Posted on by rschut1945

Judge Not Lest You Be Judged

CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO

If you ever want to create a hostile environment in your Bible study class, just bring up this quote from Jesus and ask others for their opinion on what it means.  As a teacher I’ve had numerous people throw this scripture in my face, especially if I said something that they didn’t agree with. 

As a teacher I know that I’m fair game for such comments, but let’s take a look to see how the Christian is to behave when it comes to following this command from Jesus.

If we take Jesus literally, then what would happen to rapists, pedophiles, and murderers?  We’d have Jeffrey Dahrmer as our pastor and Charles Manson teaching Bible study.  But let’s overlook the extreme for a minute.

We have other seemingly contradictory statements made by both Jesus and Paul against taking it literally that we have to resolve first. 

In the same sermon where Jesus tells us not to judge, he says:

Matthew 7:6 (KJV)
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

I think that it requires a certain amount of judgement to consider which people are dogs and swine doesn’t it?

And in the opening sentences of his letter to the Galatians Paul says:

Galatians 1:6-9 (KJV)
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Notice that Paul even says this twice just to be sure that we get it.

But how does one decide if someone is accursed without judging them?

And once again we have Jesus himself commanding us:

Matthew 18:15-17 (NET1)
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone.  If he listens to you, you have regained your brother.  
16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established.
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.  If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.

Jesus isn’t suggesting here that we simply ignore a person’s sins and let them carry on without interference.  He’s telling us to take action against the individual that might even wind up in excommunication or shunning. 

But, on the other hand, doesn’t Jesus tell us to love our neighbor as well as our enemy?

And we have Paul also speaking about love:

1 Corinthians 13:7 (NET1)
7 It (meaning love) bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

So, if we love others then we must believe everything that they say and endure whatever they do.  Right?

How then do we put these verses together to resolve these seemingly contradictory scriptures?  Is Paul exaggerating simply for effect?

These are not easy to resolve if we look at them as individual statements without any context.  So, to summarize, we can’t judge, yet we must be able to determine who are like dogs and swine.  And we can’t judge yet we must be able to declare someone as accursed and remove them from the congregation, if necessary.  

Let’s begin by looking carefully at what Jesus taught in Matthew in the context of the rest of his sermon.  But let’s look carefully at some of these other verses:

 Matthew 7:1-6 (KJV)
1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6  Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Right after Jesus tells us not to judge he clarifies what he means by that.  Several points are clear.  Jesus had a different way of handling sin then the Pharisees and the lawyers.  Instead of focusing on looking for the sin in the other person, determining their guilt, and then administering punishment as prescribed by the law, Jesus taught that we must first look for sin in ourselves.  This is an application of what we learned in the previous video on The Search for Truth.  Truth begins by looking into ourselves to be sure that we are walking in truth before we try to help others; otherwise, we are the blind simply leading the blind. 

If we find ourselves without guilt, we must then approach the sinner with the intention of helping them rid themselves of the sin rather than in the spirit of judgment.  There is no condemnation and punishment in Jesus’ approach. 

In other verses Jesus tells us that if the person rejects our offer, we are to simply withdraw from that person and have nothing more to do with them.  But if they should repent, we must forgive them and welcome them back into the church.  There is no punishment for their sin that must first be administered such as a fine or public scourging prior to restitution.

So, Jesus is not telling us that we shouldn’t recognize sin when we see it and then do nothing about it.  He is saying that we should first be sure that we know what the sin is and not be hypocritical by committing a worse sin ourselves.  But if we love our brother, we should offer them help so that they might confess and overcome their sin and be restored in faith. 

In Galatians Paul is completely correct and in agreement with Jesus in how he advises us to handle sinners or those who pervert the gospel.  We should keep away from them and have nothing to do with them if they ignore our correction and help. 

And on the question of love believing all things and enduring all things, we cannot simply take this scripture alone in isolation of other scriptures or life would become total chaos.  We learned that truth must come first if we walk with God.  And the same thing is true here.  We certainly must be motivated by love in order to help others, but love must be filtered by truth.  Truth filters out lies and deception.  In this way, we are not asked to believe all things including lies, but we must listen carefully to find out if it is truth or error. 

Paul says this in the verse right before this one:

6 It (meaning love) is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth.

So, when the JWs or Mormons come to the door, we are not commanded to believe everything that they tell us without question out of love.  We are commanded to determine if what they are telling us is true or false and only believe that which is true.    

So, Christian judgment comes from the spirit of truth, not from the spirit of judgment nor hypocrisy or even from revenge as it did with the Pharisees.  And our love for others is not blind love, but a love that sees things in the light, which is the light of truth. 

1 John 4:1 (KJV)
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

The Greek word try means to test its truthfulness and whether it comes from God.  Once again truth takes precedence over everything else.

1 John 4:6 (KJV)
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.  Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Here John is dividing knowledge into that which is truth and that which is error.  Because we are walking in truth, we are familiar with truth and know what truth sounds like and looks like so that we can judge truth over error.  This is how we can also judge those who are walking in truth or error.  True divination of truth and error comes from knowing and walking with God.

So according to scripture, truth must always take precedence in our judgment—even in our love.  In a way we are not judging the person but judging the truth.  Are they walking in the truth as they claim?  Are they teaching the truth as they claim?  We can’t avoid some form of judgment if we are seeking to follow after the truth.

Posted on by rschut1945

Search for the Truth

The reason that I want to write about the topic of truth is that as a minister of Christ I want to explore how people think.  I think that it’s important that we all understand more about this subject.  I want to know what makes people do the things that they do, but most of all why they believe the things that they believe.  And this also includes myself.

I want to find out what is beneath all the ceremony and pretense that people show, especially when it comes to religious beliefs and forms of worship. 

Of course, I can’t include everything that I know about this subject in a short paper such as this, nor do I know all that there is to know about this subject.  But I am trying to make a beginning and hope that someone who reads this will continue from where I leave off.

I will begin by asking a simple question.

What does Paul mean in I Corinthians 8:1 when he says that knowledge puffs us up?

I think that we get caught up in acquiring knowledge which can give us a false sense of having something that others don’t have.  This gives us an inflated sense of what others think about us and even what we think about ourselves. 

Truth, on the other hand, is not acquired in the same manner as knowledge.  It is more of a surrendering rather than acquiring.

Truth deflates or empties us so that we appear as we really are to others as well as to ourselves.

This is why Jesus and many other NT writers told us to seek after truth rather than after knowledge. 

Of course, during the pursuit of truth we also acquire knowledge, but knowledge must be submissive to truth.  Our goal must be truth and not knowledge alone.

We should even search through the scriptures in this same manner looking for truth rather than knowledge.  This is perfectly consistent with what the scriptures themselves teach us.

In my dealing with cults as well as churches, I found that some have become obsessed with the idea of acquiring knowledge rather than truth.  One sign of being puffed up is shown in the way that they declare their knowledge as “right,” “correct,” or even “true,” especially when it comes to their doctrine and beliefs.

They do this in a variety of ways.  One way is by having representatives of their church vote on a doctrine and declare the results of the election as being authorized by God.  Another way is by having it declared true by a group of elders who have been appointed and given some supernatural power to ordain or proclaim a belief to be divinely inspired.  And there’s a third way where someone claims to be or has been selected as a divine representative of God such as a prophet or an elder.  He has the sole power to pronounce the validity of one doctrine right over another.  His voice is taken to be the voice of God.   

What this actually does is give its members a false sense of confidence and self-assurance as well as boost their individual egos as they congratulate themselves for being smart enough to know which church to belong to and follow.  But the question I have for them all is whether they really have the power to declare what is right or true?

In my experience on this subject many confuse truth with fact.  Facts can be acquired through knowledge, but facts are not the same thing as truth.  Facts are like pieces of a puzzle that need to be assembled together in order to form a complete picture.  It is the complete picture that I am referring to here as truth.  Of course, one can always force pieces to fit a puzzle and come up with a completely different picture—and they certainly do that.

Truth doesn’t inflate our egos but actually deflates it.  It makes us realize how dependent we are upon God since he is the author of truth as he is truth himself.  We might believe that we can declare our beliefs as fact, but we certainly cannot declare them as truth.  Only God can do that.

Truth reveals us as we actually are and not as what we want to appear to be.  It humbles us and brings us into submission.  Anyone who has ever felt the power of truth already knows all of this.  But those who declare themselves as right never allow themselves to discover truth because it would only destroy their self-image and the faith that they have in their own private, self-defined system of truth.  But it seems that people are very comfortable declaring their beliefs as being true. 

Now it stands to reason that to declare anything as true one must first know what truth really is.  And according to Scripture to know what truth is, one must walk in truth.  And this begins with knowing the truth about ourselves.  And that means that we have to see ourselves as we really are.  I think that this is the main reason that people fear the truth.  They are afraid that others will see who they really are beneath all their pretenses and disguises.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TRUTH

I think that it’s important for us to know how people think so that we can avoid not getting drawn into a false understanding of self in exchange for the promise of belonging and being accepted into a certain group.  This is very common because it appeals not only to our need for certainty and our need to validate our beliefs as true, but also to give us a sense of belonging and being accepted by others.   

I believe that it is more important for us to walk in the truth even if we have to walk in it alone.  Because we are truly never really alone.  God is always with us if we walk in truth because God is truth. 

In John 14:6 (KJV) Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life.  Did Jesus mean that he lived the truth in purity?  Did he mean that he held nothing back or hid anything about himself?  Did he mean that he was completely transparent and did not put on a show or disguise of any kind for anyone?  And was he not telling us by his example that we ought to do the same thing if we wish to walk in truth?  In a sense, each of us should be able to say I am the truth.  We must allow ourselves to be transparent and open to everyone, especially to ourselves and most of all to God.  We should be able to say I am who I say I am—no more and no less.  What you see is exactly who I am.


It is the nature of God to be truthful.  In the letters of John he tells us that God is truth and there is no deception in him therefore there should be no deception in any of us if we say that we love God and have the nature of God in us.

1 John 1:5-7 (KJV)
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

In these verses light is used as a reference to truth because truth illuminates what is there rather than hides it.

1 John 3:9-10 (KJV)
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.  
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

These verses refer to the nature of God that remains in us preventing us from sinning.

2 Peter 1:3-4 (KJV)
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Even Peter understood that we are partakers of the divine nature of God that keeps us from the corruption of the world.

So, in conclusion, I have observed that it is easy for people to declare themselves as having the true doctrine and belonging to the true church or cult.  All this is done simply by giving someone the authority to make this pronouncement, which makes it appear to be true. 

But the only way for a doctrine or a church to be true is if it leads us into a walk of truth with God as God sees it.  It is a walk of truth as we stand before such a divine being who is all powerful and holy and just.  This truth begins by seeing ourselves as he sees us.  And the only way to do this is to see ourselves as we stand before Christ.  For it is his holiness by which truth will be judged and not by any other human being.

Posted on by rschut1945

The Didache (The Teaching)

The Didache is a document that was discovered in 1873 in the library of Constantinople belonging to the Patriarch of Jerusalem.  This manuscript also contained the epistles of Clement and Barnabas.  The document was mentioned by Eusebius and by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.  The name of the document is The Didache which is short for the Greek title (Διδαχὴ Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), which means the Teachings of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.  But the short name is The Didache which simply means the Teaching.

It is composed of 2 parts or sections.  The first is called the Two Ways and is drawn upon the teachings of Christ.  The second section is composed of the worship and discipline of this early Christian community.  It contains sections on how to baptize, fasting, daily prayer, and the practice of the Eucharist.  Also in the second part there is a section on how to deal with bishops and deacons as well as Sunday worship service.

Scholars believe that the primitive practice of these rites indicates a very early date of authorship.  Some assign it to the latter half of the first century.  This is a very early date considering that Galatians was written around 48 A.D. and Revelation sometime in the 90s.   Some scholars believe that the primitiveness of the document is contrived and would place it in the second century or even later.

It may have been written in either Egypt or Syria, and the authorship is unknown.

Why should we even study this manuscript since it isn’t even in the Bible?  Well, it gives us insight into what was going on in the very early church and how they practiced the faith without complete copies of the New Testament. 

Since I spent a lot of time studying cults and heresies throughout the history of the church, it helps me to see how easy it was for communities to drift away from good teaching and fall into practices that might lead them into some of the early heresies. 

So, let’s begin with a look at the “The Two Ways.”

The Two Ways

  1. A Way of Life
  2. A Way of Death

The Didache says that the first way leads to life.  It contains some of the teachings of Christ that are written in the Gospel of Matthew.  I’m sure that you will recognize many of them as we proceed. 

One of the first commandments given is Thou shalt love first the Lord thy Creator, and secondly they neighbour as thyself; and thou shalt do nothing to any man that thou wouldst not wish to be done to thyself.

The Teaching continues by telling them to bless those who curse them, and pray for their enemies and what merit is there if you love only those who love you?  It also contains the instruction given by Jesus to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and give your shirt to the one who takes your coat. 

Here’s a list of other commandments that were given in this teaching:

  • Do not murder, commit adultery, sodomy, fornication, or theft. 
  • Do not practice magic, sorcery, abortion, or infanticide. 
  • Do not bear false witness, slander, or malice.  And resist hypocrisy, spitefulness, or superiority. 
  • Stay away from bad people and never give way to anger, for anger leads to homicide. 
  • Do not be fanatics, quarrel, or have a hot temper. 
  • Do not look for omens because that leads to idolatry.  (Omens are signs concerning future events).
  • Do not lie or be overanxious to become rich or admired.  That’s good advice even for today.  
  • Don’t complain, be opinionated, or harbor thoughts of wickedness because these things can lead to blasphemy. 
  • Be meek because the meek will inherit the earth.
  • But do not associate with famous people, but with honest and humble folk. 
  • Honor those who speak the word of God to you.
  • Don’t turn away the needy and share everything you have with your brother.
  • It gives advice that might be hard to take today on how to raise children.  It says do not hold back your hand from your son or daughter but bring them up in the fear of God.
  • Hate everything that doesn’t please the Lord.
  • And keep the commandments of the Lord without adding or subtracting from them.

What can we learn from these sayings? 

Many of these sayings are found in Matthew and in some cases found word for word.  There are also similarities to some of Paul’s lists of moral behavior as found in Romans and Galatians.  

Were these sayings then taken from an earlier copy of Matthew called proto-Matthew (a theoretical document that preceded his final gospel) or were these simply oral sayings that were passed down to believers by Christian evangelists and teachers?  Unfortunately, there is no way to tell for sure.

THE WAY OF DEATH

The Didache says that The Way of Death is evil and contains murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcraft, sorceries (drugs), robberies, perjuries, hypocrisies, duplicities, deceit, pride, malice, self-will, avarice, foul language, jealousy, insolence, arrogance, and boastfulness.  They are bent on their own advantage. 

In its final words of wisdom and advice in this section it says that if you can do all these things, you will be perfect.  And if you can’t, then just do the best that you can.  It then adds that you should stay away from food offered to idols. 

It might seem like The Didache is more demanding than what we are accustomed to in our local churches, but I don’t think that one actually had to memorize all these commandments in order to be a good Christian.  At the basis of all these commandments is the first one mentioned which was to love God and love your neighbor and also love yourself in the sense that we must do no harm to ourselves.  In this way we can love our neighbor as ourselves. 

However, with all that said, I do see a problem with the theology behind this advice.  This is a version of Jesus being the author of a great and wonderful code of ethics that we all ought to live by.  And if we can’t live by them, at least we should try our best.  Its basic premise is the motto, “We do our best and God does the rest.”  This can easily be transformed into Pelagianism, which is a form of work’s righteousness.  There is very little, if anything, about the atonement of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross or how to achieve this perfect obedience other than through human will-power.

This is a good example of what the church would have been like if Paul had never been able to clarify the teachings and the very purpose of Jesus’ life and death.  This is what can also happen to the church today that does not truly understand Paul’s Christology about the purpose of Christ’s death on the cross and how it relates to baptism and communion and our holy behavior. 

We will see more of this in the next section when we discuss the meaning of the Eucharist and Baptism. 

CHURCH MANUAL

BAPTISM

The Didache recommends using running water for baptism, but if running water is not available, use ordinary water.  It should be cold, if possible, but otherwise warm.  If that is still not available, pour water three times on the head.  In all cases the Baptismal Formula is to baptize “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” More on This Baptismal Formula.

Both the baptizer and the baptized should fast before the baptism.  The baptized ought to fast for one or two days prior to their baptism.

Note that the baptismal formula used here differs from the formula used elsewhere in the New Testament by the apostles. 

In Acts 19:4-6, Luke says that when Paul told believers to be baptized,  they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

In Acts 8:14-17, Peter and John were sent to Samaria where Luke said that these believers had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus and did not yet have the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 2:38 (KJV), Peter told the Judeans to “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

In Acts 10:48 (NKJV), Peter commanded Cornelius and those around him “to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”

And in I Corinthians 1:10-17 Paul implies that the only true baptism is to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

In neither case was anyone ever baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, literally.  I think that the formula that was used in the Didache was taken from Matthew 28:19 where Jesus tells his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  For further information click here: What The Bible Really Says About the Trinity

I think that this is interesting because it may be showing that the only scroll that they had access to was Matthew or proto-Matthew.  This statement by Jesus does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament.  A conclusion could be that Matthew was written earlier than the date thought by many (85 A.D).[1]

I think that we can at least conclude that they did not have a copy of Acts which was written by Luke around 60 or 62 AD. 

FASTING

The community was encouraged to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays because the hypocrites fasted on Mondays and Thursdays.[2]

They are then told to pray the Lord’s Prayer three times a day.  A copy of the Lord’s Prayer is included in the Didache to recite.  It is the same version taken from Matthew 6:9—almost word for word. 

THE EUCHARIST

Eucharist means Thanksgiving.  It was the term that they used for the Thanksgiving meal eaten together by the community.

It is significant to mention the prayer that was spoken when drinking the wine:

“We give thanks to thee, our father, for the Holy Vine of the thy servant David, which thou hast made known to us through thy servant Jesus.”

Note that there is no mention of this being the blood of Christ, either actual or symbolic.  The same is also true of the prayer recited over the bread.  The meal is only a thanksgiving meal and does not appear to be linked to the body and blood of Christ offered in sacrifice for us. 

There are other prayers of thanksgiving offered after the meal and only those who were baptized were permitted to partake in this event. 

OF APOSTLES AND PROPHETS

The community should welcome teachers who teach them righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, but not listen to those who bring a different teaching.

Apostles are only permitted to stay one day or two days if necessary.  If he stays for three days, he is a false prophet.  He is to accept nothing except enough to last him one night’s lodging.  If he asks for money, he is a false prophet.

