A few weeks ago, a conference leader at a Baptist gathering caused consternation when he argued that Jesus of Nazareth was not the incarnate God. And well he should have. His comment is not only foreign to the position of most Baptists today but his position also would have gotten him run out of Ephesus 2,000 years ago.
Former Baptist professor John Killinger announced, “Now we are re-evaluating and we’re approaching everything with a humbler perspective and seeing God’s hand working in Christ but not necessarily as the incarnate God in our midst.”
Killinger, now executive minister and theologian at Marble Collegiate Church in New York City, was alert enough to acknowledge that what he was presenting was hard for most in the audience to hear but claimed he wanted to talk about his conclusion. “I find from pastors a greater and greater reluctance to preach from the Gospel of John, which used to be the greatest pleasure for most preachers because John was so assertive about the Incarnation and the role of Christ” versus “the tendency to go back to Mark and Matthew and Luke to see the more human side of Jesus, who was anointed at the time of His baptism to be the savior of Israel but not necessarily to be the pre-existent One that we find in John,” Killinger continued.
“There’s an altered view of Scripture and of the role of Christ” in today’s world, he added. “Christ is still Savior to most of us but maybe in a slightly different way than before.”
He urged pastors to reflect this cultural shift by preaching about Jesus’ human side rather than insisting that He is God and always existed.
Killinger’s conclusions are not new. They were proclaimed by some who are referred to in Revelation 2:2 as “wicked men.” Commentaries on the letter to the Ephesian Christians (Rev. 2:1–7) identify these wicked men as those who taught one had to keep the Jewish law in order to be a Christian, turned Christian liberty into sensual license or denied that Jesus Christ was God incarnate.
The letter commended the church at Ephesus because “you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false.”
Testing what is proclaimed by those who claim to come with a message from Christ is biblical. Jesus warned, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matt. 7:15).
In his farewell address at Ephesus, the apostle Paul said, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:29–31a).
Ephesian Christians took these warnings seriously. After all, Paul lived in Ephesus longer after his conversion than in any other city. His leadership was carried on by Timothy, who is referred to as the first bishop there (1 Tim. 1:3).
Later it was the apostle John who provided spiritual leadership to this important center on the main highway between Rome and the world to its east.
But what criteria did the Ephesian Christians use to judge or test those who claimed to be followers of Christ? First Corinthians 14:29 indicates the teaching of one prophet should be tested by other prophets. The greatest test was outlined by the elder statesman of Ephesus, the apostle John. In 1 John 4:1–3, he wrote, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.”
In his second letter, John returned to this subject. In verse 7, he declared, “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the Antichrist.”
The apostle Peter joined the chorus, warning against “false prophets” who even deny the sovereign Lord (2 Pet. 2:1).
Had Killinger announced his conclusions in Ephesus, he would have been branded for what his teachings indicate — one who claims to be an apostle but is not. Unfortunately Killinger is not alone in rejecting the orthodox teaching of Christianity that Jesus was God incarnate. One can frequently hear professors of religion from many Christian traditions try and explain away the miracle of the Incarnation. What makes this incident particularly sad is that one who started with a bright future and a sound Baptist foundation has drifted so far off course as to deny the foundation of salvation — that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).
Reaching such a conclusion about one who claims to bring a message from God and living with its results is difficult but necessary. No, it is not justification for fighting about every disagreement. But neither can one accept every position advocated by someone. That would be chaos. Perhaps the best guidance comes from a statement attributed to St. Augustine, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Still Jesus commended the Ephesian Christians for their hard work and their perseverance, a reference that included testing doctrinal positions. And the Incarnation is an essential doctrine. That means whether the speaker is from the first century or the 21st century, the church must always be alert to false teachers. Again “every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God” (1 John 4:2–3).
Share with others: