Spirit. They like to remain in their traditional teachings concerning the Trinity.

THE PURE WORD

Christianity is too old. It is full of opinions, traditions, and concepts. The Lord’s recovery is to bring us back to the pure Word. We do not care for the concepts and traditions of Christianity or for anybody’s teachings. We only care for the pure word of the Bible. We believe whatever the Bible says in a pure way, not in the way of twisting the words of Scripture. The critics claim to believe the Bible and they condemn us by saying that we do not believe it. They believe the Bible in their twisting way; we believe the Bible in the way of taking whatever it says in black and white. When Isaiah 9:6 says that the Son is called the everlasting Father, we say, “Amen.” When 1 Corinthians 15:45 says, “The last Adam became a life-giving spirit,” we say, “Amen.” When 2 Corinthians 3:17 says, “The Lord is that Spirit,” we also say, “Amen.” The critics twist these verses because they are still under the influence of traditional teachings.

With these verses before us, who can say that we are heretical? Who is heretical–we who say that according to Isaiah 9:6 the Son is the Father and according to 1 Corinthians 15:45 and 2 Corinthians 3:17 the Lord Jesus today is the life-giving Spirit, or those who have two divine Fathers and two life-giving Spirits? What heresy to have two divine Fathers and two life-giving Spirits! We must tell people of these heresies, and these heresies must be exposed. We are absolutely scriptural, but those who have two divine Fathers and two life-giving Spirits as the result of twisting these verses are heretical. Let us wait and see how they can clear themselves from this charge.

THE HERESY OF MODALISM

The orthodox creed formulated at the Council of Nicaea was a repudiation of modalism, exemplified by Sabellius, and tritheism, represented by Arius. Sabellius did not believe in the simultaneous existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To him, They were merely three manifestations of the one God who manifests Himself in different ways according to circumstances. Arius, on the contrary, believed in three Gods. According to him, the Father was one God, the Son was another God, and the Holy Spirit was still another God. This, of course, is heresy. Although the heresy of Arius was condemned at the Nicene Council, many Christians, probably including some of our critics, today subconscious still hold to three Gods. In the past, many of you, deep within, secretly held to this belief.

Modalism has some ground in the Scriptures, but it has gone much too far, to a heretical extreme. The modalists saw the aspect of the one, but they misused the side of the three, saying that after the revelation of the Father and the Son had ceased only the Spirit remained. They deny the co-existence and co-inherence among the Three of the Godhead in eternity. While they deny this, we believe it. Modalism neglects the safeguard of the twofoldness of the truths in the Bible. Every truth in the Bible has two aspects. If you would be safe, you must be balanced between these two aspects. According to God’s regulation, principle, and law, nothing in the universe can exist without being two-sided. This is even true of a sheet of paper. Because the modalists held to one side and misapplied the other, they lost their balance and safeguard.

THE HERESY OF TRITHEISM

The tritheists, on the contrary, hold the side of the three, but neglect the side of the one. They say, “If the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three Gods, then how can They be three Persons?” Actually, to use the designation “three Persons” to explain the Father, Son, and Spirit is also not quite satisfactory because “three Persons” really means three persons. Therefore, Griffith Thomas (famous for his exposition on the book of Romans) in his book, The Principles of Theology, wrote in this wise concerning the Trinity of the Godhead: “The term Person is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism.” By denying the fact that the Son is the Father and that the Lord is the Spirit, our critics spontaneously fall into the danger of being tritheistic. Although they would deny that they are tritheistic, unconsciously and subconsciously they hold the concept of the three Persons of the Godhead as three Gods. While most dare not admit this, some do admit it.

In 1965, a brother who had accused me of being heretical teaching that the Son is the Father and the Lord is the Spirit, came to visit me. He told me definitely that he believed in three Gods. When I told him that we should never say this, he attempted to argue with me, using Psalm 82:6, which says, “Ye are gods.” I pointed out that the word “gods” in that verse refers to the angels. In the entire Bible, there is no verse saying that we have more than one God. Rather, everywhere we are told that our God is the only one God. He is God alone.

To press the “three Persons” in the Godhead too far will surely “lead to Tritheism.” Whoever does this spontaneously falls into the heretical extreme of tritheism. Tritheism does not have the safeguard of the aspect of the one. But the Bible says again and again that there is just one God. Because the tritheists hold the side of the three and neglect the side of the one, they also have no balance or safeguard.

Both modalism and tritheism go to an extreme. But we are in the middle and are balanced. When we believe that the Son is the Father and that the Lord is the Spirit, we are simply quoting the Bible. But, as we have pointed out, we also believe verses such as Matthew 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Revelation 1:4-5; and Ephesians 3:14-17. We believe both sides of the truth regarding the Triune God. We condemn both modalism and tritheism as heresies. We believe that God is uniquely one for eternity, yet He is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Some may ask, “How can the Father, the Son, and the Spirit be three and at the same time still be one?” My answer is, “I do not know. I cannot tell you. If you try to understand this, you will be, in Martin Luther’s terms, ‘the teacher of God.’” The Trinity far transcends our mental apprehension, and only fools would try to understand it.

THE TRIUNE GOD IN OUR EXPERIENCE

Actually, there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. In the Bible, the revelation of the Triune God is related to His relationship with man and to man’s experience of Him. The first verse indicating the Triune God is Genesis 1:26, which says, “Let us make man in our image.” This is not a doctrine; it is a revelation of God’s relationship with man. The first time the three of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are revealed is in Matthew 28:19. This verse says, “Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Gk.). This also is not a doctrine, but an experience. Many terms have been invented or adopted by theologians relating to the Trinity: person, substance, hypostasis, subsistence, etc. It is better to avoid these terms as much as possible and to simply quote the Bible, for anything we say may be wrongly understood or interpreted. Nevertheless, for the sake of the experience of the Triune God, we cannot keep from telling people that eventually the Triune God today is the all-inclusive, life-giving Spirit. Examine your experience. Although many of the critics are fearful of experience, our burden is that people would experience the Triune God as the all-inclusive, wonderful Spirit who is God Himself—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

The Trinity is not for doctrinal apprehension; it is absolutely for our experience. Before I came to this country, I did not give a clear word saying that the Triune God is for the dispensing of Himself into man. One day, while I was ministering the Triune God to people, I suddenly received the impression that the Triune God is for His dispensation, for the divine dispensing of Himself into man. God’s intention is to work Himself into human beings. For this purpose, God created man with a human spirit. God created man with a mouth and a stomach that he may take in, retain, digest, and assimilate food. Likewise, God created us with a spirit that we may touch Him, contact Him, take Him in, and retain Him. God is Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit (John 4:24). Throughout the years, I have been more and more confirmed that the Triune God is for the dispensing of Himself into man. This is not a matter of doctrine, but of experience.

Everything we preach and teach in this ministry is thoroughly and carefully considered. Years ago, under the leadership of Brother Watchman Nee, we not only studied the Bible, but also church history, biographies, autobiographies, and the writings of the important Christian teachers. After much study and investigation, we were enlightened by the pure Word, and the Lord revealed much concerning Himself as our enjoyment and concerning the church as God’s expression. Before the recovery came to this country, had many of you heard of the human spirit? Had you ever heard that for Christ to be experienced by us as the all-inclusive One, He must be the life-giving Spirit? Had you ever heard that the Triune God is for the dispensing of Himself into us, His chosen people, for our experience? Had you ever heard of the practice of the church life in the localities where we are? Years ago, the Lord enlightened us and revealed these things to us, and we have been practicing them for a long time. Today, we wish to present the truths we have seen to all Christians that they may see them as well. At least, we must clear up the sky for the truth that the Christian public may know where the truth is. Everyone must know the truth concerning the living experience of Christ, the dispensing of the Triune God, and the practice of the proper church life.

After much study, we have been confirmed in believing that, according to the Bible, the Triune God is revealed, not for doctrinal apprehension, but absolutely for our experience. If we try to understand the Triune God as a doctrine and neglect experience, we shall find ourselves in difficulty. When I was young, I was taught about the Trinity according to the Nicene Creed, the creed held both by Catholicism and Protestantism. When I was under the teaching of the Brethren assembly, I was told that we should pray to the Father in the name of the Son through the power of the Spirit. But as I practiced this in my experience, I got into trouble. I asked myself, “To Whom shall I address my prayer—to the Father, to the Son, or to the Spirit?” As I prayed, I had to remind myself, saying, “Don’t make a mistake. You must pray to the Father in the name of the Son through the power of the Spirit.” I took caution to practice in this manner.

When I first stayed with Brother Nee, a Chinese evangelist who belonged to the China Inland Mission was invited to speak to us. Brother Nee told me privately that this brother was supposed to be the most spiritual one among the Chinese preachers in the China Inland Mission. At a certain point in his message, he said, “Don’t think that the Lord Jesus is separate from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit today is simply the Lord Jesus.” After this sentence was uttered, Brother Nee, sitting afar off, loudly said, “Amen!” That surprised me. As Brother Nee and I were taking a walk after the meeting, he said, “Witness, we must believe this and realize that today the Lord Jesus is just the Spirit.” From that time onward, I received the best help to experience Christ as life. In all the years since then, I have entered more and more into the reality of the Triune God.

In doctrine, we may speak of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as being separate and distinct. But what about our experience? According to our experience, are They three or one? The New Testament reveals that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all in us (Eph. 4:6; 2 Cor. 13:5; John 14:17). Tell me, according to your experience, are there three in you or one? When you exercise your mind to talk about Them, They are three, but when you exercise your spirit to experience Them, They are just one.

Recently, I read the writings of many others who have said affirmatively that the Triune God is not for doctrinal understanding, but for our experience of the reality of our God. If our Savior were not the life-giving Spirit, how could we touch Him? According to fundamental interpretation, we touch Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. But what does this mean? It is meaningless terminology. What does it mean to say that the Son comes to us in the Spirit? The Bible does not say this. Rather, it says “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). Christ dwells in us and abides in us directly, not through any power. This is the revelation of the New Testament. But where is the verse saying that Christ lives in us through the Holy Spirit? There is no such verse. Neither is it so complicated in our experience. In our experience, the living Christ is in us. As we turn to our experience, we shall see that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one. The all-inclusive Christ, who as the life-giving Spirit indwells our spirit, is everything to us. We must believe the clear Word in a pure way, saying, “Amen,” to whatever the Bible says, and we should take care of our experience. There is no need to interpret. Simply take whatever the Bible says and believe it.

© 1977 Living Stream Ministry. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Mind Bending or Mind Renewing?

f

Table of Contents

Thomas Nelson, Inc., has recently published a book called The Mindbenders. This book, which purports to offer “vital information on, and refutation of, seven of the most dangerous new cults of our day,”1 contains a chapter entitled, “The Local Church of Witness Lee.” According to this book, local churches, composed of blood-redeemed and Spirit-regenerated believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, are “a mind-capturing heretical cult.”2 In The Mindbenders, the local churches are classified with such devilish and satanic movements as Hare Krishna and the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. Sprinkled throughout parts of The Mindbenders and concentrated in the chapter on the local church are a host of false accusations. We strongly protest against the charge that the local churches want control over men’s minds and that the goal of this supposed mind control is behavior modification or brainwashing.3 Because the presentation of the ministry of Witness Lee and of the testimony and practice of the local churches in The Mindbenders is so inaccurate, it is incumbent upon us to give public testimony so that the fair-minded, intellectually honest Christian reader may come to an unbiased decision. In this reply we are concerned, of course, only with the material on the local churches. Nothing that is said here should be construed as in any way a defense of the heretical, satanic cults with which The Mindbenders has so wrongly associated us. Furthermore, in this paper we shall be concerned solely with the charges relating to mind control, brainwashing, or mindlessness. Firstly, we shall state the charges made against us, relying primarily upon quotations of the writer’s own words. Then we shall give testimony to the teaching of the Scriptures regarding the mind of man, especially the mind of a Christian in its unrenewed and its renewed condition. Finally, in the light of the testimony of the Scriptures and the actual teaching and practice in the local churches, we shall show how unfair, unjust, and false are the charges made against us in The Mindbenders.

THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS STATED

The accusations made in The Mindbenders regarding the supposed mind control practice in the local churches are presented in two ways: as part of general statements covering all seven groups included in the book and as specific accusations made against Witness Lee and the local churches. Since the writer of The Mindbenders considers all seven groups to be the same in principle as far as mindbending is concerned, any general statement regarding brainwashing or mind control may be applied specifically to the local church, for that obviously is the writer’s own intention. He accuses those in the local churches of “bending peoples’ minds rather than guiding them under voluntary subjection to the Triune God.”4 On page 16 of The Mindbenders we read the following:
These widely divergent religious movements have one awesome and terrifying thing in common. They are mindbenders. They’re not just after converts in the conventional sense. They want your mind, and they want absolute control over it…. The goal of their mind control is behavior modification; many call it just plain brainwashing.5
The force of this charge of brainwashing is fully felt when we consider a precise dictionary definition of this term. Brainwashing: “a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, especially through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.”6 Brainwashing is further defined as “any method of controlled systematic indoctrination.”7 The Mindbenders says, “I believe the mind control these groups practice is every bit as naturalistic as that used by the Communist Chinese with the POWs during the Korean War years ago. And the end result is the same.”8
In the caricature of a church meeting contained in The Mindbenders, the meeting is called “a full-scale psychodrama.”9 Psychodrama is a method of group psychotherapy in which patients take roles in improvisational dramatizations of emotionally charged situations.10 Those in the meeting are described as being “hypnotized,”11 and a new convert is pictured as one whose “will has been broken.”12
The writer of The Mindbenders believes that the method of mind control supposedly used in the local church is more damaging than that of Transcendental Meditation, Hare Krishna, or any other satanic cult. He says, “The brainwashing, or mindbending, of the Local Church is, I believe, the most powerful and lasting of any cult on the contemporary religious scene.”13 The writer makes the further accusation against the Christians in the local churches: “Their means to mind control is as frightening as it is effective. It begins with what I believe to be an involuntary forfeiture of all normal use of the human mind.”14
According to The Mindbenders, calling on the name of the Lord Jesus and praying the words of the Bible are “used as a substitute for the rational use of the mind.”15 The writer claims, “no one is really free to think.”16 He accuses the brothers and sisters in Christ in the local churches of being held by fear, saying, “it seems to be fear that keeps them in.”17 As the writer says, “Fear, it seems to me, is the ultimate weapon in the Local Church.”18
In the opinion of the writer of The Mindbenders, those in the local church have lost touch with reality:

The tragedy is that they have so lost touch with reality that they believe they actually understand without their minds. The mind is to be by-passed. The spirit, that aspect of the human being, which supposedly can alone experience true spiritual understanding, is to be exercised to “partake of Christ.”19

Commenting on the exercise of the human spirit in contacting the Lord and taking Him in as our food and drink, the writer of The Mindbenders asserts:

Lee teaches that … the mind goes out of gear and the human spirit supposedly goes in gear. There is an oft-repeated emphasis: The spirit must be exercised. What this means is that a person must refuse to try to understand anything with his mind … the mind must put forth no effort to grasp what is being said…. Man is to receive and understand God in his spirit, not in his mind. The mind is considered incapable of receiving and understanding God because it is part of the soul.20

The Mindbenders also accuses Witness Lee of taking advantage of the supposed mindless state of the brothers and sisters in the churches:

The conscious effort to not use the mind doesn’t shut the mind off. It simply causes it to work without heed to its critical process. Operating under such conditions, a person accepts what he is told without question. That is the advantage to Lee. In this case the person is persuaded that it is Christ alone that he is receiving, because that is what he is told is happening. Since he is not supposed to use his mind, he usually does not question.21

According to The Mindbenders, instead of experiencing the living Person of the Lord Jesus Christ by calling on His name, we are accused of merely undergoing “a state of altered consciousness.”22
The Mindbenders concludes its analysis of those in the local churches by saying that they have undergone great emotional and spiritual devastation.23 Speaking of those who remain in the local churches, this book concludes: “Their minds no longer function normally because of the effect of this mind-manipulation cult.”24
All these accusations are false.
The purpose of this writing is to give testimony regarding what we actually believe and practice concerning the human mind. In sharp contrast to The Mindbenders, the source of our belief and testimony is not philosophy, psychology, tradition, or human opinion. It is the plain statements of the verbally-inspired Word of God. The Bible has much to say about the mind of man. Our view of the mind exactly coincides with that of the Scriptures, and our attitude toward the mind in both its fallen and its renewed state is also that of the Lord as revealed in the Scriptures. Therefore, if anyone desires sincerely to know the truth of what we in the local churches believe and practice regarding the function of the human mind, he should honestly and openly consider what the Bible has to say. Are you willing to accept without reservation all statements of the Scripture concerning your mind? Are you interested, not in what philosophy or psychology has to say, but in what God’s infallible Word declares? If so, then please consider the testimony of Scripture regarding the normal function of the mind; the mind of the fallen natural man; the need for repentance and the renewing of the mind, even among born-again Christians; the way to experience the renewing of the mind; the characteristics of a renewed mind; and the relationship between the mind and the spirit. Through a consideration of what the Bible says about the mind of man, you will be able to gain an accurate impression of what we in the local churches believe concerning the mind; for we simply believe whatever God has spoken in His Word. Along with quotations from the Scriptures, excerpts from the writings of a number of authors, especially those of Witness Lee, will be cited as supporting testimony of what we and other Christians believe concerning the mind in the light of the statements of Scripture.

THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THE MIND

The Bible reveals that man is a tripartite being: spirit and soul and body (1 Thes. 5:23). Man has been created in three parts in order to contact the three different worlds: the physical, the spiritual, and the psychological. We contact the physical world by our physical body through the five senses of hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. We contact the spiritual world by means of our spirit. In our spirit we have a spiritual sense with which to contact God and the spiritual things. There is also the psychological world which we contact through our soul, the psychological part of our being.25 The mind, the main part of the soul, is for thinking, considering (Psa. 13:2), knowing (Psa. 139:14), and remembering (Lam. 3:20). The mind also has a function in relation to God and the things of the Spirit. Although it is the spirit of man (Zech. 12:1) that directly contacts God the Spirit (John 4:24)—the Spirit witnesses with our spirit (Rom. 8:16), and we are joined to the Lord Jesus in spirit (1 Cor. 6:17)—the mind is needed to understand spiritual things. There is no doubt that spiritual understanding is related to the mind. In our mind we may have wisdom and spiritual understanding (Col. 1:9). As Revelation 17:9 says, “And here is the mind which hath wisdom.” However, although the mind can contact the psychological world directly, it contacts God and the things of the Spirit indirectly through the human spirit. As one dear brother testified in a meeting many years ago, “The function of the mind is to receive the impressions from the spirit and to express them as life.” To put it simply, with the spirit we receive God and with the mind we understand. To function normally in the eyes of God, the mind must be set on the spirit (Rom. 8:6, NASB) and be one with the spirit. It was the disobedient and independent action of the mind that caused man’s fall (Gen. 3:1-6; 2 Cor. 11:3).
No proper Christian dismisses or downgrades the normal function of the mind. Although in this life “we see through a glass darkly” and “know in part” (1 Cor. 13:12), we may nonetheless have a certain amount of spiritual understanding in our mind today. Although we worship God in spirit (John 4:24) and serve Him with our spirit (Rom. 1:9), we still need our mind to be opened to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45, Gk.). Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself told us that we are to love God with all our mind (Mark 12:30). Oh, that our whole being, including our mind and understanding, would love the Lord Jesus! A clear, sober mind is absolutely necessary in understanding the Scriptures and the things of God. Paul said that God has given us the spirit of a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7). Regarding some difficult verses in the book of Genesis, Witness Lee has said, “In order to understand these verses, we need a strong spirit and a clear mind.”26 With our spirit we see spiritual things, and with our mind we understand them. The Scriptures clearly teach this, and we in the local churches practice it.
Consider the following statement from a book entitled The Economy of God:

With the intuition in our spirit, we need the mind. The intuition gives the sense of the inner knowledge. But to sense the spiritual things is one thing, and to understand them is another! The things of God are sensed in the spirit, but they are understood in the mind.27

Although we may sense something of God in our spirit, we may have a problem with our mind and not be able to understand what is in our spirit. We definitely need a clear mind if we would interpret the sense within our spirit. Addressing himself to this matter, Witness Lee says:

We need the understanding in our mind to interpret what is in our spirit. The things of God are sensed by the function of the intuition in our spirit, but they are understood by the function of the understanding in our mentality.28

The function of the mind is also very crucial in understanding the will of God. Romans 12:2 reveals that transformation by the renewing of the mind is related to proving what the perfect will of God is. After praying and seeking the Lord’s face concerning His will, we may sense something of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the depths of our spirit. However, we still need a trained mind to know the will of God in a practical way. On this matter Witness Lee says the following:

After having contacted God and obtained the feeling in our spirit, we still need our mind to interpret and apprehend His will practically. Otherwise, the feeling in our spirit is but an unknown burden, and it is not meaningful to our understanding…. Thus, the interpretation by the mind is an indispensable factor in the understanding of God’s will. If our mind has not been trained in spiritual things, we have no access to this realm and no way to understand God’s will.29

Concerning our responsibility to use our mind in knowing the things of the spirit, Witness Lee continues:

…Our responsibility … is to exercise our mind in spiritual matters, set our mind on them, and always turn to the spirit, paying attention to the movements therein. In this way, because our mind is always in contact with the spiritual realm, it becomes keen and living in understanding the feeling in our spirit, and thereby it understands God’s Will.30

This hardly sounds like a man who disparages the mind and who insists upon a state of mindlessness in order to take advantage of others. Witness Lee’s word is very clear here that we have a definite responsibility to exercise our mind. We certainly appreciate the function of the human spirit in knowing God, the will of God, the Bible, and spiritual matters; but we also recognize the necessary proper function of the mind.
In order for the mind to fulfill its normal function, it must be enlightened and guided by the Holy Spirit. It must be willing to be led into all truth by the Spirit of truth (John 16:13). The Lord’s thoughts are not our thoughts; for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His thoughts higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8-9). Certainly it is humility, not mindlessness, to testify with the Apostle Paul, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord?” (Rom. 11:33-34). How we need the Lord to open our minds and to enlighten our understanding! In order for the disciples to understand what was written concerning Christ in the Law of Moses, in the prophets, and in the Psalms, the resurrected Christ had to open their minds (Luke 24:45, Gk.). Only a God-opened mind can understand the Scriptures.
Paul’s experience recorded in Romans 7 testifies to the limitations of man’s mind in spiritual matters. Paul said, “With the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin” (v. 25). In Paul’s mind was his natural life, the life we all received from God at birth. But in his experience Paul discovered that with the mind alone he could not succeed in serving God, for, as he testified, “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom. 7:23). According to Paul’s own testimony, the law of sin in his members prevailed over the law of his mind. His only deliverance, and ours, is through the working of the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus and through our cooperation by setting our mind upon our spirit (Rom. 8:2, 6). The mind of man is limited. To make such a confession is not to be a victim of mind manipulation; it is to adhere to the clear testimony of God’s Word.
God created us with a mind, and we need to use it normally and properly. However, we also need to recognize the danger in a misguided or unguided intellect. G. H. Pember says the following regarding man’s intellect:

…intellect is not merely fallible, but the most dangerous of all gifts, unless it be guided by the Spirit of God. For it can call evil good, and good evil: it can put darkness for light, and light for darkness; bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.31

Because God’s thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa. 55:8), we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must learn not to rely on our limited mental capabilities, but humbly recognize that no man has been the Lord’s adviser, and that, if we would know Him and His Word, we need Him to open our understanding. To have such an attitude is humility, a proper dependence for understanding, as for all things, upon the One who created us and who upholds all things by the word of His power.

THE CONDITION OF THE FALLEN NATURAL MIND

In the fall, man not only disobeyed God outwardly, but was contaminated inwardly by Satan. The spirit died (Eph. 2:1, 5), the soul became the self (Matt. 16:24-26; Luke 9:23-25), and the body was transmuted into the flesh (Rom. 7:18, 23-24). Now sin, the nature of Satan, dwells in us. Paul said, “Now if I do that I would not, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me” (Rom. 7:20). This indwelling sin can reign in our mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12), lord it over us (Rom. 6:14, Gk.), revive in us (Rom. 7:9), take occasion through the commandment to deceive and kill us (Rom. 7:11), and make us do things against our will (Rom. 7:17, 20). Therefore, we become captive to the law of sin in our members (Rom. 7:23). Surely the fall and the entrance of sin into our being has not left our mind unaffected. Although our mind can still think, reason, consider, imagine, and remember, it has been poisoned, and now it is powerfully influenced by the sin in our flesh. It is vital for every believer in Christ to see the state of his fallen natural mind in the light of God’s Word. The result of such a vision of the condition of the unrenewed mind will not bring us to a state of mindlessness; rather, it will encourage us to seek the Lord desperately for the renewing of our mind, so that our mind, along with our entire being, may be recovered from the hand of the enemy and be used, as God intended, for the fulfillment of His purpose.

The Mind of a Natural Man

Let us now consider various portions of the Word that illumine the fallen condition of the mind of the natural man. First Corinthians 2:14 says, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The Greek word translated “natural,” psuchikos, may also be rendered “soulish” or “soulical.” The natural man, the man who lives in the realm of the soul, cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. Since the natural mind is part of the soul, it also cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. Rather, to one who trusts in his unenlightened natural mind, the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness. According to Jude, such people “speak evil of those things which they know not” and seem to have no spirit (vv. 10, 19, Gk.). James 3:15 reveals that the wisdom of the natural man is earthly, sensual, devilish. The Greek word rendered “sensual” here may also be rendered “natural” or “soulish.” This indicates that the wisdom of the soulish man is related to demons. Thus the natural mind, part of the soul of the natural man, does not receive the things of the Spirit of God but regards them as foolish, speaks evil of things that it does not understand, and has a wisdom that is earthly and demonic.

Manipulated by Satan

Furthermore, the natural mind is under the direction of Satan, the prince of the power of the air. Ephesians 2:2 and 3 say, “In time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience … fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” Here we see that the working of Satan in man is of two aspects: in man’s flesh and in man’s mind. Before we repented and came to Christ, we all lived according to the prince of the power of the air, who manipulated and controlled our mentality, although we had no consciousness of his activity.