A prophet must be judged not by what he says alone, but by his conduct and behavior.  There are also some other strange ideas about judging prophets.  If they ask for something to eat while in the spirit, he should not eat it.  If he does, he is a false prophet. 

If he should ask for money while in the spirit, do not give it to him.

They were not to allow visitors to come into the group for more than a day or two and if they wanted to become a member, they must have a skill and be willing to work. 

A teacher is to be treated as though he were like a High Priest. They are entitled to receive the tithes of the community.

OF SUNDAY WORSHIP

The correct interpretation from the Greek is not Sunday, but The Lord’s Day. It was on this day that they were told to assemble and dine as well as offer the Eucharist, but only after making a confession of sins or faults.

They were also told that they must settle any differences that they have with their brother or sister. 

OF LOCAL OFFICIALS

They were told to choose bishops and deacons who are humble and not eager for money, but sincere and approved.

There is also an instruction to shun or not converse with anyone who has injured his neighbor.

In the last verse in this section, they are told to be guided by what they read in the Gospel of our Lord. This could be a clue that they did have some written form of Matthew or a gospel like it.  There may have been copies of a gospel that we just don’t know about today. 

ESCHATOLOGY (FUTURE EVENTS)

They do mention that the Lord is going to return at any time, so they ought to be ready.  There is also a warning that false prophets and deceivers will abound, and sheep will become wolves.  Lawlessness will grow and there will be persecution and betrayal.

In the end the Deceiver of the World will show himself, pretending to be a Son of God.  He will deceive the earth.  And then the trial will take place.

Then the signs of the truth will appear and the trumpet’s voice and the rising of the dead.  And finally, the Lord himself will descend riding on the clouds of heaven. 

At this point the book abruptly breaks off.  Much of this sounds very familiar.  Parts of this may be echoes of I and 2Thessolonians or even Revelation.  Could this simply be echoes of the teachings of Paul or another evangelist who visited the region? 

We do know from Acts that Apollos was a native from Alexandria which is a main city in Egypt and when he came to the church in Ephesus, Aquilla and Priscilla corrected his theology or as Luke put it:

Acts 18:26 (KJV)
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

So, this might support the idea that it was written in Alexandria. 

From all that we read from The Didache, it appears that they had limited knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus and did not fully understand exactly what the Gospel was about, but instead limited it to an ethical system taught by Jesus.  Whether they even believed that he was the Son of God in a divine sense is missing from the work as well as many other teachings found in the completed New Testament.  It even referred to Jesus as a servant rather than the Son of God.

So, there is much mystery surrounding the Didache as far as the author and source of information.  Perhaps someday there will be more discoveries made that might bring more light to this very interesting manuscript of the early church. 

I hope that you found this both informative and interesting.  I have always found the history of the church to be a very interesting subject and very eye-opening to say the least. 

Here is a link to an online copy: The Didache

[1] Matthew – Earliest date is 40s or 50s according to N.T. Wright and John Wenham, but others date it much later around 85 A.D.  This presents a problem if the Didache is dated as early as some say since it contains what appears to be quotations from Matthew.  Of course. we don’t know exactly what form the Gospel of Matthew took originally as it may have been compiled later from smaller pieces such as the Sermon on the Mount, the Miracles of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus.  I have even heard that it was first published much earlier in Aramaic rather than Greek.  So, there is a wide area of variation when it comes to dating. 

[2] According to the notes in the Cambridge Bible on Luke 8:12, it was the Pharisees who fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. 

Link To The Related YouTube Video – Click Here

Posted on by rschut1945 · 1 Comment

History of the Trinity

The actual doctrine of the Trinity took shape around the 3rd Century AD.  The idea was probably floating around from an earlier date, but it was not yet formed into an official church doctrine as it is today.

STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH

During this time the structure of the church became more formal and structured than it was in the book of Acts.  The political structure of the church was run by bishops who decided which rituals and doctrines were to be practiced and accepted as orthodox beliefs (meaning accepted as official doctrines of the church).  House churches gave way to larger meeting places and more formalized church buildings where a strict organization began to solidify. 

CULTURAL BACKGROUND AND ATMOSPHERE OF THE TIME

It is very important to note that the cultural climate of the church also changed during this time.  Originally, the Jewish disciples of Christ were the leaders as well as the authorities in the church.  These were people such as Peter, John, James, and later Paul.  But by the 3rd Century Jewish bishops no longer held any positions of authority or influenced doctrinal decisions. 

JEWISH BISHOPS OF JERUSALEM

Eusebius of Caesarea provides us with a list of the first fifteen (15) bishops of Jerusalem who were of Jewish origin from James the Just (brother of Jesus) through Judas, the great-grandson of Jude, brother of Jesus.  Not the Judas who betrayed Jesus.   After the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 135), Judas ceased to be bishop and all subsequent bishops were Gentiles. 