Some Specific Characteristics

Let us now consider some specific characteristics of man’s fallen natural mind. It is a reprobate mind, a depraved mind, a mind absolutely disapproved of by God (Rom. 1:28). It is a mind filled with vanity and with the understanding darkened (Eph. 4:17-18). Such a mind causes one to be alienated from the life of God through ignorance and the hardness of the heart (Eph. 4:18, Gk.). The natural mind is alienated from God and makes one an enemy of God in his mind (Col. 1:21). The natural mind is also puffed up, “intruding into those things which he hath not seen” (Col. 1:18). It is set on earthly things, not on things that are above (Col. 3:2). Furthermore, it is a mind set on the flesh, it is enmity against God, and it is not subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:6-7). The fallen mind is corrupt and causes men to resist the truth (1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 3:8). According to Titus 1:15, the natural mind is also defiled. As Jessie Penn-Lewis says, “We therefore clearly see how, in the natural man, the mind is ‘darkened,” ‘puffed up” by the flesh, empty and vain in its thoughts, carnal because governed by the flesh, and in all its activities—whether apparently ‘good” or visibly ‘bad” —at enmity with God.”32

The Thoughts of the Natural Mind

The thoughts of the natural mind are also in a degraded state. Second Corinthians 3:14 indicates that such thoughts are hardened, and 2 Corinthians 4:4 reveals that “the god of this age hath blinded the thoughts of them which believe not, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (Gk.). The thoughts of man’s natural mind are actually blinded by Satan, the god of this age. This blinding work of the enemy hinders the shining of the gospel of the glory of Christ into men’s hearts. Therefore, this blindness of thought produces gross inward darkness concerning the gospel of Christ. The thoughts of the natural man are not only hardened and blinded, but also evil and disobedient (Matt. 9:4; 2 Cor. 10:5). Second Corinthians 10:4 and 5 reveal that the mind of man, with its reasonings and thoughts, is a stronghold of the enemy. These reasonings need to be pulled down, and the disobedient, rebellious thoughts captured to the obedience of Christ. As Watchman Nee says, “This suggests that man’s rebellion is basically in his thought.”33 In the light of God’s Word we see that the thoughts of the natural man are in rebellion against God.

The Reasonings of the Natural Mind

The judgement of Scripture on man’s natural reasonings is also unequivocal and absolute. The Word of God reveals that such reasonings are vain (Rom. 1:21) and evil (Matt. 15:19). In 1 Corinthians 3:20 Paul declares,” The Lord knoweth the reasonings of the wise, that they are vain” (Gk.). As we read the Gospels, we see that the religious ones used the reasonings of their natural mind and darkened heart to strive and fight against the Lord Jesus. When the Lord said to the paralytic, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,” the scribes and Pharisees reasoned in their heart (Mark 2:6; Luke 6:8). Mark 2:8 says, “And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?” The Lord Jesus, who lived and walked in His spirit, perceived the rebellious and blasphemous reasonings of the religious ones. Throughout the Gospels we see that the scribes and Pharisees assaulted the Lord Jesus Christ with their religious reasonings, that is, they assaulted the One who lived and walked in spirit.
A number of godly men have come to the same verdict concerning man’s natural reasonings as do the Scriptures. G. H. Pember says, “Reason is but an uncertain and deceitful instrument at the best, and the blinding pride of man makes matters still worse.”34 For those, whether believers or unbelievers, who insist that man should confidently employ his reason in exploring the things of God, C. H. Mackintosh has the following word:

It may be said, are we not to use our reason? If not, to what end was it given? …our reason is not as it was when God gave it. We have to remember that sin has come in; man is a fallen creature; his reason, his judgement, his understanding—his whole moral being is a complete wreck; and moreover, it was the neglect of the Word of God that caused all this wreck and ruin.35

Pointing out that if reason were in a sound condition, it would “prove its soundness by bowing to the Word of God,” Mackintosh goes on to say, “But it is not sound; it is blind, and utterly perverted; it is not to be trusted for a moment in things spiritual, divine, or heavenly.”36 Mackintosh, a brother who realized that the Word of God transcends man’s reason, also said:

The Word of God is above and beyond reason altogether; it is as far above reason as God is above the creature, or heaven above the earth. Hence, when God speaks, all reasonings must be cast down…. But if reason be set to work on the Word of God, the soul must inevitably be plunged into the thick darkness of infidelity…37

Writing in the eighteenth century, William Law had this to say about man’s reason:

All religious knowledge that comes to us through the gateway of our own natural reason, great as men may consider it, is only great in vanity, emptiness, and self-deceiving folly. For all the evil and corruption of our fallen nature consists in this; it is an awakened life of our own will, under the power of natural reason, plotting and justifying its rebellion against the will of God.38

Speaking of God’s call to a proper use of reason, William Law says:

…Reason is thus helpless in the spiritual realm; it is neither seeing, tasting, touching, smelling, nor hearing the things of the Spirit of God…. And to think that reasoning about God from Scripture words is to know Him, is just as sensible as to think that reasoning about food is the same as to eat it…. Reason … cannot substitute its thoughts about God for the experience of His love that can only be known by the soul and spirit of man…. Reason may view through its own eyes what is done—whether in the physical or spiritual realms—but it cannot bring the experience of these realities either to man’s body or to his soul.39

In his discussion of how natural reason opposes the spirit, Law points out the danger of trusting our reasonings about doctrine and Scripture:

…To put a religious trust in our own reasonings about doctrines and Scripture words and our ability thus to persuade others, has a more foolish nature than the same idolatry that puts a religious trust in the sun, a departed saint, or a graven image.40

Law further says that “to believe only that which reason can verify is to live as a heathen under the power of the kingdom of darkness.”41 Law also remarks, “Those who trust in reason alone are of the seed of the serpent, and real heirs of that confusion which happened to the first builders of the tower of Babel.”42
Watchman Nee was surely an intellectually gifted man. However, in his experience of the Lord he came to realize the need to be delivered from natural reason. Speaking of how God’s glory delivers man from reason, Watchman Nee says, “The glimpse of a fraction of His glory would send us to our knees and make us throw away our reasonings. Only those who live afar off can be haughty; those who sit in darkness can live by reasonings.”43 Commenting on the same point, he says:

Since the time when Adam sinned by taking the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, reason has become the life principle of man. Only after the glory of the Lord appears to us do we realize that we are but dead dogs and lumps of clay. All our arguments will fade away in the light of His glory. The more a person lives in glory, the less he reasons. If anyone reasons a lot, we may know that he has never seen glory.44

Watchman Nee could testify that often God acts without apparent reason. Nevertheless, although we may not understand what He does, we are His servants and must still learn to worship Him:

Had I understood all His ways I myself would have sat on the throne. But once I see He is far above me—that He alone is the God on high—I prostrate myself in dust and ashes, all my reasonings disappearing.45

The Scriptures and the supporting testimony of godly men issue a devastating indictment on the mind, thoughts, and reasonings of the natural man. Our natural mind is reprobate, vain, dark, alienated from God, puffed up, fleshly, corrupt, defiled, and at enmity with God. Our thoughts are evil, blinded, hardened, and disobedient. Our reasonings are vain, evil, and rebellious against the Lord and His move. The vain and darkened mind of the natural man even supposes “that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man” (Acts 17:29, NASB). Therefore, God has said, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” (1 Cor. 1:19). In the book of Romans, Paul clearly and forcefully summarized the state of the fallen mind of the natural man: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their reasonings [Gk.], and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man … Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever” (Rom. 1:21-23, 25).

THE NEED FOR REPENTANCE

If we receive the light of the Word of God upon our fallen natural mind, thoughts, and reasonings, it will come as no surprise to us that the first word of the gospel in the New Testament is “repent.” Both John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus declared, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17, Gk.). The command to repent is directed to man’s mind. The Greek word rendered “repentance” is metanoia, which means a change of mind. As Harry A. Ironside says, “This is not merely the acceptance of new ideas in place of old notions. But it actually implies a complete reversal of one’s inward attitude.”46 Witness Lee has given a clear word on this matter of repentance:

To repent is to have a change of mind issuing in regret…. To repent is to have a change in our thinking, our philosophy, our logic. The life of fallen man is absolutely according to his thinking. Everything he is and does is according to his mind. When you were a fallen one, you were directed by your mind. Your mentality, logic, and philosophy governed your way of life. Before we were saved, we were under the direction of our fallen mentality. We were far away from God, and our life was in direct opposition to His will. Under the influence of our fallen mentality, we went farther and farther astray from God. But one day we heard the preaching of the gospel telling us to repent, to have a turn in our thinking, philosophy, and logic.47

Praise the Lord that in God’s mercy and grace we have the opportunity to repent from the dreadful condition of our fallen mind and to turn to God!
Notice that in the preaching of Jesus and of John the Baptist, the command to repent is related to the kingdom. We are not commanded to repent simply to escape from hell or to go to heaven. Rather, we must repent because the kingdom of the heavens, the rule of God, is at hand. In other words, in order to come under the rule of God, we must have a change of mind. This implies that our mind in its natural state is in rebellion, unwilling to be ruled by anyone or anything, including God Himself. Therefore, we must repent.
A strong word concerning repentance is found in Isaiah 55:7, which says, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” If we sincerely seek the Lord and desire to turn to Him, we must forsake our way and our thoughts. Yes, the Bible says that you must forsake your thoughts. This does not mean to become mindless. It means to forsake your natural thoughts, concepts, and opinions and to accept in their place God’s thought as embodied in His Word. Only by forsaking our thoughts can we return to the Lord and receive His pardon. This is not only true when an unbeliever comes to the Lord for salvation. It is also true for Christians, who daily need to repent, to forsake their thoughts, and to return to the Lord. Just as Eve was deceived by the serpent, so may the thoughts of believers be seduced away from Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). In the epistles to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 the Lord Jesus Christ Himself commands the churches to repent. In Revelation 2:5 the Lord says, “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen and repent, and do the first works.” In Revelation 3:3 the Lord says, “Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent,” and in Revelation 3:19 He says, “Be zealous therefore, and repent.” Thus, not only unbelievers need to change their mind, but even believers are called upon by the Lord Jesus to repent, to have a change of mind.

THE NEED FOR THE RENEWING OF THE MIND

Many Christians may think that because they have repented and have received the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, they automatically have the mind of Christ and are no longer plagued by the fallen mind. This is far from the truth. The fact is that one’s initial repentance does not ipso facto give him a totally new mind. Yes, he now confesses his need for Christ and His redemptive work on the cross. However, as both the Scriptures and our experience testify, true blood-washed and Spirit-regenerated believers may have their practical daily living in the sphere of the fallen natural mind the same as they did before they were saved.

Walking in the Vanity of the Mind

Consider Paul’s word in Ephesians 4:17: “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye no longer walk as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind” (Gk.). Please pay attention to the words “no longer” (“henceforth” in KJV). These words not only imply the possibility of continuing to walk in the same vanity of the mind that we walked in before we were saved; they present this possibility as a serious danger. Paul did not say, “It is no longer possible for you to walk in the vanity of the mind.” Rather, he admonished the believers to do so no longer. Paul fully realized that one could be regenerated in his spirit, yet still conduct the affairs of his daily life according to the flesh or according to the darkened understanding of the natural mind. Thus, Paul repeatedly enjoined the believers to walk in spirit (Gal. 5:16).
When one genuinely repents before the Lord and receives Him into his being, his spirit is regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus said, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). When one is saved, he also experiences a change of mind and of heart. He begins to think differently about God and spiritual things, and he also has a heart to love the Lord Jesus. But this does not mean that the mind has been renewed. Remember Paul’s word: “No longer walk in the vanity of the mind.” In verse 23 of the same chapter, Paul tells the believers to “be renewed in the spirit of your mind.” Therefore, in Ephesians 4 we have a vivid contrast between “the vanity of the mind” and “the spirit of the mind.” The urgent need among all Christians today is the renewing of the mind. Without it, we shall continue to walk, even as the atheists and unbelievers do, in the vanity of the mind and be alienated from the life of God. Although we have been born of God in our spirit and the Lord Jesus is now with our spirit (2 Tim. 4:22), and although we have a heart to love the Lord, we may still conduct our practical daily life in the realm of the unrenewed natural mind. This is the clear testimony of the Word of God and the experience of a vast number of the Lord’s people.

Transformation by the Renewing of the Mind

Paul also speaks of the renewing of the mind in Romans 12:2. This verse says, “Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” In the book of Romans we see the mind of man in various stages: the reprobate mind (Rom. 1:28), the mind desiring to serve the law of God (Rom. 7:25), the mind set either upon the flesh or upon the spirit (Rom. 8:6), and the transformed and renewed mind. The word, “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,” implies that this process is not yet completed. Paul did not say, “Brothers, you have already been transformed by the renewing of your mind.” No, he encouraged them to seek transformation by the renewing of the mind. A renewed mind is able to prove the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God. Considering this verse in the context of the whole chapter, we see that the will of God is the Body. (Later we shall point out that the one characteristic of the renewed mind is that it does not think more highly of itself than it ought to think, having a proper respect for the other members of the Body.) Therefore, in Ephesians 4 and Romans 12, both of which deal with the practical realization of the Body life, we are strongly exhorted to seek the renewing of the mind. Without this, God’s eternal purpose cannot be fulfilled in a practical way on earth today. Our mind must be renewed, not merely for the sake of our personal spiritual growth, but for the unity and building up of the Body of Christ.
Just as the Lord’s children have seen the vanity of man’s natural mind and have testified to this fact uncompromisingly, so have they seen the need for the renewing of the mind. Recognizing that the “mind of the christian is also the strategic centre of the ‘war on the saints’ which Satan wages with ceaseless fiendish skill,”48 Jessie Penn-Lewis has this to say about the renewing of the mind:

Shall I put it crudely, and say that many get new “hearts,” but they keep their old “heads”! They do not realise that unless the hold of the adversary, which he has through the fallen nature of man, is removed from the mind, he has a position of vantage in the life of the believer, for attack and for hindrance in active service.49

Jessie Penn-Lewis also says, “There is a great battle today over the use and control of the mind, not only in the world, but among the children of God.”50 She also points out that many devoted children of God have “hearts full of love, but ‘minds’ full of all kinds of mixture—minds that have not been renewed and delivered from the interference of the enemy.”51 Confident in the Lord’s ability to renew our mind, she declares, “God is able, not only to deliver the mind from the enemy’s grip but also to renew it, so that it becomes as clear as crystal, with ‘every rebellious thought brought into captivity.”52
I very much appreciate Watchman Nee’s word regarding the need for the renewing of the mind. Testifying to the fact that the church is composed only of that which comes out of Christ, not of man’s talent, ability, thought, and self, Watchman Nee says this about the mind:

Again, we may meet some people who are very clever. Their minds are exceptionally keen. Before they were saved, they used their mind to study philosophy, science and literature. Then, after they were saved, they simply used their mind to study God’s Word. But, we may ask, from where does this keen mind come? Has it been dealt with by the cross? Is it under the control of the Holy Spirit? Or is it just that mind which they had originally? If so, it is simply something out of the earthly Adam, out of the man himself, the human nature; it is something of the flesh. Although these people have changed the subject, the mind is still the same old mind! And when they use this mind to study the Bible, instead of helping the Church they will cause the Church to suffer loss.53

Watchman Nee especially warns of the danger of reading the Bible with an unrenewed mind:

How often man in his conceit relies on his unrenewed and confused mind to read the Bible. The fruit is nothing but his own thought. He does not touch the spirit of the Holy Word. If we expect to meet the Lord in His Word, our thoughts must first be broken by God.54

He also says that an unrenewed mind “serves as an operation center for the enemy. Whatever belongs to Adam becomes natural ground for satanic working.”55
There is also a testimony to Paul’s word concerning the need for the renewing of the mind in the writings of Witness Lee. Witness Lee says, “In our spirit we are entirely different from the people of the world, but I am afraid that in our mind… we are still exactly the same.”56 Commenting on Romans 12:2, he says:

You have been regenerated, but, may I ask, has your mind been renewed? Do you have a new mind, or do you still have the old mind? If our mind remains old, it means that we are not being transformed in the soul. It is quite possible for us to be regenerated in the spirit, but still be old in the mind, emotion, and will. There is no change in our thinking, our loving and our choosing. In these things we are just the same as the unbelievers. The only difference is that we have been regenerated in the spirit and they have not. As far as the soul is concerned, our way of thinking, our way of loving and our way of choosing are the same as theirs. This is the reason Romans 12:2 says: “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.” If our mind is renewed, then our soul will be transformed.57

The Difference between the Renewed Mind and the Unrenewed Mind

Before we consider the way the mind is renewed and the characteristics of the renewed mind, let us briefly point out the difference between the renewed mind and the unrenewed mind. The difference is tremendous. Watchman Nee says:

Indeed, the difference between a renewed and an unrenewed nous [Greek word for mind] is as the difference between a shiny glass window and a dirty glass window. The unrenewed nous of a believer is unable to think and to do what the renewed nous is capable of thinking and doing. His renewed nous will increase at least several times its thinking capability. Its power of thinking will be greatly improved. So that the difference between a renewed nous and an unrenewed one is as the difference between life and death, heaven and earth. Were we to deal with our nous in the same fervor as we once sought salvation, we would live under an open heaven.58

Admittedly this is a strong and unequivocal statement. No doubt, it comes from a man with considerable spiritual experience.
Witness Lee points out how the renewing of the mind brings about a change in our thoughts:

We have Christ as life within our spirit, but now we need Christ to spread into the inward parts of the soul and saturate them with Himself. This will transform our soul into His very image. The image of Christ will then be reflected in our thoughts. In whatever we think and consider, our renewed mind will express the glorious image of Christ. The understanding of our mind will then be spiritual. It will be very easy for the mind to understand things which we sense in our spirit.59

Surely such testimonies from brothers with much experience in the Lord regarding the renewing of the mind should encourage us to diligently and earnestly seek the Lord concerning this. We know from the Scriptures that the function of our spirit is to contact God and receive Him and that the function of our body is to enable us to relate to the physical world. The function of our soul, however, is to express the Lord (Luke 1:46). The more we are transformed, changed into His image from glory to glory, the more we express Him (2 Cor. 3:18). What a high calling and glorious privilege! But whether or not our soul can magnify and express the Lord in our spirit depends upon the renewing of the mind.

THE PROCESS OF THE RENEWING OF THE MIND

How then is the mind renewed? It is absolutely not through any form of brainwashing, mind manipulation, or external control as the author of The Mindbenders falsely charges is our practice. In the local churches and in the ministry of Witness Lee there are no such practices. However, in both the churches and in Witness Lee’s ministry there is an appreciation for the inward working of the Lord’s life to transform a believer from within. To be transformed is to undergo a metabolic change in life. This does not come about through any form of coercion or mind manipulation. It can only take place as the Christ who dwells within our spirit makes His home in our heart (Eph. 3:17, Gk.). Our heart, composed of the mind, will, emotion, and conscience, is to be Christ’s home. The more Christ makes His home in our mind, the more our mind with its thoughts, reasonings, memories, and imaginations is renewed.
A crucial verse concerning the process of the renewing of the mind is Ephesians 4:23. This verse says, “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind.” Discussing the function of the cross in the renewing of the mind, Jessie Penn-Lewis says:

But for full renewal of the mind we have to go to the Cross, and learn its message that “our old man was crucified” with Christ. This is inclusive of the old carnal, darkened, fleshly mind. This comes out clearly in the words of Ephes. 4.22/23, as following the Apostle’s description of the darkened and empty mind in vv. 17 and 18. The “old man” crucified is here bidden to be “put off” by the believer, so that he may be “renewed in the spirit of his mind….” The first need is the knowledge of the state of mind by nature, and that a “change of mind” at conversion does not go deep enough to deliver the soul from the power of the enemy in his thought life, and mental activities. Then there must be a deliberate and definite “putting off” of the “old man” in the aspect of the old carnal mind, for the bringing captive to Christ of every thought. What is wanted, then, is to recognise that the unrenewed mind is part of the old creation that has to be put off at the Cross.60

Witness Lee also has a very clear word on the renewing of the mind according to Ephesians 4:22-24:

The putting away of the old man is the work of the cross, and the putting on of the new man is the work of resurrection. Between the work of the cross and the work of the resurrection is verse 23, “be renewed in the spirit of your mind.” The renewing of the mind includes the work of the cross with the resurrection. It means that our natural mind must be crossed out and renewed in resurrection. The death of the cross is not the end, but a process leading to an end, which is resurrection…. Death to the natural mind leads to a resurrected mind. We will then have a renewed mind in resurrection. This renewed mind is in the spirit and under the control of the spirit; it is filled with the spirit and full of the spirit. Hence, the spirit becomes the spirit of the mind. Then our mind will not only be a renewed mind, but also a spiritual mind with a spiritual understanding.61

The Mind of the Spirit and the Spirit of the Mind

In order for the mind to be renewed, thereby becoming the spirit of the mind, the mind must stand with the spirit. Romans 8:6 speaks of the mind of the flesh and the mind of the spirit. We may have either the mind of the flesh or the mind of the spirit. The mind is neutral. When our mind cooperates with the flesh, it becomes the mind of the flesh; but when it cooperates with the spirit, it becomes the mind of the spirit. If our mind submits to the spirit, it will be controlled by the spirit and become the mind of the spirit.62 “Because our mind stands with the spirit, the spirit will rule over the mind, saturate the mind, and become ‘the spirit of our mind.” When the spirit controls and saturates the mind, the spirit becomes the spirit of the mind.”63 When our mind submits to the spirit, becoming the mind of the spirit, and when our spirit saturates our mind, becoming the spirit of our mind, we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). Witness Lee has a helpful word concerning how our mind becomes the mind of Christ:

Since Christ is in the spirit, when our mind submits to the spirit, it is submitting to Christ. Thus, He is given the opportunity to expand from our spirit into our mind. Formerly, nothing of Christ was within our mind, but when our mind submits to the spirit, the Lord has the opportunity to permeate, fill, and renew our mind with Himself. In this way our soul is transformed by the renewing of our mind. Our mind, thus, will be filled with Christ. This is why Paul is able to say in 1 Corinthians 2:16, “We have the mind of Christ.” When we are regenerated in our spirit, we have the Spirit of Christ. When our mind submits to the spirit and lets Christ as the Spirit occupy it, we may even have the mind of Christ.64

Setting the Mind on the Spirit

We have pointed out that our mind needs to be renewed and that it is renewed by experiencing the death of the cross and the resurrection of Christ. Crucial to the renewing of the mind is the setting of the mind upon the spirit (Rom. 8:6). Only by setting our mind on our spirit can our spirit permeate our mind and make it the mind of Christ. In the garden of Eden, Adam had the choice of eating either the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Today we also have a choice: the choice of setting our mind upon our spirit, which is life and peace, or of setting our mind upon the flesh, which is death. According to Romans 8:6 and 7, the mind set on the flesh is not only death, but also enmity against God. Therefore, where a Christian sets his mind from moment to moment is of tremendous significance in his practical life.

The Mind Becoming One with Satan

Matthew 16:21-26 is a powerful portion of the Word related to the mind of a believer. These verses reveal that by the improper use of our mind, we may actually become one with Satan. In fact, we may be the practical expression of Satan himself. Let us examine Matthew 16:22 and 23. After the Lord explained in verse 21 that He would suffer many things of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, be killed, and be raised up the third day, “Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men” (ASV). The New American Standard Bible translates verse 23 as, “But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interest but man’s.” ” In his love for the Lord, Peter rebuked the Lord, wanting Him to have pity on Himself. But in making this suggestion, Peter’s mind was set on the things of men, not on the things of God. In doing this Peter expressed an opinion, a thought, that was actually the embodiment of Satan. Therefore, the Lord turned and, addressing Peter, said, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” The Lord called Peter “Satan” because at that moment Peter was one with Satan in his mind and was the practical expression of Satan.
The Lord’s own words explain how Peter could be one with Satan: “For thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.” Following this, in verse 24, the Lord spoke about the need to deny the self, take up the cross, and follow Him. Then in verse 25 He spoke about losing the soul life. In these verses, four things are related: Satan, mind, the self, and the soul-life. Because Peter spoke out of himself, setting his mind on the things that are of men, his speaking was also Satan’s speaking. Whenever we speak from the self with a mind set on the things of men, we are one with Satan, and the Lord can justly rebuke us, calling us by name and saying, “Get thee behind Me, Satan!” Whether we stand with Satan or with God depends on where our mind is set.
Who can deny that Peter believed in the Lord Jesus and loved Him? He had just received from the Father the revelation that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16-17). If Peter could be one with Satan in a practical way by minding the things of men, then how about us? We must be seriously warned from this portion of the Word to set our mind on the things of God and to deny the self with its satanic opinions. If we do not deny the self, we may still attempt to speak of God and for God, yet in our speaking we shall be the expression of Satan. Seeing this danger will motivate us to set our mind upon the spirit and to allow the spirit to permeate our mind, to renew it, and to transform it into the mind of Christ.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RENEWED MIND

Trusting in God

In the New Testament we see many characteristics of the renewed mind. One characteristic is that the renewed mind does not trust in itself, but in the Lord. Paul said, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our competency is of God” (2 Cor. 3:5, Darby). Paul, one with a renewed mind, did not reckon on anything as out of himself. His competence was of God. He had learned not to trust in himself, but in God who raises the dead (2 Cor. 1:9).

Open to All of God’s Truth

Another characteristic of the renewed mind is that it is open to all the truth of God. As Watchman Nee says, “An open mind is consequently of paramount importance to spiritual life. If our brain is full of prejudice toward the truth … truth will not enter it nor will it extend to our life.”65 Commenting further on a closed mind, he says, “A closed mind prevents truth from entering the spirit. A closed mentality is a prejudiced one; it opposes and criticizes any item differing from its idea.”66 Jessie Penn-Lewis says, “Whenever you find a man prejudiced over some truth he does not understand, it always means that there is some activity of the old mind.”67 Although a closed mind is prejudiced against the truth and refuses to let it in, an open mind receives the truth.
This open mind comes through our experience of the resurrected Christ. In Luke 24 we have a threefold opening: the opening of the eyes (v. 31), the opening of the Scriptures (v. 32), and the opening of the mind (v. 45, Gk.). It was by experiencing the resurrected Christ that the disciples experienced this threefold opening. Today, we also need our eyes opened to see the resurrected Christ, we need the Scriptures opened that the Lord may speak to us in a way to cause our hearts to burn, and we need our minds opened that we might understand the Word of God. The more our mind is renewed through the indwelling Christ as our resurrection life, the more it will be open to all the truth of God, no matter how much this truth may conflict with our natural concepts and opinions.

Reasonings Overthrown and Thoughts Captured

Another characteristic of the renewed mind is seen in 2 Corinthians 10:4 and 5. These verses say, “For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful through God to the overthrowing of strongholds; overthrowing reasonings, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (Gk.). Here we see two traits of the renewed mind: first, it is a mind in which the strongholds of reasonings have been overthrown so that the mind may be gained by the Lord out of the hand of the enemy; second, it is a mind in which every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. The natural mind is fortified with reasonings, and hidden within the reasonings are the thoughts. In the renewed mind the fortifications of reasonings are overthrown and the thoughts are captured. Speaking of the mind as the stronghold of Satan, Jessie Penn-Lewis writes:

The stronghold of the mind of man is therefore the strategic centre of the “war” with the “god of this age”, because it is primarily through the mind that he holds his captives in his power, and through the mind of those captives transmits his (1) poison into the minds of others, and his (2) plans and schemes for arousing those souls to active rebellion against God.68

What a vast difference between the renewed mind and the unrenewed mind! In the renewed mind every thought is subject to Christ. When such a deliverance and renewal take place, our thinking is no longer independent from Christ. Every thought is one with Him. Watchman Nee says:

There must come a day when God’s authority overthrows all the strongholds of reasoning which Satan has erected and recaptures all a man’s thoughts so as to make him a willing slave of God. Whereupon he no longer thinks independently of Christ; he is wholly obedient to Him. This is full deliverance.69

How God is longing for such obedience of mind! Watchman Nee also testifies:

God’s kingdom begins when there is an absolute obedience to God — no voicing of opinion, no presenting of reasonings, no murmuring, no reviling. For this glorious day God has waited since the creation of the world.70

If you cringe at the thought of being subdued by Christ, it may be an indication that your mind is still unrenewed and that your thoughts are still rebellious. But one who has experienced the renewing of the mind can say, “In the past we found freedom in living by ourselves; now we find true freedom in having our thoughts recaptured by God to the obedience of Christ.”71 Hallelujah for this liberation and renewal!

Filled with Life and Peace

In the book of Romans we see several other features of the renewed mind. It is a mind filled with life and peace, for it is a mind set on the spirit (Rom. 8:6). This reminds us of Isaiah 26:3, which says, “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee.”

Transformed

The renewed mind is a transformed mind, a mind that has undergone a metabolic change through the inward working of the Spirit of life (Rom. 12:2).

Thinking Soberly of Itself

A renewed mind also thinks soberly of itself; it does not regard itself more highly than it ought. Paul says, “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3). In verse 16 of the same chapter Paul says, “Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate.” Thus a renewed mind does not mind high things in a proud way, but condescends to the lowly.

Respecting the Rights of Others

A renewed mind does not engage in “doubtful disputations” (Rom. 14:1), but allows others to have their liberty in the Lord. In Romans 14:5 Paul says, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Here we see the proper liberality of the renewed mind. It does not criticize others who practice differently, nor does it impose its way on others who think differently. Rather, it gives others their liberty. Paul exhibited this kind of mind in writing to Philemon regarding Onesimus. Though Paul could have been bold to enjoin Philemon, for love’s sake he besought him (vv. 8-9), not wanting to do anything without Philemon’s opinion. In verse 14 Paul said, “Without thy opinion would I do nothing.” Here we see that the one with a renewed mind will not use authority to trample on the opinions of others. Rather, for love’s sake, he will not do anything without knowing the opinions of others. We can testify before the Lord that this characteristic of the renewed mind abounds in the local churches, especially in the life and ministry of Witness Lee. The charge expressed in The Mindbenders that he is “an autonomous dictator”72 is utterly false.

The Mind in Christ Jesus

Those with a renewed mind have in them the mind “which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). The context of Philippians 2 discloses that one with the mind of Christ will empty himself and lower himself, not exalt himself, just as Christ emptied and lowered Himself, but was exalted by God.

Permeated with the Spirit

As we have already indicated, a renewed mind is a mind permeated with the Spirit. Thus, our mind becomes “the mind of the spirit,” and our spirit becomes “the spirit of the mind.” The Spirit of God desires to have full possession of our minds. This does not take place through “the involuntary forfeiture of the human mind,” but through the inward working of the Holy Spirit in the heart and soul of a believer. In order for the Spirit to possess our mind and be expressed through it, all blockages in the mind must be removed. Jessie Penn-Lewis remarks:

If the mind is the vehicle of the Spirit it is absolutely necessary that the Spirit of God should have full possession of it, with every “rebellious thought” brought into captivity to Christ. The Holy Spirit, dwelling in the spirit, needs the mind as a channel for expression, but it may be so blocked up, and filled with other things that He is unable to transmit all He desires to do. A “blocked” mind means the spirit unexpressed, and a spirit unexpressed is a stoppage of the outflow of the Spirit of God to others.73

The Spirit of God will not force Himself upon us or into us. At the time of Christ’s baptism, the Spirit of God descended as a dove upon Him. The Spirit also works in us as a gentle dove. He does not require, nor do we in the local churches, that anyone forfeit the function of his mind. Rather, He patiently waits for the believer voluntarily to surrender and abandon himself to the Spirit so that, with the active cooperation of the believer’s intellect, the Spirit may spread into the mind, renew it, and flow out through it to give life-giving words to satisfy the thirst of others. How refreshing it is to be with those with such a Spirit-saturated mind! When these Christians “express their thoughts and ideas, we sense the presence of the Lord Spirit. Because their minds are under the control and direction of the spirit, the Lord Spirit has the opportunity to saturate and occupy their mind.”74

Set on Things in Heaven

A mind that has been so renewed through being permeated by the life-giving Spirit will surely be set on the things in heaven, not on the things on earth (Col. 3:12). Through the setting of the renewed mind upon the things in heaven, the believer is able to maintain experientially his position of ascension.

God’s Laws Inscribed upon Our Mind

An especially precious word regarding the renewed mind is found in Hebrews 10:16. This verse says, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their hearts, and upon their minds will I inscribe them” (Gk.). As Hebrews 8:10, a sister verse, indicates, when this takes place, the Lord will be our God and we shall be His people. As the Lord inscribes His laws upon our minds, we gain the inward subjective knowledge of God. Eventually, we shall no longer need teachers in an outward way, for we shall all know the Lord in an inward way. Hebrews 8:11 says, “And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” How marvelous to have a mind inscribed with the laws of God! This is an outstanding characteristic of the renewed mind.

Possessing Spiritual Understanding

As the Lord renews our mind by permeating it with the Spirit and by inscribing His laws upon it, we gain a genuine spiritual understanding. We are “filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Col. 1:9). Regarding the matter of spiritual understanding Witness Lee says:

This renewing work of the Holy Spirit begins first in our spirit and then expands to our soul to renew the understanding of our mind that we may know the things of the spirit. The more the understanding of our mind is renewed by the Holy Spirit, the more we can comprehend spiritual things and understand the will of God.75

Understanding the Teaching of the Anointing

This spiritual understanding of the renewed mind gives us the capability to understand the teaching of the anointing. The teaching of the anointing is referred to in 1 John 2:27. This verse says, “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” The anointing is the moving of the Holy Spirit within us, and the teaching of the anointing is the interpretation by the mind of this moving of the Spirit within. To know the teaching of the anointing within us, our mind must function in a proper, normal way. In his discussion of the teaching of the anointing and the understanding of the mind, Witness Lee says the following:

The teaching of the anointing is the interpretation and understanding of the mind with regard to the anointing in the spirit. Therefore, if we desire to follow the teaching of the anointing, we should have not only a keen feeling in our spirit, but also an experienced and spiritual mind. Such a mind includes the renewing of the mind, the exercising of our comprehension in spiritual matters, and the collecting of spiritual knowledge. These require that we love the Lord more, seek spiritual experiences, live in fellowship, study the Bible, read spiritual books and listen to messages. Through these, our mind will receive spiritual unveiling and become enriched in knowledge; thus, it will be able to comprehend the meaning of the anointing in our spirit. Consequently, we will realize the teaching of the anointing.76

At this point I would remind the reader of a statement in The Mindbenders regarding those in the local churches: “The tragedy is that they have so lost touch with reality that they believe they actually understand without their minds.”77 How clear it is that these words were written by a man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about! He is the real mindbender, not Witness Lee. Before he writes further on the local churches or the ministry of Witness Lee, we encourage him to conduct his research in an honest, thorough, unbiased, open-minded way and to present his conclusion without trying to bend the minds of the readers.

A Man’s Opinion Being God’s Word

The Apostle Paul exhibits still another characteristic of the renewed mind in 1 Corinthians 7. In writing to the church in Corinth about virgins, he says, “Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my opinion, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful” (v. 25, Gk.). Not claiming to have a word from the Lord, Paul proceeds to give his opinion. However, as we read 1 Corinthians 7:26-39 today, we regard it as the word of God. Thus, Paul’s utterance of his opinion was actually the speaking of God’s word. Paul’s mind was so renewed and filled with the Spirit that even his opinion became the inspired word of God. Paul concludes this chapter by saying, “But she is happier if she so abide, after my opinion: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” In this portion of the Word we have no self-assured, “Thus saith the Lord.” Rather, we see a man filled with Christ, whose opinion was so one with the Lord that it became the word of God. The transformation that had to take place in Paul’s mind in order for his opinion to be God’s word is nothing less than astounding. The opinions of the natural mind are the embodiment and expression of Satan. But here is one whose opinion is God’s word! What a remarkable characteristic of the renewed mind and what a marvelous testimony to the renewing power of the life of God in a believer!

One Mind and One Opinion

There is one further characteristic of the renewed mind that we must consider, and this is perhaps the most significant of all. The renewed mind is able to be of one mind with other believers. In fact, those with a renewed mind can even be of the same opinion. Listen to Paul’s word in 1 Corinthians 1:10: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same opinion” (Gk.). Here Paul begged the believers in Corinth to be of one mind and one opinion. Apparently it was no offense to Paul for the believers in a locality to be the same in their concept. Rather, it was normal and a prerequisite to the maintenance of the practical unity of the church.
Such a word about oneness of mind is not an isolated occurrence. Romans 15:5 says, “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus.” The Greek words rendered “to be likeminded” literally mean “to mind the same thing.” In Romans 12:16 Paul encouraged the believers by saying, “Be of the same mind one toward another.” Again, the Greek literally means “minding same thing.” In 2 Corinthians 13:11 Paul told the believers to “be of one mind,” that is, “to think the same thing.” In Galatians 5:10 Paul expressed the hope that all the churches in the region of Galatia would “be none otherwise minded”; he expected that they would not think anything different. In Philippians 2:2 Paul said, “Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.” Once again, the Greek says, “think ye the same thing,” and “thinking the one thing.” In Philippians 3:15 Paul said, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded,” and in verse 16 he said, “Let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.” In 4:2 Paul besought Euodias and Syntyche to “be of the same mind in the Lord.” According to the Greek, he was beseeching them “to think the same thing in the Lord.” Again and again Paul appealed to the believers to be one in mind, to think the same thing. Did he exercise mind control? Did he insist that they undergo a process of brainwashing? How absurd to even suggest such a possibility! And it is also ridiculous to charge the local churches with such an evil practice. Any like-mindedness among us comes not from outward coercion, but from the inward working of the same Holy Spirit who indwells us all. When we all deny the self with its prejudices and biases and turn to the Lord in our spirit, we spontaneously have the same mind, even the same opinion. A stanza from one of Charles Wesley’s hymns expresses the joy of such oneness:

When all are sweetly join’d
(True followers of the Lamb),
They’re one in heart and mind,
They think and speak the same;
When all in love together dwell,
The comfort is unspeakable!

A Glorious Oneness

It was this way in the first local church, the church at Jerusalem. Acts 4:32 says, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” Before He died, the Lord prayed that we would be perfected into one (John 17:23, Gk.). When the world beholds such a glorious oneness among the people of God on earth, the world will believe and know that the Father has sent the Son (John 17:21, 23). The glory which the Father has given to the Son, the Son has given to us that we may be one, even as the Father and the Son are one (John 17:22). May the Lord realize such a glorious oneness today through the oneness of the believers in spirit, heart, soul, mind, and opinion. The renewed mind is able to enter into such glorious unity. Those with such a renewed mind, a mind in oneness with God and the Body of Christ, will prove the perfect will of God, which is the practice of the genuine Body life.

THE SPIRIT AND THE MIND

Before I conclude, I need to say a word about the relationship between the spirit and the mind. God created man with both a spirit and a mind, and both are to be used properly and normally. It is the function of the spirit to receive God, to contact God, to worship God, and to serve God (Rom. 1:9). It is in the spirit that we have fellowship with the Lord. In spirit we have divine revelation (Eph. 1:17), we are built into God’s habitation (Eph. 2:22, Gk.), we are filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18, Gk.), and we pray the prayer of spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:18, Gk.). The Holy Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are the children of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself is with our spirit (Rom. 8:16; 2 Tim. 4:22). The grace we need for our daily living is also found in our spirit (Gal. 6:18). Only by living, worshipping, fellowshipping, working, and walking in the spirit can we be proper Christians before God.
What then is the function of the mind? The false accusations of The Mindbenders notwithstanding, we in the local churches believe according to the Scriptures that the mind has a crucial function. It is in the mind that we understand and grasp and interpret spiritual things. It is through the mind that we are able to edify the church of God by speaking the things of the Spirit to others (1 Cor. 14:14-19, Gk.). However, the mind in and of itself cannot grasp God, because God is Spirit, not a thought or concept to be received directly into the mind. Likewise, the spirit needs the mind in order to understand the things of the spirit. In 1 Corinthians 14:15 Paul, speaking of the abuse of tongues in Christian gatherings, says, “What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the mind also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the mind also” (Gk.). We in the local churches follow Paul’s example. In the meetings we pray with the spirit and with the mind also; we sing with the spirit and with the mind also. In fact, every aspect of the proper church life is a matter of the spirit and the mind also. Consider this straight, plain word by Witness Lee:

Whenever God makes something known to us in the intuition of our spirit, the understanding of our mind can immediately understand. When we have a strong and alert spirit plus a renewed and clear understanding, we can then have a full inward knowledge of the nature of God and of all His guidance and revelation.78

Paul says that we need both the spirit and the mind, and Witness Lee, in obvious agreement with Paul, says that we need “a strong and alert spirit plus a renewed and clear understanding.”
We need to make clear, however, that using the mind with the spirit is vastly different from “walking in the vanity of the mind,” that is, simply functioning in the realm of the natural mind apart from the spirit. Both the Scriptures and the experience of Christians testify that Christians in fact frequently exercise the mind with no regard to the spirit, often in rebellion against the inner sense of the Lord in the spirit. When we do this, we grieve the Spirit (Eph. 4:30). When we use the words “get out of the mind,” we mean to get out of the sphere of the natural mind and to set the mind on the spirit to contact God in a living way. Thinking about God is not the same as contacting Him. Reasoning about God is not the same as experiencing Him. Conceptualizing about God is not the same as enjoying Him. There is a great difference between accumulating information about God in the mind and knowing God by contacting Him in the spirit, at the same time receiving a spiritual understanding of Him in the renewed mind. We all highly value the function of our eyes. But can you use them to eat a sirloin steak? Suppose someone was sitting and gazing upon a steak, reasoning about it. Then suppose a friend remarked, “Stop gazing at the food and start eating it.” Does this mean that he is charging him to no longer use his eyes, but henceforth only his mouth? How ridiculous! If the writer of The Mindbenders can contact God only by his mind, let him give testimony of it and cite Scripture to support it. According to the testimony of Scripture and our experience, we worship God in spirit, and we understand the things of God through a renewed mind set upon the spirit.
The writer of The Mindbenders seems to feel that being a Christian is mainly, if not merely, a matter of the mind. To him, salvation is something “we accept and believe with our minds.”79 Does this mean that salvation is enjoyed only on a mental level? What about the spirit? Our mind is crucial (2 Cor. 4:4), but so is our spirit (John 3:6), where the new birth actually takes place.
After quoting Matthew 5:6 regarding hungering and thirsting for righteousness, the author of The Mindbenders says:

Hungering and thirsting after righteousness is a mental attitude [italics his]. You can’t have such an attitude without the active use of your mind. Wanting righteousness involves thinking about what is right. You have to use your mind to do that.80

Of course the mind is involved, but is that all? A hungry and thirsty man no doubt thinks about food and drink. But his need is deeper than the mind: he has hunger pangs deep in his being. So it is with hungering and thirsting for righteousness. The mind is active, but so is the spirit, the deepest part of our being. We in the churches are among those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. This means that our mind is active to think about righteousness, which is actually Christ Himself (1 Cor. 1:30). But we don’t stop with the mind; we seek for righteousness with our spirit, our heart, our whole being. Another quote from William Law is appropriate here:

And as it would be great folly and perverseness to accuse a man as an enemy to the true use of reasoning about food, because he declares that reason is not food nor can supply the place of it; so is it equally such to accuse a man of being an enemy to the use of reasoning in the spiritual realm, because he declares that reasoning is neither light, life, nor love, nor can supply the place of any of them in the soul or spirit of man.81

When I read a menu, I exercise my eyes to see, my mind to think, and my will to decide. But when I eat the meal, I primarily exercise my mouth to receive the food, and then my digestive organs assimilate it. As I am eating the food, I also gain a mental understanding of it through my experience. Likewise, according to the Lord’s own word, we must eat and drink Him in order to have life and in order to abide in Him (John 6:51, 53-57). Since spiritual food must be received by the spirit, we are not ashamed to testify that we use our spirit to eat the Lord. Simply thinking about Him is not eating Him. Thousands of us spent years starving in various branches of the historic church looking at the menu or hearing a third hand description of the food. Now we can testify to God, man, and Satan that in the local churches we are not only learning about the food; we, are eating it, enjoying it, assimilating it, and living by it. Actually, it is by taking in the Lord as food in such a living way that our mind is renewed from within.
Our testimony is that we exercise the spirit to contact God, to worship Him, to serve Him, and to walk before Him, and we also exercise our mind, which is day by day being renewed through the Spirit of life within, to know, to interpret, and to understand the spiritual things. The charge that we are mindless or victims of mind control is false, and we repudiate it.

A PERSONAL TESTIMONY

Allow me to give a word of personal testimony. In no way do I claim to be an unusually intelligent or intellectually gifted person. However, in all fairness I can say that I have a strong academic background. I graduated with high honors from Wayne State University and was awarded a prize for outstanding work in systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Throughout my years of formal education I exercised my mind to study diligently. Probably it was unavoidable that the knowledge I accumulated made me proud. In 1962, out of a deep hunger for the Lord, I began to seek experiences of the Holy Spirit. Eventually I experienced the Spirit in a hitherto unknown way, but at the cost of humiliation and the breaking of pride. In the two years immediately prior to being led of God into the church life, the Lord humbled me again and again so that my being might be opened without reservation to the truth of His pure Word. I have been in the church life now for nearly eleven years. I can testify with a pure conscience before God, before man, and before Satan that I have never been subject to any form of mind control. Yes, I have changed my mind concerning many things, but not because a man, or a group of men, induced or coerced me to do so. Rather, it was through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, the enlightenment of the living Word, and my repentance before the Lord. Hundreds and even thousands can give a similar testimony. We in the churches are not a mindless mass of believers following a dictator. We have not renounced the God-given faculties of thinking, reasoning, and considering. However, out of our experience with Christ we have come to receive and accept the judgments of His Word upon the unrenewed mind of fallen man. We have come to agree with Him when He said, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” (1 Cor. 1:19). We agree with His Word regarding the vanity of our reasonings and the disobedience of our thoughts. It was no man who persuaded us; it was the Spirit who enlightened us. We do not now live in a mental wilderness, devoid of proper mental activity. Our minds are active and are daily being renewed, not through outward control, but through the inward working of Christ our life (Col. 3:4).I do not know why the writer of The Mindbenders made the false charges he did. Perhaps it is because his mind is still in an unrenewed state and cannot adequately discern or receive spiritual things, especially those things which contradict preconceived or traditional concepts. Perhaps it is because he trusts the knowledge of psychology more than the leading of the Holy Spirit and the pure Word of God. Whether or not this is so, the Lord will decide, if not in this life, then when the secrets of all, including the thoughts and intents of the heart, are exposed and judged at the judgment seat of Christ (1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10). At that time, every idle word will be accounted for, and by our words we shall either be justified or condemned (Matt. 12:36-37).

We give our testimony and a word of reply on behalf of the local churches in the presence of the Lord. We thank Him for creating us a spirit, a soul, and a body. We thank Him for regenerating our spirit and filling it with Himself. We also thank Him for exposing the deplorable state of our fallen mind and for showing us the way, according to His economy, for our mind to be renewed and even to become the mind of Christ. We have experienced many humbling lessons and no doubt we shall experience more. We are willing for this, for we long to be fully recovered and possessed by the One we love, by the One who shed His blood on the cross that we might be redeemed and filled with His life so that, for His glory, we might be constituted into His living Body on earth today. No, we are neither mindbenders nor victims of mindbending. We are people, like all others, who were contaminated by the fall. And we are believers, like many others, who have been cleansed with the blood and regenerated by the Spirit. By the Lord’s mercy and grace we are learning to cooperate with Him in life to be renewed in the spirit of our mind so that we may put on the new man for the fulfillment of His eternal purpose. We love the Lord our God with our heart, our soul, and our mind. We worship Him, we enjoy Him, and we serve Him with the spirit and with the mind also.

Ron Kangas


Footnotes

  1. Jack Sparks, The Mindbenders (Nashville and New York: Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers, 1977), p. v.
  2. Ibid., p. 15.
  3. Ibid., p. 16.
  4. Ibid., p. vi.
  5. Ibid., p. 16.
  6. The Random House College Dictionary (New York: Random House, Inc., 1973), p. 163.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Sparks, op. cit., p. 17.
  9. 9. Ibid., p. 219.
  10. Random House College Dictionary, op. cit., p. 1068.
  11. Sparks, op. cit., p. 220.
  12. Ibid., p. 221.
  13. Ibid., p. 226.
  14. Ibid.
  15. Ibid., p. 227.
  16. Ibid., p. 231.
  17. Ibid.
  18. Ibid., p. 232.
  19. Ibid., p. 233.
  20. Ibid., p. 239.
  21. Ibid., p. 240.
  22. Ibid., p. 227.
  23. Ibid., p. 252.
  24. Ibid., p. 253.
  25. Witness Lee, The Parts of Man (Los Angeles: The Stream Publishers, 1969), p. 10.
  26. Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Message Ninety-nine (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1977), p. 1267.
  27. Witness Lee, The Economy of God (Los Angeles: The Stream Publishers, 1968), p. 81.
  28. Ibid., p. 82.
  29. Witness Lee, The Experience of Life (Los Angeles: The Stream Publishers, 1973), p. 183.
  30. Ibid., p. 184.
  31. G. H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Company), p. 109.
  32. Jessie Penn-Lewis, The Battle for the Mind (Dorset: The Overcomer Literature Trust), p. 4.
  33. Watchman Nee, Spiritual Authority (New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1972), p. 99.
  34. Pember, op. cit., p. 109.
  35. C. H. Macintosh, Genesis to Deuteronomy (Neptune: Loizeaux Brothers, 1972), p. 788.
  36. Ibid.
  37. Ibid., p. 789.
  38. William Law, The Power of the Spirit, edited by Dave Hunt (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1971), pp. 98-99.
  39. Ibid., pp. 101-102.
  40. Ibid., p. 104.
  41. Ibid., p. 105.
  42. Ibid., p. 106.
  43. Nee, op. cit., p. 96.
  44. Ibid., p. 97.
  45. Ibid.
  46. Harry A. Ironside, Except Ye Repent (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc.), pp. 7-8.
  47. Witness Lee, Life-Study of Matthew, Message Nine (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1977), pp. 106-107.
  48. Penn-Lewis, op. cit., p. 4.
  49. Ibid., p. 5.
  50. Ibid., p. 2.
  51. Ibid., p. 6.
  52. Ibid.
  53. Watchman Nee, The Glorious Church (Los Angeles: The Stream Publishers, 1968), pp. 32-33.
  54. Watchman Nee, The Release of the Spirit (Indianapolis: Sure Foundation, 1965), p. 51.
  55. Watchman Nee, Spiritual Knowledge (New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1973), p. 97. [See The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, vol. 10, chapter 17, section 4]
  56. Lee, The Economy of God, p. 82.
  57. Lee, The Parts of Man, pp. 17-18.
  58. Nee, Spiritual Knowledge, p. 103. [See The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, vol. 10, chapter 17, section 6]
  59. Lee, The Economy of God, pp. 83-84.
  60. Penn-Lewis, op. cit., p. 8.
  61. Lee, The Economy of God, pp. 84-85.
  62. Lee, The Parts of Man, p. 18.
  63. Lee, The Economy of God, p. 84.
  64. Lee, The Parts of Man, p. 18.
  65. Watchman Nee, The Spiritual Man (New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, Inc., 1968), vol. 3, p. 69.
  66. Ibid.
  67. Penn-Lewis, op. cit., p. 7.
  68. Ibid., p. 4.
  69. Nee, Spiritual Authority, pp. 101-102.
  70. Ibid., p. 105.
  71. Ibid., p. 106.
  72. Sparks, op. cit., p. 221.
  73. Penn-Lewis, op. cit., p. 5.
  74. Lee, The Parts of Man, p. 19.
  75. Witness Lee, The Knowledge of Life (Los Angeles: The Stream, 1973), p. 167.
  76. Lee, The Experience of Life, pp. 143-144.
  77. Sparks, op. cit., p. 233.
  78. Lee, The Knowledge of Life, p. 169.
  79. Sparks, op. cit., p. 57.
  80. Ibid., p. 56.
  81. Law, op. cit., p. 102.

©1977 Gene Ford. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God

The purpose of this article is to provide the general Christian public with a clear and simple presentation of three views concerning the Triune God: modalism, tritheism, and the pure revelation of the Triune God according to the Bible. By having a basic understanding of modalism and tritheism and by seeing the pure revelation of the Triune God in the Scriptures, the Lord’s people should be able to discern and avoid the heretical extremes of modalism and tritheism, grasp the whole truth of God’s revelation in the Scriptures, and pursue more readily the experience of the Triune God according to His eternal purpose.

MODALISM

Some Definitions

Let us begin with modalism. Because this term is unfamiliar to many Christians, we need to define four words—mode, modal, modalism, and modalist. According to its philosophical meaning, a mode denotes the appearance or form assumed by a thing; it refers to the manifestation, form, or manner of arrangement of some underlying substance. The adjective modal specifies the mode of a thing as distinguished from its substance or essence. Modalism is the theological doctrine that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three distinct Persons, but rather three modes or forms of activity under which God manifests Himself. A modalist is an adherent of the theological doctrine of modalism.