From this time forward the Church became governed by Gentiles, and the center of authority changed from Jerusalem to Rome.  This means that there was literally no input from the Jewish thought or ideology concerning the being of God, the Revelation of God, and the identity of the Christ.

It was during this time the Gentiles began to become influenced by Gentile Philosophy and as well as some Pagan ideologies.  Perhaps they did this in order to be accepted by the philosophical community as being a valid religion as well as appealing to the Pagans to convert to Christianity.  We really can’t speculate on their motives for such a change of attitude and we probably shouldn’t. 

The result of this influence was the creation of detailed doctrines about the being of both God and Christ, many of which did not exist in the Bible or originate in Jewish writings but were required and forced upon believers if they wanted to remain in the official church.  These doctrines resembled more a philosophical curiosity rather than Jewish/Christian theology.  They tried to answer such questions as:

  1. How many natures did Jesus have?
  2. If he had two natures, was his divine nature able to communicate with his human nature in what they called a hypostatic union?
  3. Arguments arose even about the very substance of God.  What was he made of?

And from these questions came the definition of the very being/essence of God as a Trinity.

Most of these doctrines are way beyond the limits of man’s understanding.  And many of these doctrines are more of what you might find in cults today.  It was man’s pride that made him believe that he could know these deep mysteries of God.

One thing that I learned over many years of dealing with cults is that they will simply establish an idea as true without scriptural support, repeat it over and over again as though it were ture, and then take ambiguous scriptures on the subject and twist them into saying what they want them to say without any reference to clear and distinct scriptures on the topic.  This trend, however unfortunate, is also used by members of churches today who believe that their truth is inspired by God but don’t have any Biblical verses to back it up.

Being a Christian became based upon one’s theology rather than one’s faith as shown by your conduct, morality, and character.  If you believed in the wrong doctrines concerning these issues, you risked excommunication or worse.

THE POLITICS INVOLVED

The Trinity was first mentioned by Tertullian (AD 160–225).  But he was later apostatized (a form of excommunication) and later joined the Montanist sect, a group considered to be heretical.

The bishop who actually championed the Trinity was Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria Born c. 296/298 and died May 2, 373.   He was Bishop from 328 to 373. He is the one responsible for creating the current definition of the Trinity or at least the main concept.

Athanasius admitted to not being able to read Hebrew and when he quoted from the Old Testament he did so from the Greek version, the Septuagint.  His lack of understanding Hebrew would have made it extremely difficult for him to fully grasp the Jewish understanding of the Name of God, YHVH, as the only true revelation of God, as well as the Jewish concept of God himself. 

But Due to his persistence, the bishops voted the Trinity as the Orthodox position on the being of God at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

This was not an easy sell since prior to this vote Athanasius, himself, was excommunicated by Pope Liberius and exiled 5 times prior to convincing the rest of the bishops to finally accept his doctrine.  And yes, they had already established that the Bishop of Rome was superior to all the other Bishops, laying the foundation for the Papacy and signifying the establishment and authority of the Roman Catholic Church at Rome.  Because of this, I believe that this particular version of the Trinity is based upon early Roman Catholic theology rather than Holy Scripture; yet it’s the one accepted by most Protestant Denominations.

THE FALSE DILEMMA

So what exactly were the choices of the bishops on the doctrine of God’s existence?

Well, it came down to two choices: Either Arianism or Trinitarianism.  And I want to make it clear that at more than one time in church history the majority of bishops believed in Arianism.  That’s the belief that God created the Son of God before time began. He was not exactly equal to God the Father, but second in command; perhaps having the authority of an archangel like Michael.  But His power was definitely subordinated to the Father.

Trinitarianism, on the other hand, is defined as believing that the Son of God always existed as the Son and is co-equal with God the Father as is the Holy Spirit.  And that they exist equally as three persons.  There are more subtle differences, but let’s just deal with these for now.

For more information click on this link: Word Study On Only-Begotten (Hypostasis)

It was really a false dilemma that was established here in that the choice appeared to only be between these two beliefs, but there were others at the time that never made it into the political arena.  Probably because they didn’t have the political backing that these two ideas had.

In most cases today we only have the writings of the critics of these optional beliefs as these teachings were considered as heresy and were ultimately destroyed.  After studying what was available concerning them, I believe that many were purposely misunderstood because of prejudices for either the Trinity or Arianism.  Some of these alternatives were:

  1. Adoptionism
  2. Sabellianism
  3. Monarchianism (which may be even more popular among present-day believers than you might think)
  4. Modalism (again a very popular idea circulating among believers)
  5. Subordinationism (another very popular belief)
  6. Apollinarianism
  7. Patripassianism

For more information on these heresies please click on their hyperlinks.

It would take too much time to even give a brief description of each one, and it is beyond the scope of this paper to do so, but I can tell you that these are all considered to be heretical even though many Christians even today quietly sitting in their pews believe in them without knowing they would be considered heretics by Orthodox standards.