The Modalistic Concept of the Trinity

According to the modalistic concept of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not equally and eternally co-existent, but are merely three successive manifestations of God, or three temporary modes of His activity. Modalism, which is actually a form of unitarianism, denies that God in His own inner being is triune. Rather, it claims that the Father, Son, and Spirit are either temporary or successive roles adopted by God in carrying out the divine plan of redemption and that they in no way correspond to anything in the ultimate nature of the Godhead.1 Modalism does not recognize the independent personality of Christ, but regards the incarnation as a mode of the existence or manifestation of the Father.2 For the modalists, the Father, Son, and Spirit only refer to the way in which God reveals Himself, but bear no relation to His inner being.3

A Brief History of Modalism

Let us now briefly consider the history of modalism and the thought of some of its leading exponents. Toward the end of the second century, there emerged a form of teaching called Monarchianism. Modalism, otherwise known as modalistic Monarchianism, is a form of Monarchianism. The word Monarchianism derives from the Greek word monarchia which means the rule of one man. The Monarchians were concerned about the divine unity or “Monarchy.” For them, the dominant principle was that God is one. As an explanation of the threefold revelation of God, Monarchianism was aimed at excluding the idea that Christians worshipped three Gods.4 Along with maintaining this principle, the modalistic Monarchians also wanted to assert the full divinity of Christ. However, as we shall see, the modalists actually sacrificed Christ’s independent personality, merging it into the essence of the Father.5 Modalism was popular among the simple believers, for it seemed to them the best way of protecting their belief in one God against ditheistic or tritheistic (belief in two or three Gods) corruption.6

Two of the earliest representatives of the modalistic school of thought were Praxeas and Noetus, both of whom came from Asia Minor to Rome toward the end of the second century.7 Praxeas taught that the Father and the Son were one identical Person and that the Father Himself became man, hungered, thirsted, suffered, and died in Christ.8 This view is also known as Patripassianism, from the Latin words pater (“father”) and passio (“suffering”), because its practical identification of the Father and the Son lead to the conclusion that the Father suffered on the cross.9 In the words of the church historian, Philip Schaff, Praxeas “conceived the relation of the Father to the Son as like that of the spirit to the flesh. The same object, as spirit, is the Father; as flesh, the Son. He thought the Catholic doctrine tritheistic.”10 The modalism advocated by Praxeas was for a time prevalent and popular at Rome. Early in the third century, Tertullian, to whom we owe the definition of the Godhead as being “one substance in three persons,” wrote against him in a document entitled, Against Praxeas, accusing him of driving out the Holy Spirit and of crucifying the Father.

Noetus published the same views as Praxeas approximately 200 A.D., 11 teaching that “Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born and suffered and died.”12 Noetus taught that in order for Christ to be God, He had to be identical with the Father. Since, for Noetus, there could be no division in the Godhead, if Christ suffered, then the Father suffered also.13 According to Noetus, there was only one God, the Father, who manifested Himself as He pleased. The Son is merely a designation of God when He reveals Himself to the world and to men. The Father is called the Son for a certain time in reference to His experiences on earth. To Noetus, the Son is the Father veiled in flesh.14 Two of Noetus’ disciples, Epigonus and Cleomenes, propagated his doctrine in Rome.15

Callistus, who later became Pope Callixtus I, adopted and advocated the doctrine of Noetus, declaring the Son to be merely the manifestation of the Father in human form. Callistus taught that the Father animated the Son in the same way as the spirit animates the body.16 Considering his opponents to be ditheists (those who believe in two Gods), Callistus taught that God in the flesh is called the Son, while apart from the flesh He is called the Father.17

In the early decades of the third century, Beryllus denied the personal existence of the Son, teaching that He had no individual existence of His own before coming to reside among men. Beryllus also denied the independent divinity of Christ, claiming that He had no divinity of His own but only the divinity of the Father that indwelt Him during His earthly life. In a sense, Beryllus was a stepping stone between the early schools of modalism and Sabellianism.18

Sabellius was, by far, the most original, profound, and ingenious of the modalists.19 His theology was essentially that of Noetus, but, being more carefully worked out, gave a definite place to the Holy Spirit as well as to the Son.20 Sabellius seems to have been even more concerned than his predecessors in preserving the unity of God, and he insisted in the strongest possible way that God is one Person as well as one substance.21 According to Sabellius, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one and the same, being the three names of the one God who manifests Himself in different ways according to circumstances. As the Father, He is Creator, Governor, and Lawgiver; as the Son, He is incarnate as the Redeemer; and as the Spirit, He is the Inspirer of the Apostles, the Regenerator, and the Sanctifier.22 But, to Sabellius, He is the one and the same God, the one and the same divine Person, who acts in all these ways, appearing in successive and temporary manifestations, just as a human individual may be called by different titles to denote his various roles.23 God does not act as Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time, but successively, turning from one activity to another as the need requires, with the one and the same God appearing now as the Father, now as the Son, and now as the Holy Spirit, but never all at the same time.24

Sabellius’ fundamental thought is that the unity of God unfolds itself in the course of the world’s development in three forms or periods of revelation, and after the completion of redemption returns again into unity.25 Sabellius taught that the revelation of the Son ends with the ascension and that the revelation of the Spirit goes on in regeneration and sanctification.26 Therefore, the trinity of Sabellius is not a trinity of essence, that is, of the inner being of God, but of revelation. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply designations of three different phases under which the one divine essence reveals itself.27 Sabellius differs from orthodox doctrine mainly in making the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only temporary phenomena which fulfilled their mission and returned into an abstract entity.28 Sabellius denied that the Father, Son, and Spirit eternally co-exist in the inner being of God. Rather, he insisted that the Father, Son, and Spirit are merely temporary and successive manifestations of the one Person of God. In the words of J. F. Bethune-Baker, a renowned scholar in the history of doctrine, for Sabellius, “There is no real incarnation; no personal indissoluble union of the Godhead with the Manhood took place in Christ. God only manifested Himself in Christ and when the part was played and the curtain fell upon that act in the great drama there ceased to be a Christ or a Son of God.”29

TRITHEISM

As a sharp contrast to modalism, tritheism is the belief in three Gods, especially in the doctrine that the three Persons of the Trinity are three distinct Gods. According to tritheism, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate Gods. Even today, some say that the Father is one God, that the Son is one God, and that the Spirit is also one God. This is tritheism. Whenever the distinctions of the Persons of the Godhead are pressed too far, the result will be tritheism. Speaking of the term Person, W. H. Griffith Thomas, one of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary and a highly respected student of the Bible, said:

Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism. While we use the term to denote distinctions in the Godhead, we do not imply distinctions which amount to separateness, but distinctions which are associated with essential mutual co-inherence or inclusiveness.30

A form of tritheism is represented by the doctrine of Arius. In Arius’ formulation, the Father was fully God, the Son had the status of the leading creature, and the Spirit was inferior to the Son. Although for Arius the divine status of the Son and the Spirit was uncertain, his formula must be considered as a type of tritheism.31 The teaching of Arius aroused a great controversy in the early decades of the fourth century. This controversy grew so intense that at the invitation of the Emperor Constantine, the Council of Nicaea convened in 325 A.D. to settle the dispute among the churches of the empire over the doctrine of the Trinity. The main issue was between Arius with his form of tritheism and Athanasius with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed that resulted from this council overthrew the heresy of Arius and tritheism with an anathema at the end of the creed.32 By the time of the Council of Nicaea, both modalism, especially that of Sabellius, and tritheism had been defeated.

However, since the time of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (A.D. 320-395), known as the three Cappadocians, there was a tendency toward tritheism. Because of this, more than two hundred years after the Nicene Council, another form of tritheism appeared in the teaching of Johannes Philoponus, who pushed the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to an extreme, saying that there were three essences in the one common essence of the Godhead. This was virtually tritheism.33 John of Damascus, the last of the Greek Eastern Fathers, who is especially noted for his stress on the matter of the co-inherence among the Godhead, corrected this tritheism by a renewed emphasis on the divine unity.34 John of Damascus saw the Son as the channel through whom the divine life flows eternally from the Father to the Holy Spirit and through whom also the union of the three hypostases (a technical term referring to the Persons of the Godhead) mediated, but he made no attempt to reconcile the two.35 “Such a transcendent mystery can be apprehended by human thought and expressed by human language only in disjointed fragments of the perfect truth.”36

AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE EXTREMES OF MODALISM AND TRITHEISM

As the church Fathers discussed the inner nature of the Trinity, they attempted to avoid the extreme of modalism on the one hand and the extreme of tritheism on the other. As they sought to formulate an adequate definition of the Trinity, they themselves were often accused of being either modalists or tritheists, depending upon their emphasis, at any given time, of one aspect of truth at the expense of the other. Their difficulty lay in trying to avoid sounding modalistic while speaking of the fact that we have one unique God, and to avoid sounding tritheistic while speaking of the three Persons and Their economy.37 “Many passages of the Nicene fathers have unquestionably a tritheistic sound, but are neutralized by others which by themselves may bear a Sabellian construction; so that their position must be regarded as midway between these two extremes.”38

At various times, Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 330-395) was attacked both for being modalistic and also for being tritheistic, depending upon what Scriptures he used in expounding the incomprehensible mystery of the Triune God.39 On the Holy Trinity Gregory of Nyssa says:

They charge us with preaching three Gods …. Then truth fights on our side, for we show both publicly to all men, and privately to those who converse with us, that we anathematize any man who says that there are three Gods, and hold him to be not even a Christian. Then, as soon as they hear this, they find Sabellius a handy weapon against us, and the plague that he spread is the subject of continual attacks upon us.40

Marcellus of Ancyra (A.D. 320-374) is a notable example of one who was misunderstood and misrepresented. As he wrote against Arius and tritheism, he sounded like a modalist and was accused of teaching a refined form of Sabellianism and was, thereby, condemned. But his followers presented a statement of belief which clearly anathematized Sabellius and modalism. “Thus the problem of misunderstanding and even outright misrepresentation had again surrounded the struggle to be able to utter the mystery of the Triune God without being placed in a false position by the opposers.”41

Jonathan Edwards, a highly respected servant of the Lord, was accused of both tritheism and modalism. He wrote a book entitled Observations Concerning the Scripture Economy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption, for which he came under attack by one writer who said:

The writer is informed on unquestionable authority that there is, or was, in existence a manuscript of Edwards, in which his views appear to have undergone a great change in the direction of Arianism or of Sabellianism….42

It is well to give here other examples of church Fathers who were accused of modalism, tritheism, or both. Tertullian (A.D. 160-220), who was a leader in the fight against modalism and who is regarded as orthodox and fundamental, was accused of Arianism by one who said, “Tertullian, Prior to his falling into the heresy of Montanus, entertained the same opinions as those of Arius, concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”43

Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 190-265) is another example of the misunderstanding concerning the discussions of the Triune God. He was strong to oppose Sabellius, but in doing so he appeared to lean to the other extreme and was charged with teaching tritheism. He was accused by some of treason against the faith before the Bishop of Rome and was asked by a synod of bishops to declare his views. In his reply, Dionysius denied that he had separated the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since each necessarily implied the others.44 His reason for not using the term homoousios (meaning “of one substance”) was that he did not find it in Scripture. He was fully vindicated by his writing, and Athanasius, a defender of the Nicene Creed, informs us that Dionysius held right views concerning the Triune God. However, some who had not read his replies to the Bishop of Rome or Athanasius’ vindications of him still persisted in accusing him of tritheism.45

Augustine (A.D. 354-430), one of the most important writers on the orthodox view of the Trinity, was accused of being a modalist. His emphasis on the oneness of God laid him open to the charge of modalism. In stressing the unity of operation of the Three, Augustine differed considerably from those Fathers who spoke as if each Person had a distinct role in external activities.46 Adolf Harnack, a renowned authority in the history of dogma, said, “We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a Modalist, and by the aid of ingenious distinctions between different ideas.”47

Athenagoras was a second century philosopher who set out to write against the Christians. However, studying the Scriptures in order to carry on the contest with greater accuracy, he himself was caught by the Spirit. His statements on the Triune God reflect the simplicity of the pure Word. He said:

The one ambition that urges us Christians on is the desire to know the true God and the Word that is from Him — what is the unity of the Son with the Father, what is the fellowship of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit; what is the unity of these mighty Powers; and the distinction that exists between them, united as they are — the Spirit, the Son, the Father.48

Commenting on what Athenagoras wrote, Bishop Bull indicates that he was charged both with Sabellianism and Arianism:

And hence it is that Petavius [a French Jesuit scholar A.D. 1583-1652] at last charges Athenagoras with Sabellianism, as if he had believed that there is, and ever has been but one Person of the Father and the Son. This, I repeat, Petavius does, the very same one who both in the very passage in which he does it and elsewhere throughout, introduces the same Athenagoras being an Arian; thus fixing on the learned father two heresies which are diametrically opposed to each other.49

The word homoousios that was introduced into the Nicene Creed was misused and abused by some to favor Sabellianism and utilized by others who favored tritheism.50 Commenting on the problem surrounding the use of this word, the church historian Socrates Scholasticus (A.D. 379-445?) said:

…while they [the bishops] occupied themselves in too minute investigation of its import, they roused the strife against each other; it seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another. Those who objected to the word homoousios, conceived that those who approved it favored the opinion of Sabellius and Montanus; they therefore called them blasphemers, as subverting the existence of the Son of God. And again the advocates of this term, charging their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen superstitions…. In consequence of these misunderstandings, each of them wrote as if contending against adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that there is one God in three Persons, yet from what cause I am unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore could in no way endure to be at peace.51

Eventually, the Fathers developed what is known as the doctrine of co-inherence, which means the intercommunion and interpenetration of the Persons of the Godhead. Co-inherence denotes the mutual indwelling of the three Persons whereby one is as invariably in the other two as they are in the one.52 This doctrine is man’s attempt to understand the relationship between the three Persons and to explain how they have one essence. As John of Damascus said in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith “… the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or co-mingling or confusion.”53 Commenting on this matter, Augustus H. Strong remarks, “The Scripture representations of this intercommunion prevent us from conceiving of the distinctions called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as involving separation between them. This intercommunion also explains the designation of Christ as ‘the Spirit,’ and of the Spirit as ‘the Spirit of Christ.'”54 On the same page, Strong quotes another writer as saying, “The persons of the Holy Trinity are not separable individuals. Each involves the others; the coming of each is the coming of the others. Thus the coming of the Spirit must have involved the coming of the Son.”55

In his classic work, Defense of the Nicene Creed, Bishop Bull says, “The co-inherence [mutual indwelling] of the Divine Persons is indeed a very great mystery, which we ought rather religiously to adore than curiously pry into …. It is a union which far transcends all other unions.”56 The doctrine of co-inherence, therefore, was an explanation of the Persons of the Trinity that guarded the three Persons from dissolving into modalism’s three phases, stages, or aspects of God and also protected the three Persons from ending up as three Gods.57

THE TWOFOLDNESS OF DIVINE TRUTH

How is it that modalism and tritheism came into being? The reason is that both modalism and tritheism stressed in an unbalanced way one aspect of the twofold truth of God’s revelation in the Bible. Modalism takes one aspect of the truth – that there is only one unique God – and pushes it to a heretical extreme; tritheism, on the contrary, takes another aspect of the truth of God’s revelation – that He is one-in-three – and pushes it to the opposite heretical extreme. If we see the principle of the twofoldness of divine truth, we can easily avoid these extremes and still maintain a testimony faithful to the whole truth of God’s revelation in the Scriptures.

As a help to understanding this principle, let us quote several portions from an article entitled, “The Twofoldness of Divine Truth,” written by Robert Govett, a very perceptive and careful student of the Word of God. Govett says:

The twofoldness of truth as offered to our view in Holy Writ is one strong argument of its not being the work of man. It is the glory of man’s intellect to produce oneness. It is to trace different results to one principle, to clear it of ambiguities, to show how, through varied appearances, one law holds. Anything that stands in the way of the completeness of this, he eludes or denies.58

“But,” as Govett continues, “it is not so with God. In nature He is continually acting with two seemingly opposed principles.”59 Therefore, Govett says, “It is not then to be wondered at, if two seemingly opposed principles are found placed side by side in the Scripture. ‘Unity in plurality, plurality in unity’ is the main principle on which both the world and the Scripture are constructed.”60 Regarding the apparently irreconcilable statements in God’s Word, Govett remarks, “It is not necessary to reconcile them before we are bound to receive and act upon the two. It is enough that the Word of God distinctly confirms them both.”61 As Govett says, “The claim on our reception is not that we can unite them, but that God has testified both.”62 Many debates regarding the truth in God’s Word are unnecessary, for, as Govett states, “Opposite views of truth arise from different parts of the subject being viewed at different times.”63 In this article Govett clearly expresses what the attitude of a Christian should be toward the truth of God’s revelation:

Thus does God try His people. Will they trust Him when He affirms that view of truth which runs counter to their temperaments and intellectual bias? or will they trample on one of His sayings in their zeal for the other? The humble, child-like saint will acknowledge and receive both; for his Father, who cannot err, testifies to each alike.64

Govett specifically applies the principle of the twofoldness of divine truth to the nature of God:

The same twofoldness of truth appears in the Scripture statements concerning the nature of God. It affirms His unity …. But the Scripture as plainly affirms the distinction of persons in the Godhead. ‘Unity in plurality and plurality in unity’ is the assertion here. This master truth, which takes its rise in the nature of the Godhead, flows out into all His works.65

Note Govett’s statement that this “master-truth … takes its rise in the nature of the Godhead.” In other words, God’s revelation in the Scriptures, being twofold, is an expression of the very nature of God Himself. The two aspects of God’s being — that He is the Three being one and the One being three — are testified by the twofoldness of the truth of His revelation in the Scriptures.

THE PURE WORD OF GOD

Before we come to the revelation of the Triune God contained in the Bible, we need to stress a very important point: Our stand with respect to the Triune God is the Holy Scriptures, not according to traditional interpretations, but according to the pure Word of God. Proverbs 30:5a and 6 say, “Every word of God is pure…. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”Adding to the Word of God is most serious and is strictly forbidden in Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; and Revelation 22:18.

Practically, what does it mean to add to the Word of God? The word of the Lord Jesus provides a clear answer. In Matthew 16:6, the Lord told His disciples, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” Leaven is something added to dough to produce fermentation (cf. Matt. 13:33). When the disciples were unable to understand the Lord’s word, He asked them, “How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?” (Matt. 16:11). The Lord’s further word must have made them clear, for the next verse reads, “Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” The Lord Jesus Himself likens the teachings of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the ancient fundamentalists and modernists, to leaven. In Matthew 15:6 the Lord said to the scribes and Pharisees, “Thus have ye made the word of God of none effect by your tradition” (Gk.). Therefore, quoting Isaiah, the Lord could say, “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9). When we put all these verses together, we see that the leaven of the Pharisees is the traditional teachings and the commandments of men. When these are added to the Word of God, or held equal to it, God’s Word is nullified, made of none effect. As those who would obey His word and follow Him, we must be faithful to reject the leaven of human opinion, concept, and tradition, or, at least, to distinguish between it and the pure Word of the Lord.

As we consider the revelation of the Triune God in the Bible, we wish to hold to the pure Word of God and not to any traditional terms or concepts. Although, due to the poverty of our language, we may need to use certain terms, we must be on guard not to equate them with, much less to let them replace, the word of the Bible. Our intention here is not to engage in abstract speculations or interpretations, but simply to say, “Amen,” to whatever God says in His Word regarding the revelation of Himself. It is sufficient simply to point out what God Himself has spoken. Martin Luther said:

Those who neglect the Scriptures and approach such questions [such as the Trinity] with confidence in their own mental power are the teachers of God, not His pupils…. If reason disturbs you here and questions arise like… Are there, then, two gods? answer: There is only one God, and still there is the Father and the Son. How is this possible? Respond with humility: I do not know.66

It is well to also heed the words of the Puritan writer, Hermann Witsius, who said that we should stop at the precise point beyond which divine revelation does not conduct us, 67 and the words of E.W. Bullinger, author of The Companion Bible, who said:

We do not, therefore, now propose to discuss doctrines, or to use any non-scriptural expressions …. These are the things which divide the members of the One Body, instead of uniting them. These introduce the seeds of strife and contention … But, if we confine ourselves to the Word of God, and that alone, both writer and readers may, and will, all learn together what God has revealed concerning Himself. We shall not seek to draw any conclusion, or to discuss or revise any creeds. We shall give only the evidence of Scripture in the words of Scripture; and use only Scriptural terminology…. It is not a question of our understanding what God may mean, but of believing what He has said.68

Let us therefore turn to the pure Word of God and listen to what it says concerning the revelation of the Triune God.

THE PURE REVELATION OF THE TRIUNE GOD ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

The Scriptures unfold two aspects of the revelation of the Triune God – the aspect of the Three being one and the aspect of the One being three. As examples of these two aspects, we may cite John 1:1 and 2 Corinthians 3:17. John 1:1 says, “The Word was with God,” and it also says, “The Word was God.” According to the statement, “The Word was with God,” the Word and God are two distinct entities. But the declaration, “The Word was God,” clearly indicates that the Word and God are one. Are they two or one? This is a mystery which we cannot clearly explain. Second Corinthians 3:17 says, “The Lord is the Spirit,” and it also speaks of “the Spirit of the Lord.” “The Lord is the Spirit” tells us that the Lord and the Spirit are one, but the title, “the Spirit of the Lord,” indicates that the Lord and the Spirit are two. Are the Lord and the Spirit two or one? We cannot answer adequately or thoroughly.69 However, since these Scriptures testify both aspects of God, we must accept them as such without attempting to reconcile or systematize them. If we refuse to be simple and say, “Amen,” to all that the Scriptures have spoken, but rather try to reconcile apparently conflicting statements, we shall find ourselves in a theological maze.

One Unique God

The Bible clearly and definitely reveals that God is uniquely one. With this there can be no argument, for it is revealed plainly in both the Old and New Testaments. Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord,” and Isaiah 44:6 declares, “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel… I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God.” In Isaiah 44:8, the Lord asks a question and then answers it Himself: “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Coming to the New Testament, we see that 1 Corinthians 8:4 says, “There is none other God but one”; that Romans 3:30 says, “It is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith”; that Galatians 3:20 says, “God is one”; and that 1 Timothy 2:5 says, “There is one God.”Therefore, it is abundantly clear that according to the revelation of the pure Word of God, God is uniquely one. Whatever else we may say about Him must be governed by this fundamental principle.

The Three Persons of the Godhead

To use Govett’s words, while the Bible reveals that there is only one God, “the Scripture as plainly affirms the distinction of persons in the Godhead.”70 In Isaiah 6:8 God says, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Here, on the one hand God speaks of Himself as “I,” and on the other hand as “Us.” This proves that “I” is “Us” and that “Us” is “I.” Then, is God singular or plural? This is a mystery. In Genesis 1:26 God also speaks of Himself as “Us.” In His divine words, the one unique God frequently speaks of Himself as “Us.” This must be due to the three Persons of the Godhead – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.71

Matthew 28:19 says, “Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Gk.). Here we clearly see the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. However, although the Father, Son, and Spirit are three, the name is one. This name tells us that God is three-in-one. Although God is uniquely one, there is still the matter of the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. To quote Griffith Thomas:

The threefold distinction in God, which is expressed by the word ‘Trinity, ‘ is the attempt of man to conceive and express the meaning of the Infinite God in the terms of Jesus Christ, and we believe that the use of the phrase, ‘The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, ‘ is the very best rendering of the mystery that can be given.72

The Trinity of the Godhead is revealed in the Old Testament. It is even implied in Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” In the Hebrew language, the subject “God” is triple in number, whereas the verb “create” is singular in number. This contains the meaning that God is three-in-one. In Exodus 3:6 the Lord said to Moses, “I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” This passage reveals that the God of the patriarchs is threefold. With the God of Abraham, the emphasis is on the Father; with the God of Isaac, the emphasis is on the Son; and with the God of Jacob, the emphasis is on the Spirit.73 Although God is uniquely one, there is still the matter of threefoldness, for He is the Father, Son, and Spirit. The Trinity of the Godhead is also implied in the threefold blessing in Numbers 6:24-26 and in the threefold praise to God in Isaiah 6:3. Undoubtedly, the reason the seraphim in heaven say, “Holy, holy, holy,” is that the God whom they praise is one-in-three. When Isaiah 6:3 is taken with verse 8 of the same chapter, we see that this God whom the seraphim praise speaks of Himself as “Us,” indicating that, according to the context, He has a threefold Person.74

In addition to Matthew 28:19, numerous passages in the New Testament clearly reveal that God is triune. First Peter 1:2 says, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Here the three divine Persons, the Father, Spirit, and Son, are mentioned together. The same is true of Revelation 1:4-5, where the Apostle John says, “Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ ….” This passage clearly reveals that God is triune. Therefore, according to the pure word of the Bible, God is uniquely one, and this unique God is triune, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

All Three Being God and Being Eternal

The modalistic doctrine that the Father, Son, and Spirit do not co-exist equally from eternity to eternity but are merely three temporary manifestations of the one Person of God is easily disproved from the clear statements of the pure Word of God. The Bible reveals that all Three – the Father, Son, and Spirit – are God. That the Father is God is shown by Ephesians 1:17, which speaks of God being the Father of glory. That the Son is God is proved by Hebrews 1:8 where the Son is addressed as God. That the Spirit is God is proved by Acts 5:3-4 which says that Ananias, in lying to the Holy Spirit, actually lied to God. While the modalists claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not eternal, the Bible says that They are. Isaiah 9:6 shows that the Father is eternal, Hebrews 1:12 and 7:3 reveal that the Son is eternal, and Hebrews 9:14 proves that the Spirit is eternal. Hence, any claim that the three Persons of the Godhead are not eternal is a denial of the clear revelation of the Bible.

The Simultaneous Existence of the Father, Son, and Spirit

According to modalism, the Father, Son, and Spirit cannot exist simultaneously. But what does the Bible say? In Matthew 3:16-17, when Jesus, the Son, was baptized, the Spirit of God descended upon Him and the Father in heaven declared, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” As this passage indicates, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit exist at the same time. Hence, the modalistic claim that They do not is false. The simultaneous existence of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is also proved by John 14:16-17, where the Lord says that He, the Son, will pray the Father, who will give us another Comforter, the Spirit of truth. Once again, the Father, Son, and Spirit, all of whom are God and are eternal, exist at the same time. The same is also clearly revealed in Ephesians 3:16-17, where Paul prays that the Father will strengthen us by His Spirit that Christ may make His home in our hearts; in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, which speaks of “the same Spirit,” “the same Lord,” and “the same God”; in 2 Corinthians 13:14, where we read that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit – all Three – are with us at the same time; and in Revelation 1:4-5, where grace and peace come simultaneously from God, the Spirit, and Christ. Therefore, all these Scriptures expose the error of modalism. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all God, are all eternal, and all exist at the same time.

John 1:2 says that the Word, Christ, was “in the beginning with God.” From eternity past, the Word was with God. It is not, as supposed by some, that Christ was not with God and was not God from eternity past, and that at a certain time Christ became God and was with God. No, Christ always was God and always was with God. His deity is eternal and absolute.75 This disproves both the teaching of Arius that Christ is less than God and the teaching of Sabellius that Christ is not eternally co-existent with God the Father.

The Three Being One

All fundamental Christians agree that God is uniquely one and that He is eternally the Father, Son, and Spirit. They emphasize the aspect of God’s being one-in-three, but they often neglect the aspect of His being three-in-one. However, this also is clearly revealed in the pure Word of God and must be faithfully believed in and proclaimed. Nevertheless, if we approach the Scriptures in the way of mental analysis, with the motive of finding justification for preconceived concepts, or with the aim of preserving traditional, man-made theological systems, we may ignore the aspect of God’s being the three-in-one. To do this is not only to be unfaithful to the whole scriptural revelation of the Triune God; it is also a frustration to the outworking of God’s economy, which is to dispense Himself into us that He might have the church as His corporate expression on earth today. Therefore, as those who would be faithful to all that the Scriptures have spoken concerning the Triune God, we must clearly show forth those verses in the Word which reveal that God is three-in-one.