It would be a good study for you to at least read about these heresies; but the subject of heresies is very complex because of the overlapping ideas between them and subtle differences in the meanings of the Greek words used in their explanations as well as the questionable accuracy of the source material.

What appears to have taken place is that the burden of truth was not on what Scripture taught, but rather by limiting the choices to only 2, one would now only need to prove that the other one was wrong and that would somehow logically prove the other to be right.  This is the very definition of a false dilemma.  The assumption being that one was true and the other was false.

I have yet to hear anyone be able to properly define exactly what the Trinity says about God’s being without creating conflicting ideas and falling into one of the heresies that I listed above.

MANY DISAGREEMENTS

They did limit the choice down to 2 options, but it really wasn’t a clear-cut choice.  There were problems with trying to make each choice as clear as they possibly could, but words got in the way.

Athanasius in his Trinitarian formula declared that God was three persons and used the Greek word ὑποστάσεως (hypostasis) for person.  But arguments about the meanings of Greek words such as hypostasis muddied the waters of exactly what he meant by this word.

Did it actually mean person, or did it mean essence, being, or something else?  And the argument still goes on today.  Let me give you some examples to make it clear.

In the NT, the author of Hebrews (perhaps Paul) uses this word hypostasis in Hebrews 1:3.  Hypostasis is translated as person in some Bibles, but being, substance, essence, or nature in the newer versions.  Here is the Bible verse in question.

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV)
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Before we continue, I want to point out that the translation of person here creates a very difficult problem for Trinitarians.  The word “person” here relates directly to God, not the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.  This is then implying that God is one person rather than 3 persons.  So it appears that the newer versions corrected this problem such as the NIV.  Here is the revised version from the NIV of this verse.

Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

And the RSV is as follows

Hebrews 1:3 (RSV) He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Another verse where the word hypostasis is also used appears in Hebrews is 11:1 which says:

Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) 1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Here, the word is translated as “substance.”  Looks like there’s a lot of confusion as to the meaning of this word.  The BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich lexicon/dictionary of Biblical Greek) defines it as The essential or basic structure or nature of an entity, substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality.

Notice that this definition does not include “person.”

I have noticed that in comparing Bible translations, sometimes translators will use meanings that best fit their theology in order to protect their doctrines rather than make the best choice for the context of the sentence as it might cause doctrinal disputes.

With all this considered,  and even after the bishops voted in favor of the Trinity, there was still a great deal of ambiguity and lack of clarity about the idea of persons, character, identity, nature, and being as how it referred to God.  Even philosophers/theologians today haven’t been able to attach clear meanings to these concepts.

It might be surprising for many to find out that these early Council Meetings were no less confusing than the heresies they condemned.  And there was and still is confusion in the church as to which councils were considered valid and authorized by God and which ones were not.  It was certainly not the church’s finest hour. 

FAST FORWARD TO TODAY

This doctrine of the Trinity was established by the votes of bishops at a council meeting during the 4th century (325 AD).  Since then, there have been 21 council meetings.  But today, most Protestant denominations no longer follow the edicts of all these catholic councils.  Yet, they seem to make a distinction between those in which they agree with as being orthodox (approved by God) and those in which they disagree as unorthodox.

Some believe in the authority of only the first 2 councils.  Others accept the first 4.  And some accept the first 7 as authoritative.

Many Evangelicals say that they only accept the Bible and do not accept any of these councils as legitimate authority of truth regarding doctrine; yet they stand firm by some of those council’s doctrinal decisions without scriptural proof or evidence.

The history of the Trinity has led us to where we are today.  We have so many reference sources available to us to help us to uncover some of the problems that we inherited from the early church.  But we do need to recognize those problems and what led up to them.  Up until now the church has used fear to enforce this doctrine.  But this is not new.  In the past reluctance to believe in the Trinity was punishable by torture and death.  How could a doctrine of God be true when it had to be enforced by such horrible punishments?

Even today it’s still used as the litmus test of faith orthodoxy.  If you don’t accept the Nicene version of the Trinity created by Athanasius, some might deny that you’re a real Christian.  And some might even call you a heretic.  But in my own experience if you were to ask these accusers to explain exactly what the Trinity was, they would be unable to come up with a cogent, intelligible definition.  They would probably fall more into the category of a heretic than the one that they were accusing.  

Before we leave this topic I want to make it very clear that the idea of a Trinity does exist in the Bible.  It was mentioned by Jesus in Matthew.  And the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is undeniable.  However, the way scripture refers to the Trinity is not the same as the way Athanasius defined it.  And it’s not the same as the Trinity that the bishops voted in as church doctrine.  And it’s not the one that many repeat in the Nicene Creed every Sunday.  This will be the topic of my next paper. 

For further information on what the Bible really says about the Trinity read my next article.

What the Bible really says about the Trinity

Word Study On Only-Begotten (Hypostasis)

Posted on by rschut1945

The Beauty of God

In this video lesson I show that faith helps us to see the beauty of God by showing us his holiness in the form of morality that was expressed in Jesus’ actions and his teachings. The beauty and the love of God are inextricably linked together. Faith is the means by which we come to love God through our admiration of these qualities of God. Without such admiration and love one simply cannot see the true beauty of God.
Posted on by rschut1945

The Meaning of Baptism

In this audio sermon/lesson I explain the true meaning of baptism as given by Paul in his description found in Romans 6:1-12. Please leave comments so that I can continue to provide quality audio and video material on subjects that are of interest to you.

Posted on by rschut1945

The Name of God

THE NAME OF GOD

Many times I listened to sermons of pastors or read books that are meant to enlighten us about Jesus and the role he played in the revelation of God to men, but I always seem to come away feeling disappointed.  I realize that one cannot preach or teach on something that they themselves do not fully understand and probably no one truly fully understands the intimate relationship between Jesus and God.  But this is not an excuse for us to not search scripture for the fullness of truth on the matter.

In some cases the further we develop our knowledge the better our understanding becomes, but sometimes the more knowledgeable we become the less that we truly understand.  In my own personal search for truth I thought it might be better to try to understand Jesus from the point of view of a contemporary Jew who made up Jesus’ intimate audience.  What would a Jew think about Jesus when he said the things he said about himself?  What would they think when he performed miracles and even forgave sins?  Now I’m not talking here about the self-righteous Jews called Pharisees, but about those who really wanted to follow Jesus and understand him.  I think that if we can get into their mindset of such a person, we will able to understand Jesus’ relationship with God in a much deeper, meaningful manner than using old theological terms that were developed much later by those trying to justify their spiritual understanding with philosophers.

To begin our study we accept that God has always revealed himself to man from the moment of creation.  Even creation itself is an act of revelation.  But what is important here is not a general knowledge of God, but an intimate one.  When God wanted to reveal himself personally he did so using the name “Yahweh.”  Some of you may better recognize this name in another form “Jehovah.”  Most theologians today believe that Yahweh is a more accurate translation of the name of God so I’ll stick with that one.  Many Bible editors chose to use LORD in all uppercase as a substitute for God’s name to avoid controversy.  You can, however, find Jehovah used in the American Standard Version. The main point that I want to make here is that there was an actual name associated to God.

If we take the time to study how God revealed himself using this name, we can see that there was a progressive development that took place according to the scriptures of the Old Testament. These names reveal some very interesting qualities of God. Some revelations of God under this name are Provider, Healer, Banner, Sanctifier, Peace, Righteousness, Shepherd, Presence, and LORD of Hosts.

So, the Jews during the time of Christ were very much aware of the importance of God’s name and what it revealed.  Once we understand this we can see how through this name God developed a profile of himself that was to be later fulfilled in his revelation of Christ. 

The final revelation of God’s name is found in the name JESUS, which means “Yahweh (Jehovah) Our Salvation.”  So in the person of Christ we have the culmination of all the previous qualities of God revealed in his name fulfilled in the final revelation of Yahweh as Jesus. 

Why is this important and what can we gain from this understanding?  It is important because it teaches us that the name of Jesus is a derivation of the name Yahweh (Jehovah) and therefore, the name of Jesus must be given the same respect and authority as the name Yahweh.  We can see this when we read through the New Testament and observe how the disciples used the name Jesus with that same authority as well as how the Pharisees negatively reacted when the disciples called upon the name of Jesus for healing and salvation.

  Romans 10:13 (KJV)
13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Interestingly, we can see this exact same verse applied in the Old Testament to the name Yahweh:

Joel 2:32 (NKJV)
32  And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD (Yahweh) Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.

It is very clear that Joel’s prophecy predicted a time when people would call upon God’s name for salvation.  And according to Peter there is only one name, Jesus, that has the authority to save.

Acts 4:10-12 (KJV)
12 “. . . .for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

And if you are not convinced by those verses compare Isaiah 45 to Philippians 2

Isaiah 45:22-23 (KJV)
22  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23  I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Philippians 2:10-11 (KJV)
10  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11  And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What we can gain from this is an understanding that God has become all things to us.  When we call upon the name Jesus we are calling upon God in the form of the most intimate revelation of him that exists.

Because of the unity of the name of God between Yahweh and Jesus the identity of Jesus cannot be separated from God himself nor can God be separated from Jesus.  This means that the God of the Old Testament is not a different God in any sense, but an unfinished revelation that would finally be fulfilled in the birth and death of Jesus.  So now you know why the name of Jesus was so very important to Peter, Paul, John, and the rest of the disciples.  I hope that now it will be more important and meaningful to you as well.