We have seen that God is the Father, Son, and Spirit. However, if we emphasize the Three at the expense of the One, we may fall, although perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, into tritheism. We must affirm both aspects of the Triune God- the aspect of the Three being one and the aspect of the One being three. Only by so doing can we avoid the extremes of modalism and tritheism. It is at the point of testifying these two aspects that we are most acutely aware of the unfathomable mystery of the Triune God. We simply cannot adequately explain this mystery. We can only believe what the Bible says and testify of it without attempting to systematize it. Nowhere does the Bible require that we systematize the Word of God or attempt, through human formulation, to reconcile its statements. We are simply to believe whatever God has spoken.

The Son Being Called the Father

The Bible declares that all Three – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit – are one. According to the pure word of Isaiah 9:6, the Son is the Father. In this verse we see two lines: that the child is called the Mighty God, and that the Son is called the Everlasting Father. If we accept the first line, then we must accept the second. All fundamental Christians accept the first line – that the child is the Mighty God – but due to their traditional terminology and understanding, few accept the second – that the Son is the Everlasting Father. But if we read this verse in simplicity, without bias or preconceived concepts, we must confess that it means what it says — that the Son is the Everlasting Father. However, we should read this verse and testify of its truth without drawing any unwarranted conclusions from it (as does Patripassianism), or without attempting to reconcile it with those portions of the Word which clearly indicate the distinction between the Son and the Father. One aspect of the mystery of the Triune God is that the Father and the Son are one, yet are two. Isaiah 9:6 reveals that They are one, and as those who believe the pure Word of God without adding anything to it or taking anything away from it, we must simply believe that it is so. If we attempt to twist this verse or to interpret it to match a traditional system of thought, we may be exposing ourselves, indicating that we cannot take this verse in childlike simplicity. Isaiah 9:6 clearly says that the Son is called the Everlasting Father. Therefore, as mysterious as it may seem, the Son must be the Father, just as the child is the Mighty God. We must believe what the pure word of the Bible says. However, believing according to this verse that the Son is the Father does not mean that we believe that there is no distinction between them, for we have already cited verses which indicate that such a distinction exists.

The Gospel of John also testifies that the Son and the Father are one. After speaking of the two hands, the hand of the Son and the hand of the Father, the Lord Jesus said plainly, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). In John 14:8-11 we see that the Father is in the Son, that the Son is in the Father, that the Father dwells in the Son, and that he who sees the Son sees the Father. In all these verses the Lord clearly reveals the mystery that He and the Father are one. He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. When He speaks, it is the Father who works; when men know Him, they know the Father; and when they see Him, they see the Father, for He is the Father. He and the Father are one.76 If we attempt to reconcile these passages from Isaiah and the Gospel of John with those portions of the Word which reveal the distinction between the Father and the Son, we shall find that it is altogether beyond our capacity to do so. We can only believe whatever the Bible says and testify of it.

Christ, the Son, Being the Spirit

According to the clear revelation of the Scriptures, Christ, the Son, is also the Spirit. Consider John 14:16-20. In verse 16 the Lord says, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.” Here the Lord is saying that He will pass through death and resurrection to become another Comforter, the Spirit of reality, who will come to abide with us and dwell in us. In verse 17 the Lord says, “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” In this verse the Lord says that the Spirit of truth will abide with us and be in us. Then, in verse 18, He says, “I will not leave you as orphans: I am coming to you” (Gk.). Examine these verses carefully and notice that the “he” of verse 17 is the “I”of verse 18. In effect, the Lord is saying, “When He comes, I come. He is I, and I am He.” Furthermore, in verse 17 the Lord says that the Spirit of truth will be in us, and in verse 20 He says that He, the Son, will be in us. This proves that that Spirit who is in us is the Lord Himself Hence, the Lord is the Spirit. Since there is only one Spirit – the Holy Spirit – this means that the Lord is the Holy Spirit. This is confirmed by Romans 8:9-12 which speaks of “the Spirit of God,” “the Spirit of Christ,” and “Christ.” The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ is Christ Himself.77

First Corinthians 15:45b says, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit” (Gk.).Undoubtedly, the last Adam is Christ, the Son, and certainly the life-giving Spirit is the Holy Spirit. There is only one Spirit who gives life – the Holy Spirit. To say that the life-giving Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:45 is not the Holy Spirit is to teach that there are two life-giving Spirits. This is heresy! Let us, rather, be simple enough to believe 1 Corinthians 15:45 without trying to explain it away. Commenting on I Corinthians 15:45, one writer says, “Here we see the Spirit and Christ identified in a remarkably intimate way …. From the standpoint of faith the Spirit and the Lord are identical.”78

Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 3:17 says, “Now the Lord is the Spirit.” What could be clearer than this? According to the context of this book, the Lord here is the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit is the very Holy Spirit who gives life (2 Cor. 3:6). In the words of James Denney, an eminent Scottish theologian of the early part of this century:

The Lord, of course, is Christ, and the Spirit is that which Paul has already spoken of in the sixth verse. It is the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life under the new covenant. He who turns to Christ receives the Spirit…. Practically, therefore, the two may be identified…. Here, so far as the practical experience of Christians goes, no distinction is made between the Spirit of Christ and Christ Himself….79

In the Greek, 2 Corinthians 3:18 even contains a compound title – Lord Spirit – showing that the two, the Lord and the Spirit, are one. Again, if we try to reconcile these portions of the Word with those verses which indicate that the Son and the Spirit are distinct, we shall find ourselves unable to do it. We can only believe and testify to what the Bible says. “It is essential to preserve with care both sides of this truth. Christ and the Spirit are different yet the same, the same yet different.”80

Before we conclude, let us make two further observations regarding the practical oneness of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Revelation 5:6 says that the Apostle John saw “a Lamb as it had been slain.” Undoubtedly, this Lamb is Christ. In this same verse John says that the Lamb has “seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.” That these “seven Spirits” are none other than the Holy Spirit is proved by Their being mentioned with God and Christ in Revelation 1:4-5. Thus, the Holy Spirit today is the seven eyes of Christ. We can no more separate the Holy Spirit from Christ than we can separate a person’s eyes from the person himself. Just as we and our eyes are one, so Christ and the Spirit are one.81

In four strikingly similar passages in the Gospels, the Lord Jesus tells His disciples that they shall be persecuted and brought before the civil and religious rulers for His name’s sake (Matt. 10:17-21; Mark 13:9-11; Luke 12:11-12; 21:12-15). In each instance the Lord said something like, “Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak”(Matt. 10:19). However, in Matthew 10:20 the Lord then says, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you”; in Mark 13:11, He says, “It is not ye that speak but the Holy Spirit”; in Luke 12:12, He promises that the Holy Spirit “shall teach you … what ye ought to say”; and in Luke 21:15 He says, “I will give you a mouth.” As we put all these verses together, we see that the Triune God will be speaking through the persecuted disciples of the Lord Jesus. At such times, surely the Lord’s followers do not sense that three distinct Persons are speaking through them. Rather, they experience the Triune God as the three-in-one giving them instant utterance as they testify for the Lord Jesus.

GOD’S INTENTION IN REVEALING HIMSELF AS THE UNIQUE TRIUNE GOD

After this consideration of the pure revelation of the Triune God according to the Bible, it should be evident to any fair-minded reader that the biblical revelation of the Triune God is twofold: He is the Three being one, and He is the One being three. What a marvelous mystery! Both modalism and tritheism have been proved false. Instead of these two heretical alternatives – both of which stress one aspect of the truth in an unbalanced way – we proclaim the twofold aspect of God’s revelation in His Word without any attempt at reconciliation or systematization. When people consider the Triune God objectively, trying to analyze what He is in His inner being, they emphasize the aspect of the one-in-three. But when we experience the indwelling of the Triune God subjectively, we enjoy the aspect of the three-in-one, for the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all in us as one (Eph. 4:6; Col. 1:27; John 14:17). While the objective study of the Triune God has some value and may sometimes be necessary, it certainly is neither the emphasis of the New Testament nor the best way to cooperate with God in His desire to dispense Himself into us for the fulfillment of His eternal purpose.

Once we have established what the pure Word says concerning our wonderful Triune God, we should simply rest upon it. As Henry Barclay Swete has said, “The Spirit alone searches the depths of God, and where the Spirit is silent as to their contents it is hazardous and indeed vain to speculate.”82 Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386), who depreciated theological speculation, who focused his attention on experience, and who was reluctant to go beyond the word of the Bible, once remarked:

…but inquire not curiously into His nature or substance: for had it been written we would have spoken of it; what is not written, let us not venture on; it is sufficient for our salvation to know that there is Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.83

Any attempts to go beyond God’s revelation of Himself in His pure Word will only lead us into the snare of endless analysis, reasoning, and disputation. The result of this path is spiritual death, the consequence of trying to understand God according to the principle of the tree of knowledge. That the “revelation of the Triune God in the Scriptures should be kept as a fact and as a mystery for our experience” is testified to by the Puritan writer Robert Leighton (A.D. 1611-1684):

As to the mystery of the Most-Holy Trinity … I have always thought it was to be received and adored with the most humble faith and reverence, but by no means to be curiously searched into, or perplexed with the presumptuous questions of the school men. We fell by an arrogant ambition of knowledge; by simple faith we rise again and are reinstated. And this mystery indeed, beyond all others, seems to be a tree of knowledge prohibited to us while we sojourn in these mortal bodies.84

This same humble attitude is expressed by Philip Schaff:

The Nicene Fathers did not pretend to have exhausted the mystery of the Trinity, and very well understood that all human knowledge, especially in this deepest, central dogma, proves itself but fragmentary. All speculation on divine things ends in a mystery … before which the thinking mind must bow in humble adoration.”85

As those who receive with simplicity the whole scriptural revelation of the Triune God, let us turn to Him, open to Him, and enjoy Him as our life and our everything. God’s intention in revealing Himself as the unique Triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit – is not that we might formulate doctrines of the Trinity and engage in endless arguments about them. Rather, it is to prepare the way for Him to dispense Himself into us according to His eternal purpose. Therefore, let us turn from the way of mental analysis, which has led either to the heretical extremes of modalism and tritheism or to a rigid and lifeless orthodoxy, and turn to the way of receiving in simple faith the whole revelation of the Triune God in the pure word of the Bible and of appropriating Him in spirit as our life and enjoyment. May the wonderful Triune God, the three-in-one and the one-in-three, be our portion and enjoyment now and forever. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” be with us all. Amen.

by Ron Kangas
a co-worker of Witness Lee November 16, 1976

FOOTNOTES

  1. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1968), p. 87.
  2. J. F. Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1929), p. 97.
  3. Frederick F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1953), p. 256.
  4. Ibid., p. 255.
  5. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1950), vol. 2, p. 576.
  6. R. S. Franks, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., Ltd., 1953), p. 78.
  7. Bethune-Baker, op. cit., p. 102.
  8. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 577.
  9. Bruce, op. cit., p. 256.
  10. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 577.
  11. Ibid., p. 578.
  12. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), p. 69.
  13. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), p. 120.
  14. Bethune-Baker,op. cit., p. 104.
  15. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 578.
  16. Ibid.
  17. Arthur C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought (New York: Charles Scribner’s & Sons, 1931), p. 237.
  18. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 589 and Bethune-Baker, op. cit., p. 110.
  19. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 581.
  20. Walker, op. cit., p. 69.
  21. McGiffert, op. cit., p. 238.
  22. Walker, op. cit., pp. 69-70.
  23. Ibid. and McGiffert, op. cit., p. 238.
  24. Walker,.op. cit., Pp. 69-70; McGiffert, op. cit., p. 238; and Bethune-Baker, op. cit., p. 105.
  25. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 582.
  26. Ibid.
  27. Bethune-Baker, op. cit., p. 105.
  28. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 583.
  29. Bethune-Baker, op. cit., p. 106.
  30. William Henry Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology (New York: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1930), p. 31.
  31. H. E. W. Turner, “Tritheism,” in Alan Richardson, editor, A Dictionary of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), p. 351.
  32. Bill Freeman, The Testimony Of Church History Regarding the Mystery of the Triune God (Anaheim: The Stream Publishers, 1976), p. 19.
  33. Franks, op. cit., p. 119.
  34. Ibid.
  35. Freeman, op. cit., pp. 29-30.
  36. H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church (Mac Millan, 1912), pp.284-285, in Freeman, p. 30.
  37. Ibid., p. 13.
  38. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 674.
  39. Freeman, op. cit., p. 25.
  40. Ibid., p. 13.
  41. Ibid., p. 14; see Schaff, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 651.
  42. Cited in Freeman, op. cit., pp. 14-15.
  43. George Bull, Defense of the Nicene Creed (Oxford, 1851), vol. I, p. 203.
  44. _________ The Works of Dionysius. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm.. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1971), vol. VI, pp. 92-94.
  45. Bull, op. cit., pp. 302-322.
  46. Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), pp.140-143.
  47. Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (Peter Smith Publishers, 1976), pp. 129-131.
  48. Swete, op. cit., pp. 42-43.
  49. Bull, op. cit., vol. 11, p. 438.
  50. Ibid.,vol. 1, p. 56.
  51. __________ Socrates’ Church History, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. II, p. 27.
  52. H. E. W. Turner, “Coinherence,” op. cit., p. 67.
  53. Cited in Freeman, op. cit., p. 17.
  54. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1912), p. 333.
  55. Ibid.
  56. Bull, op. cit., Book IV, chapter 14, sections 13 and 14, in Freeman, p. 18.
  57. Freeman, op. cit., p. 18.
  58. Robert Govett, “The Twofoldness of Divine Truth” (Harrisburg: Christian Publications), p. 3.
  59. Ibid.
  60. Ibid., p. 4.
  61. Ibid., p. 6.
  62. Ibid.
  63. Ibid., p. 5.
  64. Ibid., p. 11.
  65. Ibid., p. 12.
  66. Martin Luther, What Luther Says, An Anthology, vol. III, pp. 1387-1388, in Freeman, op. cit., p. 30.
  67. Hermann Witsius, The Apostles Creed, vol. I, p. 143, in Freeman, pp. 32-33.
  68. E. W. Bullinger, Selected Writings, pp. 44-45, in Freeman, pp. 36-37.
  69. Witness Lee, Concerning the Triune God – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Taipei: The Gospel Book Room), p. 4.
  70. Govett, op. cit., p. 12.
  71. Lee, op. cit., p. 6.
  72. William Henry Griffith Thomas, The Holy Spirit of God (Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.), p. 138.
  73. Lee, op. cit., p. 11.
  74. Ibid., p. 12.
  75. See note on John 1:2 in The Gospel of John, Recovery Version (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1975), p. 11.
  76. Lee, op. cit., p. 19.
  77. Ibid., p. 22.
  78. Neill Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957), p. 15.
  79. James Denney, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 134.
  80. Thomas, op. cit., p. 144.
  81. Witness Lee, Life-Study of Revelation, Message Four (Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1976), pp. 41-42.
  82. H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, pp. 301-302, in Freeman, op. cit., p. 35.
  83. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XVI, 4, Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. VII, p. 116, in Freeman, pp. 20-21.
  84. Robert Leighten, Lectures and Addresses, pp. 126-127, in Freeman, p. 6.
  85. Schaff, op. cit., vol. 3,.p. 671.

© 1976 Living Stream Ministry. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Recommendations to Drop “The Mindbenders”

Prior to publication, some of those who reviewed The Mindbenders advised Thomas Nelson not to publish it.

Craig Lampe, who worked in the sales division of Royal Publishers, a subsidiary of Thomas Nelson, was familiar with the teachings of both Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. He had previously been a founding faculty member and Dean of Administration at Lynchburg Baptist College, which subsequently became Liberty University. Jerry Falwell, its founder, appreciated Watchman Nee’s book The Normal Christian Life that he arranged to print and distribute 150,000 copies free of charge. Lampe had also personally heard Witness Lee speak while he was superintendent and a faculty member at a school associated with Berean Baptist Church in Orange, California. According to Lampe, he had pleaded with Thomas Nelson’s executives to dialogue with Witness Lee and with the local churches before publishing The Mindbenders:

“I offered them the books. I offered them Witness Lee’s book on this matter. I said, ‘I’ve got the man’s own writings on this very subject.’ I said, ‘Read it and tell me where you disagree.’ No one would do that. No one would take the literature and read it. It was amazing to me.”

“I said, ‘Sam [Moore], there are in the local church former Baptists, Methodists, I mean, solid denomination-line people that have simply found a closer walk with Jesus Christ and a new power in worshiping Him than the typical mainline denominations have been able to perpetuate.'”

To Larry Stone: “‘Before you publish this,'” I said, ‘call Witness Lee and ask him categorically what you are accusing him of concerning the deity of Christ.’ I said, ‘Just ask him point blank.'”

On September 21, 1981, Lampe filed an affidavit with the court testifying, among other things, that:

“Prior to publication of THE MINDBENDERS by Thomas Nelson, I personally reviewed the chapter on the ‘local church’ with Sam Moore. At that time I pointed out to Sam Moore several inaccuracies. I informed him that the authors, Jack Sparks and other leaders of the New Covenant Apostolic Order had a personal vendetta against Witness Lee and the local churches and the book was written to injure and damage the ‘local churches’ and their members. I informed Sam Moore that the whole book was just being done in disguise to injure and damage the ‘local churches’ and Witness Lee.”


Larry Stone, Thomas Nelson’s advertising manager, wrote a letter to Thomas Nelson’s President Sam Moore. In it he said, among other things:

“The problem here is much more than whether to include The Local Church of Witness Lee or not! Rather it has to do with the whole idea and approach of the book.”

“This is shown clearly in Spark’s [sic] treatment of The Local Church of Witness Lee. There is very little that Sparks says about the group that would make it unscriptural—although he gives the impression that it is…”

“Sparks says, ‘Sure, there are Christians in The Local Church.’ I have difficulty, then, with the mud-slinging of calling it ‘a seditious sub-Christian cult.’ Thomas Nelson should not publish this book.”

Note: Stone’s characterization of “the church’s chanting and ‘pray-reading’” as weird are based on Sparks’ distorted presentation of the practices of calling on the name of the Lord and praying with the words of the Bible, and cannot therefore be taken at face value. For a description of these beneficial practices as they relate to Christian growth, see the Topical Index in the Responses section of this site.


Jim Powell, Nelson’s marketing manager for special projects also sent a memo to Sam Moore. In it he concluded, “I believe the book should be dropped.”


Spencer Thornton was an outside reader who was asked for his opinion of The Mindbenders. In an evaluation which he apparently dictated, he said:

“I would recommend a rewrite of the entire first 15 or 16 pages and a thinning out of the entire book from unsubstantiated charges and summary conclusions which are found throughout.”

“…as a difinitive [sic] work on cults, it is sadly lacking in documentation and authority.”

“The book is weakened throughout by countless, unsubstantiated charges presented with such venom that the reader tends to find himself in a defensive position knowing ahead of time what the author is going to say.”

“In pointing out errors of witnessly [Witness Lee] and others, the author fails to show what their wrong beliefs are and how these wrong beliefs differ from any other strong christian movement.”

The Triune God: A Testimony of Our Belief and Experience

This booklet was written in the 1970s to respond to the criticisms of the Christian Research Institute (CRI). CRI has since withdrawn its criticisms and reversed its earlier conclusions (see “A Brief History of the Relationship between the Local Churches and the Christian Research Institute”). The text of this booklet is published here for the historical record, for the important points of truth it addresses, and because CRI’s criticisms, although withdrawn, are still repeated by others.

The Christian Research Institute has published a booklet entitled, “Witness Lee and the Local Church.” Because this booklet is filled with falsehoods, misrepresentations, and slanderous accusations, it behooves us to issue a reply that the Christian public might know the truth. In the words of the Apostle Paul, we must “put off the lie” and “speak every man truth with his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25). The purpose of this pamphlet is to refute the charge that we are in error concerning the doctrine of God and to give a positive testimony regarding our belief in and experience of the Triune God. As the reader shall see, we in the churches are absolutely for the whole truth of the biblical revelation of God and for the genuine experience of the reality of God. We stand uncompromisingly for the truth and we testify unashamedly of our experience. We do not adulterate the Word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).

The Accusations Stated

Firstly, we must state clearly the accusations made in this booklet against us. This tract says that we are modalists. Modalism in the second and third centuries passed through several changes and then reached its clearest expression with Sabellius. Sabellius taught that God was not at the same time Father and Son, and that the revelation of the Son ends with the ascension. The permanence and coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit were denied by modalism. According to the modalistic concept of the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Spirit are not equally and eternally co-existent, but are merely three successive manifestations of the divine Being or three temporary modes of His activity. In this booklet it is stated, “The doctrine taught by the Local Church on the Holy Trinity is known generally in church history as monarchianistic modalism.” Later in the same paragraph it says that the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the Local Church “comes under the general category of what is known theologically as ‘Sabellianism’ or ‘modalism’, which identifies the Person of the Father with the Person of the Son.” Charging us with being modalists, this booklet implies that we view God as “one individual Person who projects Himself in three distinct modes or aspects of His Being.” We are accused of destroying the “concept of the eternally distinct persons” and of identifying the Person of the Father with the Person of the Son. Accusing us of being some type of Sabellians, this booklet says that for us “many passages of scriptures become meaningless” and “no longer mean what they say.” As verses which this tract claims will cause us “some problems,” it cites Matthew 3:17 and 26:39; Luke 23:34; and John 17:4. It goes so far as to suggest that we make the Lord’s plea, “Father, forgive them,” a “hollow sham,” and His prayer in Gethsemane, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt,” an “illusion.” In essence, the booklet accuses us of holding a concept of God “quite different from the Bibical [sic] Trinity,” saying that the “Local Church doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not bibical [sic], not good according to Bibical [sic] standards and should be avoided at all costs.”

The Accusations Refuted By The Pure Word Of God

While this tract abounds with philosophical language in leveling its accusations, we would rather use the language of the Scriptures in refuting its false charges. Let us now turn to the pure Word of God, which we believe in its entirety without reservation, and see whether the accusations and insinuations made against us are in fact truthful.

According to this booklet, we are modalists because we allegedly identify the Person of the Father with the Person of the Son. This accusation is made against us because we believe Isaiah 9:6. This verse says, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father [or the Father of Eternity, Heb.], The Prince of Peace.” Our approach to the Scriptures is to believe whatever they say. We believe without question every aspect of the revelation of the Triune God contained in the Scriptures. Isaiah 9:6 is a case in point. Without attempting to reconcile this verse with other portions of Scripture, without trying to force it into a man-made system of theological thought, and without indulging in vain interpretations of its meaning, we simply believe that Isaiah 9:6 means what it says. The child born unto us is called the Mighty God and the Son given unto us is called the Everlasting Father. Here we see two lines. One line says that the child is the Mighty God, and the other line says that the Son is the Everlasting Father. If you believe the first line, then you must believe the second. We declare boldly that we believe both lines. To say that the Son is the Father is according to the pure Word of God. This is not our interpretation; it is our quotation. Those who don’t believe that Isaiah 9:6 means what it says are the ones who find the need to interpret this verse in their desperate attempt to force it to fit in with their theological system. Although Isaiah 9:6 may not fit in well with man’s religious traditions, it is the pure, unadulterated Word of God and it must be received as such. We take this verse in all simplicity as an aspect of the truth of God’s revelation. We do not twist it to match a preconceived mental framework; neither do we use it to construct a theological system. We simply receive it, believe it, and proclaim it.

Our critics make the fatal mistake of assuming that if, according to Isaiah 9:6, we believe that the child is the Mighty God and that the Son is the Everlasting Father, then we must not believe those portions of the Word which clearly reveal that the Father, Son, and Spirit exist at the same time. Such a conclusion is illogical, absurd, and unwarranted. We believe all that the Bible says about God. We accept without partiality every aspect of the divine revelation of the Triune God in the Scriptures. Consider Matthew 3:16-17: “He [the Son] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I [the Father] am well pleased.” We do not for a moment believe, as this tract insinuates, that Jesus imitated His Father’s voice or the Spirit’s appearance. This critical writing implies that to us these Scriptures “no longer mean what they say” and “become subject to an unwarranted presupposition.” Precisely the opposite is the case. We believe just as much as, or even more than, our critics do that Matthew 3:16-17 means what it says. Actually, we do not believe less than our critics do; we believe more. We believe all that the Bible says just the way the Bible says it. We fully believe Luke 23:34: “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Although the modalists may have difficulty with this verse, making it a “hollow sham,” we have no difficulty at all. Like all other genuine Christians, we believe that it means what it says. This is also true for Matthew 26:39 and John 17:4. In fact, the same is true for many other verses, such as John 1:1-2, where the Son is with the Father, and John 17:5, where the Son shares the glory with the Father. Therefore, contrary to the charges against us, these verses have not “become meaningless to us. With a pure conscience, we testify that we believe that these verses mean what they say. Of this fact God can bear witness for us. Therefore, as those who believe in the pure Word of God, we strongly reject any association with modalism.

Let us consider some other portions of the Word. Recall that modalism denies the permanence and co-existence of the Father, Son, and Spirit. But John 14:16-17, which we, of course, believe, says, “I [the Son] will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth.” Here, we see that the Father, Son, and Spirit exist at the same time. To say that the Son is the Father and the Spirit is not to say that the Father is no longer the Father and the Spirit is no longer the Spirit, just as to say that the child is the Mighty God and the Son is the Everlasting Father is not to say that the child is no longer the child and the Son is no longer the Son. The co-existence of the Father, Son, and Spirit is also definitely revealed in 2 Corinthians 13:14, which says, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ [the Son], and the love of God [the Father], and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all”; and in Ephesians 3:14-17, which says, “I bow my knees unto the Father. . . that he would grant you… to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ [the Son] may dwell in your hearts.” We have no difficulty with any of these portions of the Word. The charge that, to us, they “no longer mean what they say” is a lie. We believe them to mean exactly what they say, and we approach them with no presuppositions whatsoever. Can our critics say as much when they read Isaiah 9:6, where we are told that the Son is called the Everlasting Father, and 2 Corinthians 3:17, which says, “Now the Lord is that Spirit”? Believing all that the Bible says regarding the Triune God, we place upon our critics the burden to prove to the Christian public that they themselves are as simple, thorough, and pure in this matter as we are. By the Lord’s mercy and grace, we are free from trying to systematize the Word of God. We do not approach it with the serpentine mind which asks, “Yea, hath God said?” (Gen. 3:1). We simply say, “Amen,” to every word, line, and page. It is not our responsibility to reconcile the statements in God’s Word or to systematize them. But it is our responsibility to believe what He has spoken and to act upon it.

This tract claims to be inductive in its approach to the Trinity. However, rather than beginning with the pure Word of God and accepting whatever it says without reservation, the authors begin with a manmade definition of the Trinity and then go to the Bible to substantiate it. It is not our intention to question the validity of the description of the Triune God presented in this booklet. We simply wish to point out that the authors begin with this definition, a mere human concept, and then turn to the Word of God for evidence to support what they already believe. Our approach to the Scriptures is quite different. We begin, not with man’s definitions and preconceived notions, but with the pure Word of God itself. We take the pure, unadulterated Word of God, neither subtracting anything from it nor adding anything to it. We should not only fear taking away from the Word, but also adding to it. As Proverbs 30:5-6 says, “Every word of God is pure … Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Let the pure Word of God speak for itself. Don’t mix it with your philosophy, theology, concept, opinion, and interpretation. These are some of the high things that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

A Testimony Of Our Belief In And Experience Of The Triune God

Our Belief

We have pointed out repeatedly that we believe all that the Bible says about God. Let us now give a further testimony of our belief in the Triune God. According to the Scriptures, we believe that God is uniquely one, for 1 Corinthians 8:4 says, “There is none other God but one,” and Isaiah 45:5 says, ‘I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” According to the Scriptures, we also believe that God is triune. Isaiah 6:8 says, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” and Genesis 1:26 says, “And God said, Let us make man in our image.” In these verses, and in many others which could be cited, ”I” is “Us.” According to Matthew 28:19, we believe that the one, unique, Triune God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We believe that all Three are God. The Father is God (1 Pet. 1:2), the Son is God (Heb. 1:8), and the Spirit is God (Acts 5:2-4). We believe that all Three are eternal. The Father is eternal (Isa. 9:6), the Son is eternal (Heb. 1:12), and the Spirit is eternal (Heb. 9:14). As we have already pointed out, we believe that all Three exist at the same time. In 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 we see “the same Spirit,” “the same Lord,” and “the same God.” According to these verses and the others we have cited, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all exist at the same time. On page one of “A Simple Presentation,” issued by the church in Anaheim and the ministry of Witness Lee and his co-workers, we state, “We believe that God is the only one Triune God–the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity.” Since we believe that all Three, the Father, Son, and Spirit, are eternal and co-existent, we cannot be fairly charged with being modalists. Rather, we are Bible-believing Christians who accept, without having to systematize anything, the whole revelation of God in the Scriptures. How unjust for our critics to say that the Triune God believed in and experienced by us in the churches is not the very God revealed in the Bible!

According to the unadulterated Word of God, we also believe that all Three, the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one. It is at this point that we probably believe more of the pure Word than our critics do. The Bible reveals that the Son is the Father (Isa. 9:6; John 14:8-11) and that the Son and the Father are one (John 10:30). We believe it. In the Greek, 1 Corinthians 15:45 says, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” We believe it. We also believe 2 Corinthians 3:17 which, speaking of Christ, the Son, says, “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” Why don’t our critics accept these verses like we do and proclaim them? Is it because they are more interested in defending man’s traditions than in testifying, at any cost, of the pure Word of the Lord? If so, then they are in danger of “making void” the Word of God by means of their tradition (Matt. 15:6). Are they more concerned with maintaining a system of human thought than with speaking the truth of God’s revelation? If so, then they are in danger of being ensnared in “systematized error” (Eph. 4:14, J. N. Darby, New Translation). Are they willing, in the sight of God, to “buy the truth, and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23)? If so, then they must pay the price.

According to Robert Govett, a meticulous and perceptive student of the Word, divine truth is twofold. In his article, “The Twofoldness of Divine Truth,” Govett says, “The twofoldness of truth as offered to our view in Holy Writ is one strong argument of its not being the work of man. It is the glory of man’s intellect to produce oneness” (p. 3). Regarding the two aspects of truth, Govett remarks, “It is not necessary to reconcile them before we are bound to receive and act upon the two. It is enough that the Word of God distinctly affirms them both” (p. 6). Govett also says, “Both, then are to be received whether we can reconcile them or no. Their claim on our reception is not that we can unite them, but that God has testified both” (p. 8). We may apply this principle to the revelation of the Triune God in the Scriptures. We believe both aspects of this revelation—that God is the Three being one and that He is the One being three. We invite those who have published this tract to prove that they equal us in this matter. Let us see who truly believes all that the Bible reveals about God.

Because we accept everything the Bible says regarding the Triune God, we are truly balanced in this matter, falling neither into the extreme of modalism on the one hand, nor into the extreme of tritheism (the belief in three Gods) on the other. Some of our critics place so much stress on the fact that God is one-in-three that they come close to the brink of tritheism. Although they may deny it vehemently, they have given us ground to say that they may unconsciously or unwittingly be tritheists. As we have pointed out, we in the churches accept without reservation both aspects of God’s revelation of Himself—that He is the Three being one and the One being three. We believe, as all real Christians do, that God is one-in-three. We also believe that, according to the pure Word of the Bible, God is three-in-one. At this point, it is well to quote a paragraph from page 29 of Concerning the Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, by Witness Lee, a book which the authors completely ignored in their booklet:

The Triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—has the aspect of being three-in-one and also the aspect of being one-in-three. As the three-in-one, He is “I”; as the one-in-three, He is “us.” From the aspect of the three-in-one, “the Word was God”; from the aspect of the one-in-three, “the Word was with God” (John 1:1). From the aspect of the three-in-one, “the Lord is the Spirit”; from the aspect of the one-in-three, it is “the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:17) From the aspect of the three-in-one, the Son and the Father are one (John 10:30; 14:7-11); from the aspect of the one-in-three, the Son is with the Father (John 1:1-2), the Son shares the glory with the Father (John 17:5), the Son is the beloved of the Father (John 17:24), the Son has become one with the Father (John 17:11, 21, 22), and the Son takes the same action with the Father (John 14:23).

Hallelujah for our wonderful Triune God! He is truly the three-in-one and the one-in-three. According to their writings, however, our critics believe the aspect of the one-in-three, but apparently they do not believe the aspect of the three-in-one.

What a glorious mystery is the Triune God! How mysterious it is that John 1:1 says that “the Word was with God” and that “the Word was God”; that 2 Corinthians 3:17 says, “The Lord is that Spirit,” yet speaks of “the Spirit of the Lord”; that, referring to the Son, Hebrews 1:8-9 says, “The Son . . .O God . . . thy God”; and that the “one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4) of God is called “the seven Spirits” (Rev. 1:4; 4:5; 5:6). Although our finite mind cannot understand the mystery of the Triune God (if we think it can, we are proud and deceived), in simple faith we can receive the truth of His revelation, and we can open our whole being, spirit, soul, and body, to be filled and saturated with Him.

Our Experience

This brings us to the aspect of our experience of the Triune God. According to the Scriptures, the Father, Son, and Spirit are all in us for us to enjoy in our experience. The Father is in us (Eph. 4:6), the Son is in us (John 14:20; Col. 1:27; 2 Cor. 13:5), and the Spirit is in us (John 14:17). We in the churches do not stress doctrinal formulations but simple faith in God’s Word and personal experience of the Triune God Himself. We are not mainly concerned with understanding Him in our mind but with experiencing Him in our spirit. In brief, we are for truth and experience. The truth we believe is the reality we experience.

In his book, The Pentecostal Reality, Dr. J. Rodman Williams, President of Melodyland School of Theology, says, “The Scriptures nowhere suggest that to believe in God as Trinity, or Triune—or to ‘think God’ in such and such a manner (often leading to speculation and abstractness)—is really the important thing. The concern is that people be introduced into the reality of God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is primarily a matter of the life to be lived, not a teaching or doctrine to be held” (p. 101). We fully agree with Dr. Williams in this matter. In the same book, Dr. Williams says, “The purpose of that part of the Great Commission, Go therefore… baptizing,’ is not to make learners out of people in regard to God, but to introduce them into life lived in the reality of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (p. 102). We heartily agree. In the church life we are not making learners out of people, but are immersing them into the reality of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Later, in this book, Dr. Williams, speaking of the early Christians, remarks, “For these disciples, clearly, a statement about God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was not dogma, nor was it an abstruse teaching that they had to accept for salvation. It was rather the reality of God wrought into their lives. It was not creed yet, or theology (such as ‘one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity’). It was that which precedes all significant theology: event, happening, experience” (p. 104). “Thus,” as Dr. Williams later continues, “what is vital in talking about the Holy Trinity is not that it is simply a doctrine to be embraced but a reality to be lived” (p. 105). We agree with Dr. Williams in emphasizing the experience of the Triune God. We can no longer be content with mere objective knowledge about God. We hunger and thirst for the reality of the Triune God to fill our whole being. As we exercise simple faith in the pure Word of God, we daily open ourselves to the Lord that we might truly experience Him.

Let us consider some verses which point to the experience of God. Matthew 28:19 speaks of “baptizing” people “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Gk.). These words are no mere baptismal formula; they represent an actual union with the Triune God and the real experience of Him. How we enjoy being immersed into the very being of the Triune God Himself! He surely is “waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed over” (Ezek. 47:5). We echo the words of Madame Guyon: “I am as nothing, and rejoice to be emptied, and lost, and swallowed up in Thee.” How wonderful, how marvelous, that man can be baptized into God Himself! Commenting on Matthew 28:19 in his Word Studies in the New Testament, M. R. Vincent says, “Baptizing into the name of the Holy Trinity implies a spiritual and mystical union with Him… The name… is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being.… It is the equivalent to His person.… When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that He is and in all that He does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter.” We in the churches testify that we are not merely studying about the Triune God—we are appropriating Him ”in all that He is and in all that He does” for us.

We not only enjoy being in the Triune God; we also enjoy His dwelling in us. John 14:20 says, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.’ What a tremendous word! In this word we see the experience of being in the Son and of the Son being in us. Don’t you long for the reality of this? In verse 23 of the same chapter the Lord Jesus said, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” It is not a small thing for the Father and the Son to make their abode with us. How can you be content with mere doctrine when such an experience is available to you? First John 4:15 says, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” What a glorious promise—to dwell in God and to have God dwell in us! We want the reality of this. Don’t you?

In Philippians 2:13 Paul says, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” We can testify that God is working in us according to His good pleasure, according to His desire to fulfill His purpose in this generation. No outward knowledge of the Bible can ever replace the reality of God working in us. In Philippians 3:7-8, Paul says, “But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” It wasn’t doctrine that transformed Paul from being a persecutor of the church (v. 6) into an ardent pursuer of Christ-it was experience. After that confrontation with Christ on the way to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9), Paul began to run after Christ that he might gain Him in all His reality. We, like Paul, are not seeking the outward knowledge about Christ, but the inward, personal, experiential knowledge of our wonderful Christ Himself.

We can also declare that 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is our daily testimony: “And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gk.). Here we see that the God of peace is sanctifying us wholly, that is, He is permeating our whole being with His very element. Will you allow the preoccupation with man’s doctrinal systems to rob you of your sanctification, to deprive you of the experience of having the holy element of God wrought into every fiber of your being? We won’t. We believe the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph. 4:21) and we will fight for it, but we won’t allow man’s systematized theologies to rob us of the reality of God.

In Hebrews 13:20-21, Paul says, “Now the God of peace … make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” Here again we see that God is working in us, doing that which is pleasing in His sight. God’s working may not be pleasing to man, but it is pleasing to Him. We are here for God’s good pleasure (Eph. 1:5, 9). We care firstly for what we are in the eyes of God, not for what we are in the eyes of the world. The goal of God’s working in us is that He be expressed-glorified-through us. The corporate expression of God on earth—the church—is what pleases Him. You may know the Scriptures in letters, yet not have much of God’s working in you. You may be an ardent defender of the traditional theological systems, yet be saturated with self and not manifest God in your living. Don’t you long to fulfill your God-created purpose of expressing Him by living in the reality of His image? For this, we all need more experiences of God Himself.

Finally, Ephesians 3:19 declares, “And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.” Imagine—actually being filled with all the fullness of God! This is a matter of experience, the practical, inward experience of having the Triune God wrought into our being. This experience is beautifully expressed by the first stanza and the chorus of a hymn written by Witness Lee:

What mystery, the Father, Son, and Spirit,
In person three, in substance all are one.
How glorious, this God our being enters
To be our all, thru Spirit in the Son!

The Triune God has now become our all!
How wonderful! How glorious!
This Gift divine we never can exhaust!
How excellent! How marvelous!

We declare to the whole universe that we in the churches are for this. We want the wonderful Triune God to enter into us, permeate every fiber of our being, and fill us with all His fullness that we might glorify Him. “Unto him be glory in the church” (Eph. 3:21).

An Invitation

The desire of God’s heart is to dispense Himself into us that He might have a corporate expression of Himself on earth today. This corporate expression of the Triune God is the church, the Body of Christ, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph. 1:23). The strategy of the enemy, Satan, is to frustrate the dispensation of the Triune God into man. He does this by blinding men’s minds with lies, falsehoods, and deceptions, and by isolating them from the practical reality of the genuine church life. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul says, “In whom the god of this age hath blinded the thoughts of them which believe not, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (Gk.). In these days of spiritual warfare, the “God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness” is still shining in men’s hearts “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). One way to stand with the shining of the Triune God and against the blinding activities of the enemy is to sincerely open your mind to the truth. Do not allow your mind to be blinded by lies, prejudices, and preconceived ideas, and do not uncritically take another man’s judgment as your own. Go to the Lord with a proper spirit (Matt. 5:3) and a pure heart (Matt. 5:8) and see what He has to say, for one day, we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10) and give an account to Him. The Spirit of truth guides us into all truth (John 16:13). Our confidence is in Him. Are you willing without reservation to give yourself to the Lord (Rom. 12:1-2), to turn your heart to Him and gaze with unveiled face upon His glory (2 Cor. 3:14-18), and to be willing, at any cost, to do His will (John 7:17)? If you are, God will have a free way to work in you and to show you what is on His heart. The Triune God wants to dispense Himself into you and fill your whole being with Himself that you might be a part of His corporate expression. Don’t allow the subtle enemy to rob you of your birthright in Christ. Don’t allow any man to “spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8).

We in the churches, as blood-redeemed and Spirit-regenerated people, care for the whole truth of God’s Word and for the real experience of God Himself. We testify that in His presence we have fullness of joy (Psa. 16:11), that we drink of the river of His pleasures, and that we are abundantly satisfied with the fatness of His house (Psa. 36:8). We invite you to be one with us in believing, with simplicity and sincerity, all that the Scriptures have spoken concerning the Triune God and in opening yourself to Him that you might experience Him as your all in all.

by Ron Kangas
A brother in the church in Anaheim
October 6, 1976

All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

“The Mindbenders”–EOC Relations with Other Churches

Exhibit 14 from Jack Sparks’ deposition in The Mindbenders case describes the attitude of the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC) towards other churches in Christendom. Note particularly the following statements (marked in brackets in the PDF):

“Existing Christendom will not give us the time of day until we become a movement to be reckoned with, i.e., we become a threat.”

“We will bend if they will bend. If they refuse to bend, then we will take their people.”

“Those who refuse to grant us the dignity of being a valid church will lose their people to us.”

The Revelation of the Triune God According to the Pure Word of the Bible

By Witness Lee

In these days people have spread rumors that our teaching concerning the Trinity is heretical. We want to let people know that we believe in the Trinity according to the pure Word of God. This message is intended to be not only a declaration to the critics, but also a help to the dear saints in the local churches, that all may know what we believe according to the Scriptures regarding the matter of the Triune God.

This matter of the Trinity has been a subject of great argument and strong disputation among Christians ever since the second century. During the last eighteen or nineteen centuries, the argument has never ceased. It has been utilized by the enemy to destroy the unity of the saints. Do not get caught in the snare of endless debate. We must come back from the traditional terms, sayings, and teachings to the pure Word of God. The controversy concerning such a mystery as the Trinity is endless. Be on the alert to avoid this trap. My burden in this message is to fellowship with you regarding this mystery from the pure Word.

I. GOD IS UNIQUELY ONE

We must be governed by the revelation that God is uniquely one. The Bible tells us that God is one. However, because the first occurrence of the word God (Elohim) in the Bible (Gen. 1:1) is in the plural number, some people translate it as “Gods.” This is preposterous. It is appalling to speak of “Gods.” Psalm 86:10 says, “Thou art God alone.” It does not say, “Ye are God alone.” The pronoun is the second person singular, not the second person plural. The Hebrew word for God in this verse, Elohim, is in triple number. If you consult the markings in the Newberry Bible, you will find there an indication that “God” here is triple in number. Nevertheless, Psalm 86:10 does not say, “Thou art Gods.” It says, “Thou art God alone.” The word “alone” must control our thought. “Thou art God” (not Gods) “alone.”

Perhaps some will ask, “If you say that God is only one, how could God in Genesis 1:26 refer to Himself as ‘Us’ and speak of ‘Our’ image? Is there one God or more than one? If you say that God is one, how can He refer to Himself using the pronouns ‘Us’ and ‘Our’?” My answer is that He is the Triune God and that the Trinity is a mystery. If you can understand the Trinity thoroughly and define it adequately, it is no longer a mystery. In the realm of mathematics or chemistry, things can be scientifically analyzed by the human mind. That is science, not mystery. If you can use your supposedly clever mind to understand the Triune God, He is no longer a mystery. Because none of us can understand the Trinity adequately, it remains a mystery. Do not ask me why. I do not know why. I can only say, “The Bible tells us so.” Do not argue; just take the pure Word of God.

In both the Old Testament and the New, we are told clearly and definitely that God is one. Isaiah 45:5 says, “I am the Lord…there is no God beside me.” Although the word for God here is also in triple number, this verse does not say, “There is no God beside us”; it says, “There is no God beside me.” Therefore, in Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Timothy 2:5 we find clearly stated the conclusion that there is one God. Do not get into the snare of thinking that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three Gods. First Corinthians 8:4 says, “There is none other God but one.” Hallelujah for one God! This is a basic and conclusive principle.

Why then do we believe that there is one God? Is this just our interpretation? We can all say, “I believe that God is uniquely one, for the Bible tells me so.”

II. GOD IS TRIUNE

This one unique God is triune. I do not know how to explain this, although for many years I tried. During the past fifty years, I spent a great deal of time analyzing and trying to understand the Trinity. Since I could find no way to resolve it, I gave up long ago. I said to myself, “Little man, you are too small. You can never understand the Trinity adequately.”

A. “I” Is “Us”

Isaiah 6:8 says, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Is God “I” or “Us”? We may say that He is both. Although I cannot say why, I know that He is both “I” and “Us.” I do not know why. As we have already mentioned, in Genesis 1:26 God refers to Himself as “Us” and speaks of “Our” image. The same principle is used in Genesis 3:22 and 11:7.

We find the same thought in the New Testament. In John 14:23 Jesus said, “If a man loves me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” In this verse we read of “We” and “Our.” Surely “We” and “Our” are plural. Are the “Father” and “I” two Gods or one? Surely They are one. Then why does the Lord say “We”? If you answer, “Because here you have both the Father and the Son,” then I would ask you, “How could one God be both?”

In John 17:11 the Lord prayed, “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” Notice that here again the Lord speaks of Himself and the Father as “We.” Why a plural pronoun if They are one? I do not know. It is a mystery, beyond the reach of human language or understanding.

B. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Matthew 28:19 speaks clearly of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. However, if you read this verse carefully, you will see that the Three have just one name. It says, “baptizing them into the name” (not names) “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” There are Three with one name. This is the Triune God, the Trinity. How can we explain this? We cannot.

Andrew Murray in The Spirit of Christ, chapter twenty, says, “In the Father we have the unseen God, the Author of all. In the Son God revealed, made manifest, and brought nigh; He is the Form of God. In the Spirit of God we have the indwelling God: the Power of God dwelling in human body and working in it what the Father and the Son have for us….what the Father has purposed, and the Son has procured, can be appropriated and take effect in the body of Christ only through the continual intervention and active operation of the Holy Spirit.”

C. All Three Are God

1. The Father Is God

Undoubtedly the Father is God. In various places the New Testament speaks of God the Father. See, for example, 1 Peter 1:2 and Ephesians 1:17.

2. The Son Is God

The Son also is God. Hebrews 1:8 says, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God….” Here the Son is addressed as God. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word certainly is Christ, the Son. Since the Word is God, the Son also is God. Furthermore, Romans 9:5 says, “Christ…who is over all, God blessed for ever.” I like this verse. Christ the Son is not only God; He is God over all.

3. The Spirit Is God

In Acts 5:3-4 we see that the Spirit is God. In verse 3 Peter told Ananias that he had lied to the Holy Spirit, and in the next verse that he had lied to God. These verses equate the Holy Spirit with God.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God. How many Gods do we have? We have one. How can the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all be God and yet there be only one God? The only answer we can give is, “I don’t know.”

D. All Three Are Eternal

Some of the rumors and accusations claim that we do not believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. I do not know where the critics and accusers get such a thought. We want to declare to all that, in accordance with the Bible, we believe that the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Spirit also is eternal. We believe this and declare it because the Bible tells us so.

1. The Father Is Eternal

Isaiah 9:6 has the term the “everlasting Father.” The literal translation of the Hebrew phrase here is “Father of eternity” or “eternal Father.” Hence, the Father is eternal.

2. The Son Is Eternal

The Son also is eternal. Hebrews 1:12 says of the Son, “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” Hebrews 7:3 says that He has no beginning of days nor end of life, meaning that He is eternal. Eternal is that which has no beginning or ending. This is why a circle rather than a straight line is a sign of the eternal God. He has no beginning and no ending.

3. The Spirit Is Eternal

The Spirit also is eternal, for Hebrews 9:14 speaks of “the eternal Spirit.” Therefore, let everyone know that in accordance with the Bible, we declare that all Three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are eternal.

E. All Three Exist at the Same Time

The Father, Son, and Spirit all exist at the same time. Notice John 14:16-17: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth.” In these two verses we have the Son praying to the Father that the Father would send the Spirit. Hence, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all present at the same time.

In Ephesians 3:14-17 Paul says that he will pray the Father to grant us to be strengthened by His Spirit in our inner man that Christ may make His home in our hearts. In this passage we have the Father, the Spirit, and Christ the Son. All exist at the same time. The Bible does not say that the Father existed for a certain period of time and then the Son came; that after a certain period of time the Son no longer existed and was replaced by the Spirit. There is not a verse that says this. The Bible in this passage indicates that the Father listens to the prayer, the Spirit will strengthen the saints, and the Son, Christ, will make His home in their hearts. Here again, it is clear that all Three exist at the same time.

Second Corinthians 13:14 says, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” Here are mentioned the grace of Christ the Son, the love of God the Father, and the fellowship or communion of the Holy Spirit. All Three are present at the same time.

First Corinthians 12:4-6 speaks of the Spirit of gifts, the Lord of administrations, and the God of operations. Here we see the Spirit, the Lord, and God. Once again, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father are shown to exist and work at the same time. The Spirit is giving gifts, the Lord is administering, and God the Father is operating. Therefore, we do not believe that the Father has ever ceased to exist, that the Son came to replace Him, and that, after a time, the Spirit replaced the Son. We believe that all Three, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are eternal and exist at the same time.

F. All Three Are One

Here is the real problem. Do you believe that all Three are one? We do, because the Bible tells us so.

1. The Son Is the Father

Let us look at Isaiah 9:6: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

Who is this child? It is Jesus. Where is this child born? In the manger at Bethlehem. “Unto us a son is given.” Who is this son? It is Jesus. Whose Son is He? He is God’s Son. God so loved the world that He gave us His Only Begotten Son. Not only is a child born to us, but also a Son is given to us. (God gives His Son to us. Why is He called Wonderful? Because He is not simple. It is not easy to understand Him, nor can we fully do so. He is wonderful. This child by the name of Jesus, who was born in the manger at Bethlehem, is also called the Mighty God. Do you believe this? The Jewish people do not. They do not believe that that little Jesus is the Mighty God. If they believed it, they would immediately become real Christians. I believe it! My God is Jesus! My God is that little child. That little child who was born of Mary in that manger at Bethlehem is my Mighty God! His fourth name or title is the Everlasting Father. The Son who is given to us is called “the Everlasting Father.” Is He the Son or the Father? If you believe that the child born to us is the Mighty God, you have to believe also that the Son given to us is the Everlasting Father. To say that the Son is the Father is according to the pure Word of God.

Now turn to John 14:8-9. “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip: he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” This word indicates clearly that the Son is the Father. Yet some twist this word saying that the Son is not the Father, but the representative of the Father. If you read the context without any twisting, you can realize that the Son was the Father there. Philip asked the Son to show him the Father. The Son was surprised, saying, “I have been with you such a long time and you have seen Me. Since you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.” Here we may say to Philip, “Haven’t you read Isaiah? It tells you that the Son is the Father. Since He is here, why do you ask Him to show you the Father? He is the Father.” So, He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

The following is a quotation taped at a meeting of some people who were discussing how to deal with our so-called heresy. In their conversation this was said: “… Anyway, Isaiah 9:6, For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulders and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Prince of Peace, the mighty God, the everlasting Father. There Jesus is called the Father. Right? So He’s the Father. That’s what it says. That’s Isaiah 9:6. Now we don’t normally say this because tradition is involved here.” Please notice this. These critics admit that, for fear of their tradition, they normally do not say that Jesus is the Father. They dare not speak the truth, yet they turn their attack upon us. Are we for traditions? Do you care for traditions? In every Christian’s conscience and mind, he must admit that in Isaiah 9:6 the Son is called the Father. I am glad that in the midst of the opposers’ attack, there is this honest word, admitting that, according to the clear word of Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is the Father, even though they do not normally say this because it involves the matter of tradition.

Some, however, have twisted this verse, saying, “The Son is called the Father, but He is not the Father.” This is ridiculous! You are called by a certain name, yet you are not that person! Once a certain man said to me, “This Father here is not God the Father. He is the Father that brought forth the race of Israel.” I said, “Don’t say this. Here it does not say the ‘Father of Israel’; it says, ‘the Father of eternity.’ If you say that the Son who is called the Father is not the Father, then you must also admit that the child who is called the Mighty God is not the Mighty God. But certainly the child is the Mighty God. Thus, as long as you admit the one, you must recognize the other.” No sober mind would deny this.

2. The Son and the Father Are One

This is the clear word of Scripture: “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).

3. The Last Adam Became a Life-giving Spirit

First Corinthians 15:45 states: “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit” (ASV). Who is the last Adam? Jesus. Who is the life-giving Spirit? The Holy Spirit. Besides the Holy Spirit, there is no other spirit that gives life. This verse clearly tells us that Jesus, who is called in the Bible the last Adam, became the life-giving Spirit. Hence, to say that the Lord Jesus is also the Holy Spirit is according to the Bible’s clear revelation.

Therefore, it is clear: The Lord Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, the very God and the Lord.

4. The Lord (the Son) Is the Spirit

In 2 Corinthians 3:17 we read: “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” Who is the Lord here? No doubt it is Jesus. And who is the Spirit? It is of course the Holy Spirit. The Lord here is Jesus and the Spirit here is the Holy Spirit. So here the Bible says, “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” To say that the Lord Jesus is the Spirit is absolutely scriptural!

In his book, The Spirit of Christ, the twenty-fifth chapter, Andrew Murray says: “It was when our Lord Jesus was exalted into the life of the Spirit that He became ‘the Lord the Spirit’….The disciples knew Jesus long, without knowing Him as the Lord the Spirit…. There may in the ministry be much earnest gospel preaching of the Lord Jesus as the Crucified One, without the preaching of Him as the Lord the Spirit….It is as the knowledge and acknowledgment of Christ as the Lord the Spirit, and of the Spirit of Christ as changing believers into His likeness, lives in the Church, that the ministry among believers will be in Life and Power—in very deed, a Ministry of the Spirit.”

The Father, Son, and Spirit are one God, not three. But, deep within, some Christians consider the Father, Son, and Spirit as three Gods. Some even clearly say this. Others may not say this in words, but they do hold this concept within them subconsciously. Perhaps even some of you reading this message held such a concept in the past but were afraid to speak of it for fear of being condemned. Once I had a talk with a certain Christian preacher who does not believe that the Son is the Father and that the Lord is the Spirit. I asked him, “Brother, how many Gods are the Father, Son, and Spirit?” He told me clearly and definitely that there are three Gods. Such a statement is absolutely heretical. The revelation of the Bible is that God is uniquely one. Without this controlling principle, centuries ago people would have said that there were three Gods.

Since theologians could not reconcile this matter, they came up with the term “persons,” speaking of the three persons of the Godhead. But to place too much stress on the three persons leads to tritheism. We should not be involved with the traditional terms. If we are, we shall find ourselves in trouble. Yes, the Bible does say that God is one, and it does make clear that God is triune—Father, Son, and Spirit. But to stress the Father, Son, and Spirit as three individual “persons” is to go beyond the revelation of the Bible.

Griffith Thomas, author of a well-known exposition on Romans, made this comment: “The term, ‘Person’ is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far or it will lead to tritheism…while we are compelled to use terms like ‘substance’ and ‘Person’, we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance and personality…The truth and experience of the Trinity is not dependent upon theological terminology” (from The Principles of Theology).

G. All Three Are in Us

Ephesians 4:6 speaks of “one God and Father of all, who is…in you all.” It is clear from this verse that the Father is in us.

That the Son also is in us is obvious from John 14:20, “At that day ye shall know that I am…in you”; Colossians 1:27, “Christ in you, the hope of glory”; and 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Know ye not…that Jesus Christ is in you…?”

Then in John 14:17 it says, “The Spirit of truth…shall be in you.” Thus, the Spirit also is in us.

It is so clear that the Father is in us, the Son is in us, and the Spirit is also in us. Then, according to our experience, how many are in us? One or three? One! According to the letter, it seems that there are three, but according to our experience, there is one. This is because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one.

III. A MYSTERY

John 1:1 says, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” By the clause, “the Word was with God,” we understand that the Word and God are two, for the Word was with God. But “the Word was God” indicates that the Word and God are one, for the Word was God. Are They one or two? They are both. This is a mystery.

Second Corinthians 3:17 says that “the Lord is that Spirit.” Here the Lord and the Spirit are one, for the Lord is the Spirit. Then, in the same verse, it speaks of “the Spirit of the Lord.” This indicates that They are two. Are the Lord and the Spirit one or two? It is a mystery.

Notice how, in Hebrews 1:8-9, the Son is addressed as God, then God is referred to as His God; “Unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee….” How can you explain this? Can you say, “O God, Thy God”? This is also a mystery.

Finally, in Revelation 1:4; 4:5; and 5:6 we read that the one Spirit (Eph. 4:4) of God is called “the seven Spirits.” Here again is a mystery. Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, we must learn to simply take the pure Word.

We know what the Bible says concerning our Triune God, and we believe it. We pray for those who oppose us that God may grant them to see the truth according to the pure Word. I say, once again, that the arguments and disputations concerning this matter of the Trinity are endless, for the Trinity is a mystery. It is impossible for anyone to explain it thoroughly or adequately. The Triune God cannot be fully comprehended as a doctrinal matter by our limited mentality. The Triune God is for our experience and enjoyment. God as a Trinity is for His economy, that is, for the dispensing of Himself into us to be our life and our everything. This is why we have spent so much time to point out that the Father is in the Son and that the Son is now the life-giving Spirit, indwelling our spirit to be our life and our everything for our enjoyment. If it were not for the matter of experience, we would not care to talk about it very much. However, since the attacks have come, we have had to make what we experience clear to people.

J. Oswald Sanders in his Spiritual Maturity (published by Moody Press), page 144, says: “William Barclay comments: Paul seems to identify the Risen Lord and the Holy Spirit. We must remember that Paul was not writing theology; he was setting down experience. And it is the experience of the Christian life that the work of the Spirit and the work of the Risen Lord are one and the same. The strength, the light, the guidance we receive come alike from the Spirit and from the Risen Lord. It does not matter how we express it so long as we experience it.” Thus, the Triune God is not for terminology or for teaching. The Triune God is for our experience and enjoyment.

© 1976 Living Stream Ministry. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.

Concerning the Person of Christ

Preface

This book is composed of messages given by Brother Witness Lee in Hong Kong in 1970. In 1971 these messages were published with some added material by the Gospel Book Room, Taipei, Taiwan.


“Godhead” Defined

In the following pages, the word Godhead (Gk. θεóτης) is used several times. The following definition is given for readers who may be unfamiliar with this term.

Godhead (Gk. θεóτης), used in Colossians 2:9, refers to what God is as the Deity and as an object of worship.

We, the children of God, are born of Him and therefore possess His divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). But we do not participate in His Godhead; we do not possess His deity.


There are two great mysteries in the Bible: one is the Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and the other is the person of Christ. Christ is both God and man, and in His one person there are two natures, divinity and humanity. Our mind cannot thoroughly comprehend this. We can only accept this fact according to the revelation of the Scripture.

THE DIFFERENT SCHOOLS THROUGHOUT THE AGES

Before considering the revelation of the Bible concerning the person of Christ, let us look at the views and teachings of different men throughout the ages concerning this matter. From the first century A.D. to the middle of the sixth century, the so-called bishops held different teachings concerning Christ’s person. Hence, there were often disputations and eventually divisions in the church in the first six centuries. These different views and teachings can be summarized and classified into seven kinds. Among these, only one is proper and may be considered the orthodox teaching. The other six are improper; they are either wrong with respect to Christ’s humanity or mistaken regarding His divinity, and they either overly separate Christ’s divinity from His humanity or merge His divinity and humanity into one. We shall briefly discuss the seven different schools.

Christ Having Only Divinity but Not Humanity

The first school relates to the erroneous teaching of the Docetists (A.D. 70-170). They said that Christ had divinity only and was without humanity. To the Docetists all matter was essentially evil. Since Christ is holy, they said that He could never have the defilement of the human flesh and that the body that He took on Himself while on earth was not a real body but a mere illusion. His birth was not a real birth, and His death was not a real death.

Of course, this teaching is altogether absurd and clearly contrary to the revelation of the Scripture. The Bible definitely and explicitly says that the Lord is the Word of God who became flesh (John 1:14), who “also Himself in like manner partook of the same [i.e., blood and flesh]” (Heb. 2:14), and who became a man (1 Tim. 2:5). Having a human body and human nature, He is a complete, true man.

Just as is mentioned in 1 John 4:2-3, this school denied that Christ has come in the flesh. The Gospel of John refutes the Docetists at its very beginning by declaring that Christ is the Word and that He is God who became flesh (John 1:1, 14).

Christ Having Only Humanity but Not Divinity

The second school involves the heresy of the Ebionites (A.D. 107). They maintained that Christ had the human nature but was without the divine nature and that His life followed the common human pattern, although His behavior bore a special relationship to God.

This teaching is even more absurd than the preceding one. It closely resembles the false teachings of the modernists today and contradicts the Bible to the uttermost. The Bible definitely states that Christ is a man, and it also clearly reveals that He is God (John 1:1; Heb. 1:8; Rom. 9:5). Christ possesses complete and perfect humanity as well as complete and perfect divinity.

Christ’s Divinity Being Incomplete

The third school involves the erroneous teaching of the Arians. They said that Christ’s divinity was incomplete and that He came into being through the union of the Logos and the human body. Therefore, He cannot compare with God but is merely all-excelling, being the most outstanding, the noblest, and the highest among the creatures—for the Word is not God who is uncreated; rather, He is the chief of all creation. Arius asserted that Christ was created by God before the ages, preceding all other created things. Hence, there was a time when He did not exist. He further affirmed that because Christ died without sin, He could be resurrected, ascend to the heavens, and thus become God. The first general council assembled at Nicaea in A.D. 325 declared Arianism a heresy and rejected it.

Under careful examination, the false doctrine of the Arians is found to contain three points that are contrary to the revelation of the Scripture: (1) The Bible says clearly that “the Word was God” (John 1:1), yet Arius asserted that the Word is not the self-existent God and therefore maintained that Christ’s divinity is imperfect and cannot compare with God. This is truly a great heresy! (2) The Scripture says that Christ is the very God who exists from the beginning (v. 1) and who is self-existent and without beginning. However, the Arians said that there was a time when Christ did not exist and that He became God only after His resurrection and ascension. This kind of teaching is also a great insult to Christ’s person. (3) The Bible indeed says that Christ is the “Firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15) and also that Christ is “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14), but it does not say that He was created before the ages, as was arbitrarily asserted by the Arians. In summary, they totally denied Christ’s uncreated divinity and were too dogmatic concerning the time of Christ’s becoming a created one. Justifiably, their teaching was pronounced a heresy and rejected by the general council at Nicaea.

Christ’s Humanity Being Incomplete

The fourth school involves the absurd teaching of the Apollinarians. They said that Christ’s humanity was incomplete because He had a human body and a human soul, but He did not have a human spirit, which is mysteriously replaced by the Logos. The so-called Christ is thus formed with these three: Logos, soul, and body (unlike a normal human being, which is made up of spirit, soul, and body). The second general council which assembled at Constantinople in A.D. 381 pronounced this doctrine a heresy.

Of course, this doctrine greatly contradicts the revelation of the Bible. Although the Bible says that Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20), having complete divinity, it also says that He was born of Mary (Luke 2:5-7), having perfect humanity. He was born a child (Isa. 9:6) and grew up in a normal human way (Luke 2:40, 52). He possesses not only a human body (Heb. 2:14) and a human soul (Matt. 26:38) but also a human spirit (Mark 2:8). Hence, the Scripture clearly reveals to us that Christ is a man with spirit, soul, and body, possessing perfect humanity.

Christ’s Divinity and Humanity Being Separated

The fifth school relates to the false doctrine of the Nestorians. They maintained that the two natures, divinity and humanity, in Christ were distinct and separate. They reasoned that if there are two natures, there must be two persons. Therefore, they over-divided the two natures in Christ even to the extent of saying that there are two distinct beings—God and man—in the one body of Christ. The third general council which assembled at Ephesus in A.D. 431 rejected this doctrine as improper.

The teaching of the Nestorians is also evidently contrary to the biblical revelation. In the Old Testament the Bible shows that the Ark of the Testimony, which typifies Christ, was made of wood and overlaid with gold—it was a product of two natures. Gold typifies Christ’s divine nature, while wood typifies His human nature. Although gold and wood are of two distinct natures, they were united as one to become an Ark. This indicates that although Christ possesses two natures, divinity and humanity, He is still one; and His two natures, although each is distinct, are not separate but rather are united into one. Although Christ has both divinity and humanity, the two natures are in one person. He does not have one body consisting of two separate persons, God and man.

Christ’s Divinity and Humanity Being Merged into One

The sixth school relates to the wrong teaching of the Eutychians. They denied the distinctness and the coexistence of Christ’s divinity and humanity. Instead they asserted that the two natures were merged into one, which was neither divine nor human but a third nature resulting from the merging of divinity and humanity. In this merging, Christ’s divinity was dominant, and His humanity was absorbed by His divinity. Hence, the Eutychians were also known as the Monophysites. This teaching was rejected in the fourth general council at Chalcedon in A.D. 451.

Eutychianism also contradicts the Scripture. In the Old Testament the Bible shows that the meal offering, which typifies Christ, consisted of oil mingled with fine flour (Lev. 2:4; Exo. 29:40). Oil, which typifies the Holy Spirit, is related to Christ’s divine nature, while fine flour, which typifies Christ’s behavior, is related to His human nature. Although oil and fine flour were mingled into one, they were still two in nature—they were not merged into one to become a third nature. But Eutyches maintained that the two natures of Christ, divinity and humanity, were merged into one and became a third nature, just like an acidic substance being mixed with an alkaline substance becomes a neutral mixture. Actually, the two natures of Christ, divinity and humanity, are mingled like oil with fine flour. In this mingling, they do not become a third nature, as transpires when an acidic and an alkaline substance are mixed.

Christ Having Both Divinity and Humanity— Each Being Complete yet Both Being United in the Body of One Person

The seventh school is the proper teaching of the orthodox school. After four general councils, a fifth general council was assembled in Constantinople in A.D. 553, where all those of the orthodox school acknowledged that Christ has both divinity and humanity, each being complete but united in the body of one person—without separation, without confusion, and without being changed into a new nature. Our Lord is definitely the Son of God and the Son of Man as well. He is the complete God and a perfect man as well. He is truly God and truly man, and He is both God and man. He has complete divinity as well as perfect humanity. The two natures in Him are neither confused nor separated. Although He has two natures, He is still one person. His person cannot be divided, and His natures may not be confused. This is the proper revelation as shown in the entire holy Word of God; this is also the orthodox view of the church of God through the ages. Our Lord is both God and man, one person with two natures, without separation and without confusion. This is truly a mystery of mysteries, and it is worthy of receiving our worship and praise forever!

THE REVELATION OF THE SCRIPTURE

Although the person of Christ is a great mystery, the Bible speaks very clearly regarding this matter. This matter which is revealed in the Scripture is a mystery, but the words which the Bible uses in unveiling it are clear. Hence, although we cannot completely understand such a mystery, we can comprehend and receive the words that the Bible speaks concerning it.

Christ Being God

Both in the Old and New Testaments, the Bible many times and in many ways clearly says that Christ is God.

In the Old Testament

Hebrews 1:5 tells us that the word spoken by God in 2 Samuel 7:14, “I will be his Father, and he will be My son,” refers to Christ. God is His Father, and He is God’s Son. Such a designation, according to the biblical sense, shows equality with God (John 5:17-18). Beginning with Genesis, there are many places in the Old Testament that speak concerning Christ. However, it is not until 2 Samuel 7 that it speaks of God as His Father. He is God’s Son, has the Godhead, and is equal with God. He came as the Son of God with the Godhead to be the Christ of God to accomplish God’s will.

Throughout the Psalms, Christ is repeatedly referred to as God. Psalm 2:7 says, “He said to Me: You are My Son; / Today I have begotten You.” This word refers to God raising the Lord Jesus from the dead (Acts 13:33) and declaring Him to be the Son of God who possesses the divine essence of the Godhead (Rom. 1:4). Although He became the Son of Man and put on human nature and a human body, God raised Him up from the dead, declaring Him to be the Son of God in His humanity, being so much better than the angels (Heb. 1:4-5). In a psalm praising Christ, the psalmist declares, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; / The scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom” (Psa. 45:6). Hence, O God in this verse is directed to Christ. The psalmist plainly addressed Him as God and praised Him as such. He is not only the fairest One among the sons of men (v. 2) but also God who has the throne forever and the scepter. He who is the fairest man is God, the very God who reigns on the throne for eternity.

In Psalm 102 the psalmist declares, “My God, /…Your years are throughout all generations. / Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, / And the heavens are the work of Your hands. / They will perish, but You endure; / Indeed all of them will wear out like a garment; / Like clothing You will change them, / And they will be changed. / But You are the same, / And Your years are without end” (vv. 24-27). This is a word of praise to God, saying that God is both the Creator and Ruler of the heavens and earth, and that He is ever unchanging. According to Hebrews 1:8-12, this word speaks of Christ. Here again, the Bible clearly says that Christ is God and praises Him as the Lord who created and rules the heavens and the earth, who is the same, and whose years are without end.

David declared, “Jehovah declares to my Lord, / Sit at My right hand” (Psa. 110:1). In Matthew 22:42-45 the Lord pointed out that here David called Him Lord. This proves that He is God; otherwise, how could David call Him Lord, since according to the flesh He is the Son of David? Although He became flesh and was made the Son of David, as God He is David’s Lord, the One who sits in heaven and is equal with God.

The book of Isaiah says, “In that day the Shoot of Jehovah will be beauty and glory” (4:2). This Shoot is Christ, who came forth from Jehovah God. Therefore, He, as the Shoot that came out from God and possesses the Godhead, is for the manifestation of God’s beauty and glory, and we indeed see God’s beauty and glory manifested through Him. The prophet Isaiah declared, “I saw the Lord sitting on a high and lofty throne, and…the whole earth is filled with His glory” (6:1, 3). John 12:38-41 says that here Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord Jesus. This shows us that the Lord Jesus is God who is high, who sits upon the throne in heaven, being praised by the seraphim, and whose glory fills the whole earth. Hallelujah! Our Lord is the most high God who sits on the throne and whose glory fills the universe. He is worthy not only to receive praises from the heavenly angels but, much more, to be praised and worshipped by us.

The Old Testament prophecy, “The virgin will conceive and will bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel [that is, God with us]” (Isa. 7:14), was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus (Matt. 1:20-23). Although the Lord was a man conceived and born through a virgin, men called Him “God with us,” for when He was in the flesh, He was God with men. He is God who became a man and dwelt with men; hence, He is the very God who is with men. Isaiah 9:6 says, “A child is born to us, / A Son is given to us; / …His name will be called / …Mighty God, / Eternal Father.” This word cannot be more clear and emphatic in saying that our Lord is not only the very God but also the Father. He was born in the flesh as a child, yet He is the mighty God; He came into time as a Son, yet He is the eternal Father. Jesus who became flesh is God. The Son who came into time is the Father. He is our God, and He is also our Father.

Isaiah 11:10 says, “In that day the root of Jesse, / Who stands as a banner to the peoples…” Here the root of Jesse refers to Christ (cf. Rev. 22:16, which says that He is the Root of David). Isaiah 11:1 says that He is a sprout that came forth from the stump of Jesse and a branch from his roots. This indicates that He became a man and was a descendant of Jesse; He came forth from Jesse. But verse 10 says that He is the root of Jesse, indicating that He is God who is the root of Jesse, and Jesse came out of Him. Isaiah 40:3-11 says, “The voice of one who cries / In the wilderness: Make clear / The way of Jehovah; / …Then the glory of Jehovah will be revealed, / …Behold your God! / Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty One, / …He will feed His flock as a Shepherd.” Based upon Matthew 3:3, which quotes the word “the voice of one who cries,” we understand that this passage here in Isaiah 40 refers to Christ. He is God’s expressed glory, just as Hebrews 1:3 says, “Who [Christ], being the effulgence of His glory.” He is the God of God’s people; when He comes, it is the Lord coming to His people, as a mighty One and also as a Shepherd. Of course, these words will be fulfilled even more at His second coming. But when He came the first time, it was also the manifestation of God’s glory, the coming of the very God Himself, for He is God, the very Lord God Himself.

Jeremiah 23:5-6 says, “I will raise to David a righteous Shoot; / …And this is His name by which He will be called, / Jehovah our righteousness” (cf. 33:15-16). This means that Christ on the one hand is a righteous Shoot that came out from David, that is, a descendant of David, and on the other hand, He is Jehovah our righteousness. He is God as well as man.

Micah 5:2 says, “You, O Bethlehem… / From you there will come forth to Me / He who is to be Ruler in Israel; / And His goings forth are from ancient times, / From the days of eternity.” Matthew 2:4-6 clearly points out that this passage speaks of Christ. Although He was born in Bethlehem and came out from there, His root or source is from ancient times, from the days of eternity. Only God is from ancient times and from the days of eternity. Hence, this proves that He is God, the very God who is from ancient times, from the days of eternity.

Furthermore, the Angel of Jehovah, as mentioned in Exodus 3:2-12; Judges 6:11-24; 13:15-24; Zechariah 1:11-12; and 2:8-11, refers to Christ. These places clearly indicate that the Angel of Jehovah is Jehovah God Himself. (Zechariah 12:8, which says, “Like God, like the Angel of Jehovah,” proves this.) This shows that Christ, who was sent of God as the Angel of Jehovah to accomplish God’s will, is the God who sent Him, the very Jehovah God.

In the above quoted passages, the Old Testament clearly reveals that Christ is God, having the Godhead, God’s status, God’s position, and divine power—He is nothing less than God Himself.

In the New Testament

Matthew 1:20-23 says, “That which has been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins. Now all this has happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel’ (which is translated, God with us).” In this passage there are three main points which strongly prove that our Lord is God Himself:

(1) He was conceived in the womb of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God Himself. Hence, when He was born of the Holy Spirit, God was incarnated. This exactly agrees with John 1:14, which says that He is God who became flesh.

(2) God ordained His name to be called Jesus. Jesus in Greek is equivalent to Joshua in Hebrew (Num. 13:16; Heb. 4:8), which means “Jehovah Savior.” This tells us that this Jesus is Jehovah God who became our Savior. Hence, He is God Himself.

(3) God not only ordained His name to be Jesus, but men also called Him by the name Emmanuel, which means “God with us.” This also indicates that He is God. He—the One who became flesh and tabernacled among men—is God with men. In His God-ordained name Jesus, there is Jehovah, and in His name Emmanuel, by which men called Him, there is God. He is Jehovah, and He is God. He is Jesus, Jehovah Savior, and He is also Emmanuel, God with us.

The New Testament shows us that on a number of occasions (particularly immediately before the Lord’s birth, at His baptism, and at His death), God clearly revealed either directly or through angels and men, that the Lord is the Son of God, that is, that the Lord has divinity and the Godhead, and is equal with God (John 5:17-18).

The word spoken by the angel Gabriel, who was sent from God when Jesus was to be conceived, was, “He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High…The holy thing which is born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:32, 35).

Then later God spoke from heaven after the baptism of Jesus and said, “This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found My delight” (Matt. 3:17). When John the Baptist saw the Holy Spirit descend upon the Lord, he said, “I have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34). When the Lord first began calling people to follow Him, Nathanael said, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God” (v. 49).

After the Lord walked upon the sea, caused Peter to do the same, and calmed the wind, the disciples said, “Truly You are the Son of God” (Matt. 14:33).

After Peter had received the revelation from God, he declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16).

At the time of the Lord’s transfiguration on the mountain, God spoke out of the cloud and said, “This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found My delight” (17:5).

The centurion and those with him guarding Jesus said, “Truly this was the Son of God” (27:54).

When the Pharisees said that Christ was the Son of David (22:42), the Lord said, “How then does David in spirit call Him Lord?” (v. 43), quoting the word (v. 44) from Psalm 110:1, proving that David in spirit had called Him Lord. Here He admitted that He is the Lord of David. Although He became flesh and was made a son of David, He is actually the Lord of David because He is God.

Matthew 28:19 says, “Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In this word to His disciples, the Lord placed Himself one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, thus proving that He has the same divinity and Godhead as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

A passage in the Gospel of Mark says, “Jesus…said to the paralytic, Child, your sins are forgiven. But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, Why is this man speaking this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except One, God?” (2:5-7). This not only proves that the Lord Jesus is God who can forgive sins, but it also indicates that the Lord confesses that He is God, the God who alone can forgive sins. Later in the same passage He also showed those who criticized Him that, just like God who searches men’s hearts, He knew the reasoning in their hearts and stood in the position of God to exercise God’s authority to forgive men’s sins (vv. 8-12).

Further, Mark 10:17-18 says, “As He went out…someone… asked Him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One—God.” The Lord Jesus’ word proves that He admitted that He is God who alone is good. By saying this, the Lord wanted the one who confessed that He is good to confess also that He is God, the only good One.

The Gospel of John states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” (1:1-2). According to verse 14, the Word here is the incarnated Lord Jesus. He not only was with God in the beginning, but He is the very God.

The Gospel of John further states, “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him” (v. 18). This tells us that the Lord, being the only begotten Son of God, is the expression of God. No man has ever seen God, yet He declared God. The Father is the invisible God, the hidden God; the Lord Jesus is the manifest God.

The Lord Jesus said, “All may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (5:23). Here the Lord shows that He enjoys the same honor with the Father because He is the Father, and He is also God.

Jesus said to the blind man whom He had healed, “Do you believe into the Son of God? He answered and said, And who is He, Lord, that I may believe into Him? Jesus said to him, You have both seen Him, and He is the One speaking with you. And he said, Lord, I believe” (9:35-38). Here the Lord Himself told the blind man whom He had healed that He was the Son of God. The Lord’s own word indicates that He is the Son of God, has the Godhead, and is equal with God.

In such verses as John 10:30, and 17:11 and 22, the Lord Jesus clearly said that He and the Father are one. Just as the Father is God, He also is God. In addition, John 13:3 says, “Jesus, knowing…that He had come forth from God and was going to God.” This word proves that the Lord and God are one. He had come forth from God and was going to God (not to where God is), because He is God.

Then, again, the Lord said to His disciples, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also…He who has seen Me has seen the Father…I am in the Father and the Father is in Me” (14:7, 9-10). When men saw Him, they saw the Father; when they knew Him, they knew the Father. He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him, because He and the Father are one; He is the Father, and He is also God.

The Lord Jesus also said, “All that the Father has is Mine” (16:15). This means that all that God is rests in the Lord, as Paul also testified in Colossians 2:9: “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” for He is God as well as the Father.

The Lord prayed to the Father on the last night prior to His crucifixion, saying, “Now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5). According to His word, He shared the glory with the Father even before the world was. This proves that He is the same as God in the beginning because He is the God who is in eternity.

The disciple Thomas said to the Lord after His resurrection, “My Lord and my God!” (20:28). In the following verse, the Lord confirmed Thomas’s word, for He actually is both Lord and God.

In stating, “These have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (v. 31), John declared that his entire Gospel was written in order to prove that the Lord is the Son of God—He is the same as God, having God’s nature and Godhead.

The book of Acts also says that the Lord is the Lord (2:36; 9:5; 10:36) as well as the Son of God (9:20; 13:33). This proves that the Lord has God’s divine nature and the Godhead and is the same as God.

There are numerous verses in the Epistles which state that the Lord is the Lord as well as the Son of God, thus strengthening the evidence that He has God’s divine nature and the Godhead. In addition to these, the following few verses clearly and definitely show that our Lord is God; He is no less than the unique God Himself. “Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever” (Rom. 9:5). This word cannot be more clear in saying that Christ is God, blessed forever. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14). Here the Lord is placed on the same level as God and the Holy Spirit. This proves that the Lord has the same divine nature and the Godhead as God and the Holy Spirit.

“Who [Christ Jesus] existing in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6), and “Who [the Son of His love] is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). The Lord not only has the form of God, but He is the image of God, for He is the very God. Colossians 2:2 and 9 tell us that the mystery of God is Christ and that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. All that God is, is Christ; all that is of the Godhead rests in Christ, for He is God Himself. “Confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). Christ in the flesh was God manifested in the flesh. It was actually the flesh, yet God was manifested in it. This is really a great mystery! Christ who became a man was God manifested in the flesh, and He is God Himself. “Who [Christ], being the effulgence of His [God’s] glory and the impress of His substance” (Heb. 1:3). In the foregoing passage we have seen that Christ is God manifested, and here it says that He is the effulgence of God’s glory, the impress of His substance. He is God’s expression, His manifestation. “But of the Son…O God…” (v. 8) is a quotation from Psalm 45:6 proving that the Son (Christ) is God. Following this, Hebrews 1:10-12 is a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27 proving that He is God who is the same and whose years will not fail. “We know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). It says that the Son of God is the true One. He is come that we may know Him who is true and that we may be in Him who is true. This true One is the true God, and He is eternal life. According to 1 John 1:2, eternal life refers to the Lord Himself. Hence, 1 John 5:20 also tells us that the Lord is the true God.

There are also many verses in Revelation defining the Lord’s nature: “From Him who is and who was and who is coming, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful Witness, the Firstborn of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:4-5). Here the Lord is placed on the same level as God and the Holy Spirit, proving that He has the divine nature and the Godhead, just as God and the Holy Spirit do. “I am the First and the Last” (v. 17). Revelation 2:8 and 22:13 say the same thing. The First and the Last in the universe surely is God who is from eternity to eternity (Psa. 90:2). Hence, this word also proves that the Lord is the eternal God. In Revelation 2:18 the Lord refers to Himself as “the Son of God.” Here once again, the Lord Himself admits He has the divine nature and the Godhead. The terms the Root of David and the Offspring of David are used in Revelation 5:5 and 22:16 in reference to the Lord. Just as the Offspring of David denotes that the Lord is a man and that He came out of David, so the Root of David denotes that He is God and that David came out of Him. “To Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever” (5:13). The Lamb refers to the Lord. This verse states that He and God together receive equal praises from every creature in the universe. This proves that He and God are one and that He is equal with God in honor and glory. “The Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (21:22). This verse shows that the Lord and God are the temple (singular number), proving that the Lord and God are one. “The glory of God illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb” (v. 23). Just as the light is in the lamp and is one body with the lamp, so God is in Christ and is one body with Christ. God is the content of Christ, and Christ is the expression of God. Christ and God are one. In the phrase the throne of God and of the Lamb (22:1), the word throne is singular. God and the Lamb share one throne—this also places the Lord on a level equal with God. According to the preceding passage, God is the light, and the Lord is the lamp; therefore, God is in the Lord. It must be that God is in the Lord sitting on the throne. Otherwise, how could two sit on the same throne together? In any case, all these passages prove that the Lord and God are one. In Revelation 22:13 the Lord Jesus says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” However, in Revelation 1:8 it is the Lord God who says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” This unmistakably proves that the Lord is God, “He who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” Following this, He says that He is “the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (22:13). Our Lord is the God who is self-existing and everexisting, without beginning and without end, yet who is the beginning and the end. May we offer up to Him the worship which He as God is worthy to receive! May we forever praise Him as God, the true God, the complete God! Amen! Hallelujah!

Christ Being a Man

The Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments, contains many passages which clearly reveal that Christ is a man.

In the Old Testament

The first prophecy in the Old Testament concerning Christ says, “I will put enmity / Between you [the serpent] and the woman / And between your seed and her seed; / He will bruise you on the head, / But you will bruise him on the heel” (Gen. 3:15). This verse prophesies that Christ, as the seed of the woman, would bruise the head of the serpent, the devil. Later, He actually was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4) and became the seed of the woman; that is, He became a man, and through His death destroyed the devil (Heb. 2:14). This is the first place in the Scripture that speaks concerning Christ being a man. When God promised Abraham, “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 22:18), the promised seed He referred to was Christ (Gal. 3:16). Christ causes all the nations of the earth to be blessed. However, He needed to become the seed of Abraham, that is, to become a man so that the people on this earth could be blessed through Him. Hence, He actually became the seed of Abraham (Matt. 1:1) as a man. Later, in Genesis 26:4 and 28:14 God gave Isaac and Jacob the same promise, saying that Christ would be their seed and that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in Him. These are prophecies concerning Christ becoming a man. Genesis 49:10 says, “The scepter will not depart from Judah,… / Until Shiloh comes.” Shiloh here, which means “peace-bringer,” refers to Christ. This is a prophecy concerning Christ who was to become the seed of Judah, that is, to become a man—the Peace-bringer.

Moses prophesied to the Israelites, “A Prophet will Jehovah your God raise up for you from your midst, from among your brothers, like me” (Deut. 18:15). This Prophet of whom he prophesied is Christ (Acts 3:22-23). His word here shows us that in order for Christ to be this Prophet, He needed to be one of the brethren of the Israelites, that is, He needed to become a man.

“The fruit of the earth” is referred to in Isaiah 4:2. According to the first half of this verse, this refers to Christ. Isaiah 11:1 says, “Then a sprout will come forth from the stump of Jesse, / And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.” Based on the following verses 2 through 5, this word refers to Christ. He is a sprout out of the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots. This also means that the Lord needed to become a man. “A man will be like a refuge from the wind / And a covering from the tempest, / Like streams of water in a dry place, / Like the shadow of a massive rock in a wasted land” (32:2). Based on this passage in Isaiah, we can see that “a man” is Christ. Christ who is our refuge is a man.

“Here is My Servant… / A bruised reed He will not break; / And a dimly burning f lax He will not extinguish” (42:1, 3). Matthew 12:18-21 indicates that this refers to the Lord Jesus. He, the Servant of God, is a man. Taking the status of a man, He ministers to God as a Servant.

“Indeed, My Servant… / His visage was marred more than that of any man, / And His form more than that of the sons of men” (Isa. 52:13-14). According to this description, the Lord needed to be a man in order to be God’s Servant. His visage was marred, more than that of any man, and His form more than that of the sons of men—this shows that He is a man.

The entire chapter of Isaiah 53 prophesies concerning Christ. “He grew up like a tender plant before Him, / And like a root out of dry ground. / He has no attracting form nor majesty that we should look upon Him, / Nor beautiful appearance that we should desire Him. / He was despised and forsaken of men, / A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; / And like one from whom men hide their faces, / He was despised; and we did not esteem Him… / He was cut off out of the land of the living / …And they assigned His grave with the wicked, / But with a rich man in His death… / He… was numbered with the transgressors” (vv. 2-3, 8-9, 12). These few verses fully depict the conditions and experiences of a man. Hence, Christ has to be a man, and He indeed became a man.

“Indeed, days are coming, / Declares Jehovah, / When I will raise up to David a righteous Shoot; / …And this is His name by which He will be called, / Jehovah our righteousness” (Jer. 23:5-6). This word refers to Christ. He is David’s Shoot, that is, David’s descendant (Matt. 1:1; Rev. 22:16). He is “Jehovah our righteousness”; He is also David’s Shoot. He is God; He is also a man. Isaiah 4:2 says that He is “the Shoot of Jehovah”—He comes out of God and has God’s nature. Jeremiah says that He is the Shoot of David—He comes out of man and has a human nature.

The prophet Daniel declared, “I watched in the night visions, / And there with the clouds of heaven / One like a Son of Man was coming; / And He came to the Ancient of Days, / And they brought Him near before Him. / And to Him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, / That all the peoples, nations, and languages might serve Him” (Dan. 7:13-14). In the visions Daniel saw Christ receiving the kingdom from God and coming back to the earth to rule (cf. Luke 19:15: “When he came back, having received the kingdom”). Christ in this vision appeared as a Son of Man. This means that when He receives the kingdom and comes back again to this earth to rule as King, He will be a man (Matt. 26:64). In His status as a man, He receives the kingdom from God and comes back to rule over the nations of the earth.

“You, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, / So little to be among the thousands of Judah, / From you there will come forth to Me / He who is to be Ruler in Israel” (Micah 5:2). This prophecy says that Christ would be born in Bethlehem (John 7:42) and become a man to rule for God. This also proves that Christ needs to be a man.

There are additional Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ: “I am about to bring forth My servant, the shoot” (Zech. 3:8), and “Here is a man, whose name is the Shoot; and he will shoot forth from his place and will build the temple of Jehovah. Indeed, it is he who will build the temple of Jehovah; and he will bear majesty and will sit and rule on his throne; and he will be a priest on his throne” (6:12-13). All these designations refer to Christ. He is God’s Servant, He is a man, and He is called the Shoot. He will build the temple of Jehovah, and He will sit on the throne and rule and be a Priest. He can do all these things because He is a man. In His status as a man, He will come and do all these things. These are strong proofs that Christ needs to be a man, a real man with the human nature.

Furthermore, Zechariah 13:7 says, “Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, / And against the man who is My Fellow, / Declares Jehovah of hosts. / Strike the Shepherd, / That the sheep may be scattered.” In Matthew 26:31 the Lord points out that this word refers to Him. He is God’s Shepherd; He is the man who is God’s Fellow. Although He is God’s Fellow, He is still a man. This also proves that the Lord needed to be a man.

In the New Testament

The Old Testament shows that Christ needed to be a man. In order to be a man, He needed to become the seed of the woman as well as a seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, and David. At the beginning of the New Testament, Matthew 1 shows that Christ actually became the son of Abraham and the son of David (v. 1); He also became a descendant of Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Jesse (vv. 2, 5-6), born of the virgin Mary (v. 16). He definitely became the seed of the woman to be a real man, just like any ordinary man, having ancestors and a genealogy.

Later, the second half of Matthew 1; Luke 1:30-31; and 2:5-12 tell us that Christ was conceived through the Holy Spirit and, following the normal human course, came out of His mother’s womb to be a child. Thus, the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6, “A child is born to us,” was fulfilled.

Luke 2:21-24 shows that this child, who was born from His mother’s womb, was circumcised on the eighth day according to the law of the Israelites and was given the name Jesus. And when the days of His mother’s purification were fulfilled, He was brought to the temple and was presented to God. Everything was done according to the ordinary human way, proving that He definitely was a man.

Again later, Matthew 2 shows how Christ as a child was protected with His mother, taken away by Joseph to escape to Egypt (v. 14), brought back to the land of Israel (v. 21), and settled in Nazareth and was thus called a Nazarene (v. 23).

Luke 2:40-52 also shows that the boy Jesus “grew and became strong,” went year by year to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast, and “advanced in wisdom and stature and in the grace manifested in Him before God and men.” He had the proper living of a normal boy growing into manhood.

Matthew 13:55 says that He was “the carpenter’s son,” and Mark 6:3 says that He was “the carpenter.” This tells us that after He grew up, He worked with Joseph as a carpenter. This fully proves that He is absolutely a man.

In Matthew 4:3-4, after His baptism and before He started His ministry, the devil came to tempt Him, luring Him to manifest Himself as the Son of God. But the Lord replied, “Man shall not live…” This answer indicates that He acknowledged Himself to be a man and held firmly to the status and position of a man.

Later, on numerous occasions He called Himself “the Son of Man,” thus acknowledging that He was a man (8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:41; 16:13, 27; 17:9, 22; 20:18, 28; 24:30, 37; 25:31; 26:24).

Even in the Gospel of John, a book which testifies that He is God, the Son of God, He not only called Himself the Son of God, acknowledging that He has the divinity and the Godhead and is the same as God (5:17-23, 25-27; 8:36; 9:35-37; 10:33, 36; 14:13; 17:1), but He also called Himself the Son of Man, confessing that He is a man, has the human nature, and is the same as man (1:51; 3:13; 5:27; 6:27; 8:28; 12:23; 13:31).

Finally, in Matthew 26:63-64 before His crucifixion, the high priest who was judging Him asked Him if He was the Son of God. On one hand, the Lord answered, “You have said rightly.” Yet, on the other hand, He still called Himself the Son of Man, holding firmly to His human status.

His birth, His living, and His actions on earth prove that He is a man: Philip saw Him as “the son of Joseph, from Nazareth,” a real man (John 1:45). Coming into His own country, His own people called Him “this man.” They knew that He was the carpenter’s son and that He had a mother, brothers, and sisters (Matt. 13:54-56). These facts strongly prove that He is absolutely a man, not any different from an ordinary man. He reclined at the table and ate with men just like an ordinary man (9:10-11; Luke 7:36; John 12:2). When He was crucified, the soldiers divided His garments (19:23-24), thus proving that He put on clothing just like a normal human being. He, “being wearied from the journey” and being thirsty, asked a woman for a drink (4:6-7). He wept as did those who were present at that time (11:33, 35). He “laid aside His outer garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself;…poured water into the basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded” (13:4-5). All these actions prove that He was absolutely a man.

The Lord was a man while He was on the earth before His death. But even after His resurrection, His ascension to heaven, and His coming again in the future, He is still and forever will be a man in eternity. After His resurrection He appeared to His disciples and said to them, “See My hands and My feet…Touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you behold Me having. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet…And they handed Him a piece of broiled fish; and He took it and ate before them” (Luke 24:39-40, 42-43). This proves that after His resurrection He is still a man, has flesh and bones, and eats like a man. He told the high priest, “From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power” (Matt. 26:64). This means that after ascending to heaven, He is still a man. He told His disciples, “The Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels” (16:27). Again, in Matthew 26:64 He says, “You will see the Son of Man…coming on the clouds of heaven.” This means that when He comes again in the future, He will still be a man. He said to Nathanael, “You shall see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:51). This describes His condition in the future, in eternity. He will still be the Son of Man; He will still be a man unto eternity.

In addition to the four Gospels, other New Testament books contain verses which prove that He is a man: He is “Jesus the Nazarene, a man” (Acts 2:22). Stephen saw Him in heaven as “the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (7:55-56). Romans 1:3, “His Son, who came out of the seed of David according to the flesh,” clearly proves that He is a man of blood and flesh. He is “the one man Jesus Christ” (5:15). He is “the last Adam,” and He is “the second man” (1 Cor. 15:45, 47). He is the One who died for all (2 Cor. 5:14). He is the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16). “Out of whom, as regards what is according to flesh, is the Christ” (Rom. 9:5) proves that He is a man with flesh who came out of Israel. That He was “born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4) certainly proves that He is a man. He became “in the likeness of men,” and was “found in fashion as a man” (Phil. 2:7-8). This absolutely proves that He became a man. First Timothy 2:5 refers to “the man Christ Jesus.” He was made a man who is a little inferior to the angels (Heb. 2:6-9). “Since therefore the children have shared in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same” (v. 14). This means that He became a man of blood and flesh. The statement, “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2), clearly shows that He became a man. He is “One like the Son of Man” (Rev. 1:13). He is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (5:5). This means that He is a descendant of Judah. This also proves that He is a man. He is “the Offspring of David” (22:16); surely proves that He is a man.

Christ Being Both God and Man

In all the verses mentioned above, whether in the Old or New Testament, we can clearly see that, on the one hand, Christ is God and, on the other hand, He is man. On the one hand, He is man, and on the other hand, He is God—He is a mysterious One, God as well as man, man as well as God.

In the Old Testament

On the one hand, Christ is “a child,” and on the other hand, He is the “Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6). He is both.

Christ is the Shoot of David, the descendant of David; yet He is also “Jehovah our righteousness,” God becoming our righteousness (Jer. 23:5-6). He is a descendant of man—He is a man, and He is the very God Himself—He is both.

Christ is a man who came out of Bethlehem, but He is also God who is from ancient times, from the days of eternity (Micah 5:2). On the one hand, He is a man in time, and on the other hand, He is God in eternity. He is both.

In the New Testament

Christ is both the Son of David—a man, and the Lord of David—God Himself (Matt. 22:42-45). Christ is the Son of Man “who came out of the seed of David” having humanity, and He was designated to be “the Son of God in power,” having divinity, God’s nature (Rom. 1:3-4). Christ is a man of flesh who came out of Israel, yet He “is God over all, blessed forever” (9:5).

He is the One “existing in the form of God” but who became “in the likeness of men” and was “found in fashion as a man” (Phil. 2:6-8). He is God who became a man. Hence, He is God, and He is also man; He is man, and He is also God.

The Lord Jesus said with His own mouth, “I am the Root and the Offspring of David” (Rev. 22:16). The Root of David refers to God out from whom came David; the Offspring of David refers to a seed, a man, who came out of David. Therefore, Christ Himself acknowledged that He was man as well as God. He is both.

Thus, the Bible clearly reveals that our Lord is God as well as man, the true God and the true man, the perfect God and the perfect man. He is nothing less than God and nothing less than man, having complete divinity and complete humanity.

He is God with the divine nature; He is also man with a human nature. The Gospel of John continually shows these two aspects of Him. He is God who knows everything and sees everything (1:47-48), who is omnipresent, and who descended out of heaven yet is still in heaven (3:13). He is a man who can get weary and thirsty (4:6-7). He can also weep (11:35). Both God and man are complete and perfect in Him. This is really mysterious. It is no wonder that His name is called “Wonderful” (Isa. 9:6).

Christ Being the Creator

God is the Creator of all things (Gen. 1:1; 2:1-3). Since Christ is God, He surely is also the Creator of all things. This is clearly revealed in the Scripture: “My God, / …Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, / And the heavens are the work of Your hands” (Psa. 102:24-25). We have seen that this word refers to Christ. Christ is God who created heaven and earth. “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being which has come into being” (John 1:3). “Through whom are all things, and we are through Him” (1 Cor. 8:6). “Because in Him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him” (Col. 1:16). “Through whom [the Son] also He [God] made the universe” (Heb. 1:2).

These verses explicitly tell us that Christ is the Creator of all things; all things have been created and came into being through Him.

Christ Being a Creature

Man is a creature (Gen. 1:27; Acts 17:26). Since Christ is a man, surely He is also a creature. This is revealed in the following two verses.

Colossians 1:15 says that the Son is “the Firstborn of all creation.” This says in plain words that Christ is related to creation. He is the Firstborn of all creation, the First of all creatures.

In Revelation 3:14 Christ calls Himself “the beginning of the creation of God.” This tells us that He is the chief of the creation, the first One of all creatures.

In some translations the above two passages do not match the meaning in the original Greek text (the Chinese Version is an example of this). Some do not understand these two passages properly; hence, they deny that Christ is a creature. However numerous authoritative versions such as the King James Version, the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the Amplified New Testament, the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Conybeare’s Translation, Wuest’s, Darby’s New Translation, the Concordant Version, and the Berkeley Version translate Colossians 1:15 either “the firstborn of every creature” or “the firstborn of all creation.” According to the original text, this translation is correct. Based on the proper translation, “the Firstborn of all creation,” in 1934 Brother Watchman Nee delivered the following word: “In creation the Son is the Firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15), and the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14). According to His eternal plan and before the foundation of the world, God ordained that the Son become flesh and accomplish redemption (1 Pet. 1:20). In God’s plan the Son was the first in creation” (The Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Vol. 11, p. 734).

Firstborn in Greek is prototokos. Proto means “the first one, or the beginning”; tokos means “born, produced.” Hence, prototokos means “the first one born, the one produced in the beginning”; it can thus be translated “the firstborn.” The New Testament uses this word six times in referring to Christ. It says that He was the “firstborn son” of Mary (Luke 2:7), He is the “Firstborn among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29), He is the “Firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15), He is the “Firstborn from the dead” (v. 18), He is the “Firstborn” of God (Heb. 1:6), and He is the “Firstborn of the dead” (Rev. 1:5). Although the above six references use different terms, all the terms refer to Christ being the Firstborn. That Christ is “the Firstborn of all creation” means that He is the first One, the chief of all creation. This absolutely does not mean that He is before all creation and is therefore not included in all creation.

Colossians 1:15-18 says twice that the Lord is the Firstborn. Verse 15 says that the Lord is the “Firstborn of all creation,” and verse 18 says that He is the “Firstborn from the dead.” The Firstborn from the dead means that the Lord is the first One among the resurrected. The Firstborn of all creation means that He is the first One among the created. This means that all in all, whether among the created ones or the resurrected ones, the Lord is the Firstborn, the Beginning, and occupies the first place.

There are two great categories of things in the universe: the created and the resurrected. In this passage, the second half of verse 15 through verse 17 speaks of the first category, including all creation, among whom the Lord is the Firstborn, the first One. Verse 18 is concerned with the second category, including the church, among whom also the Lord is the Firstborn, the first One. In both categories the Lord is the Firstborn, the first One. This passage proves that in all things He is the Firstborn, and He has the preeminence. Whether among the created or the resurrected, He is the Firstborn; He is the Head; therefore, He is above all and has the preeminence in all things. The central thought of this passage is that Christ has the preeminence in all things. Unless He is the Firstborn of all creation and the first One of all creation, how could He have the preeminence among all creation?

Christ is a creature because He became flesh (John 1:14), partook of blood and flesh (Heb. 2:14), was born a child (Isa. 9:6), and became a man (1 Tim. 2:5). Flesh, blood and flesh, child, and man surely indicate creatures. Are not flesh and blood and flesh created things? Are not child and man created things? Of course they are! Since Christ became these things, how can we say that He is not a creature? If we acknowledge that Christ is a man, then we must admit that He is a creature; if we deny that He is a creature, then we deny that He is a man.

We saw earlier that Christ was a man in the flesh before His death, and that after His resurrection, He is still a man with bones and flesh—He still has a created body; however, it is a resurrected body. Furthermore, He still wears the created human nature in heaven today, just as the last line of stanza 5 in Hymns, #113 says: “He wears our nature on the throne.”

Even in the future when He shall come again and in eternity, forever He is a man and always wears the human nature. Since He became flesh and put on human nature, He will never put it off. From His incarnation to eternity He is always a man, always wears the created human nature, and always is a created one.

Christ is the “only begotten Son” of God (John 1:18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9); He is uniquely one, has divinity and the Godhead, and is without beginning, existing in Himself just like God. But Christ as the Firstborn of all creation or Firstborn in resurrection did not come into being by Himself; rather, He had a beginning in creation and resurrection. As to His being the Firstborn of all creation, He has the created human nature. As to His being the Firstborn of the resurrected, He has the uncreated, divine nature and the created, resurrected human nature as well. He, the Firstborn of the resurrected, became the firstborn Son of God. As to His uncreated divine nature, He is God’s only begotten Son and is the same as God, without beginning and self-existing. However, according to His uncreated, divine nature, plus His created, resurrected human nature, He is God’s firstborn Son, the Firstborn of the resurrected, but not without beginning and not self-existing, but rather, beginning from resurrection. Regarding His created human nature, He is the Firstborn of all creation, so He surely is not without beginning, nor is He self-existing; rather, He began from creation. He is the uncreated, selfexisting One; He is also the Firstborn of the created ones and the resurrected ones. He is called the Firstborn of all creation because even before creation God foreordained that He (Christ) should become a created man, just as we have quoted earlier from Watchman Nee’s word: “According to His eternal plan and before the foundation of the world, God ordained that the Son become flesh and accomplish redemption (1 Pet. 1:20). In God’s plan the Son is the first in creation.” This is not in accordance with Arius’s assertion that Christ was created before the foundation of the world. Such an assertion is without scriptural basis. The Bible shows that before the foundation of the world, even before anything was created, God foreordained that Christ become a created man in order to accomplish His purpose. Hence, in God’s plan and in His eternal view, Christ is the first one of creation—He is the Firstborn of all creation, the Head of all the created ones. Therefore, to say that Christ is created and that He is the Firstborn of all creation is altogether in agreement with the scriptural revelation and is altogether founded on scriptural ground.

Christ Being Both the Creator and a Creature

According to the complete revelation of the Bible, Christ is both the Creator and a creature, because He is God and He is man—He is God who creates; He is also man who is created. As to His being God, He is the uncreated Creator, the I AM who is without beginning. But as to His being man, He is created, the Firstborn, with a beginning. We must see and know these two aspects of Him. We must see that He is God, and He is also man; He is the Creator, and He is also a creature; He is the I AM; He is also the Firstborn; He is without beginning, and He is also with a beginning. Otherwise, our understanding of Him is inaccurate, unorthodox, and contrary to the scriptural revelation and will invariably fall into error and incompleteness.

Our knowledge of the Lord should not be limited by our own view; rather, we should accept the whole revelation of the Bible. However much the Bible reveals is what we should receive. Some think that since the Lord is God, how could He become a man? Likewise, some think that since the Lord is the Creator, how could He become a creature? Although they believe that the Lord is God and man as well, they only believe Him to be the Creator, not a creature. But the Bible clearly reveals that the Lord is the Creator and that He became a creature, just as on one hand, He is God, and on the other hand, He became a man. We must know and accept the various aspects of what the Lord is and not ignore or deny any aspect of what He is.

We should never try to use our limited, logical mind to analyze our unlimited Lord. The Pharisees recognized that Christ was the Son of David, based on one aspect of the Bible; however, they did not know that the Bible also reveals another aspect of the Lord—that Christ is also David’s Lord. We should be warned not to repeat their mistake by limiting ourselves to one aspect of the biblical revelation of Christ and neglecting or rejecting the other aspect. The Scripture, on one hand, says that Christ is the Creator; on the other hand, it says that He is a creature. This is the complete, clear revelation of the Bible; we should not deviate from it or come short of it. Our all-inclusive Lord is too wonderful! He is so wonderful that it is hard for us to comprehend Him. He is really worthy to be called “Wonderful!” He is really worthy also to be appreciated and loved by us!

If we confess only that our Lord is the Creator yet deny that He is a creature, in principle this is the same as those who deny that the Lord came in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3). Hence, we should never deny the created aspect of our Lord simply because of our narrow, limited view. He is the uncreated God; He is also a created man. He is the Lord of creation, and He is also a creature, even the Firstborn of all creation.

Christ Still Being the Creator Although He Has Become a Creature

When Christ became a creature, He did not lose His eternal, uncreated nature—He remains the Creator. In like manner, when He became a man, He did not lose His divine nature—He is still God. Although He became a created man, He remains the uncreated God. Although He became a creature, He still is the Creator. Now He is the all-inclusive Christ who has both divinity and humanity and who has the uncreated divine life as well as the created human life. He is the uncreated I AM; He is also the created Firstborn. May we love and worship Him forever and ever! Amen!