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 · 2 Comments

What the Bible Really Says About the Trinity

My research on the topic of the Trinity began around 1970 when a friend of mine thought he would consider becoming a Jehovah Witness.  I didn’t know much about them at the time, but one thing about them stood out and that was that they did not believe in the Trinity, and they did not believe that Jesus was God. 

I began looking into why they didn’t believe in such a long-standing doctrine of the church and read about their own beliefs on the being of God and Christ.  This eventually evolved into a life-long search for truth on this important doctrine.  

There are some denominations who do not believe that the Bible is the final source or authority of all doctrines and teachings.  Some think that only bishops should make these decisions. While others think that this is the responsibility of prophets or elders who they believe are appointed by God just for this purpose.  But for the purpose of this paper I am assuming that both myself as well as the reader believe that the Word of God as recorded in the Bible is the source and authority of true doctrine and teaching.  Yet, I also believe that each of us is responsible for what we believe and what we practice.  There are enough resources today to be able to see if certain doctrines are clearly written in scripture.  And if there’s any question on a doctrine, we ought to simply withhold belief until it becomes clear without intimidation from others.  If we don’t feel certain about a doctrine, we should not have faith in it. This is exactly what Paul taught the Christians at Rome when it came to the eating or abstinence from meat offered to idols.

Romans 14:23 (KJV)
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

IS THE TRINITY IN THE BIBLE

DEFINITION

The definition of the Trinity is really very complicated, but most people reduce it to the belief that God is three separate and distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Each has the essence of God and are co-equal with one another. 

In order to justify the Trinitarian doctrine as stated, the Son is presumed to be an Eternal Son without a beginning.  He always existed as a Son, and there was never a time when he did not exist as a Son.

For more information on the Son of God please click on the link below: Word Study on the Only-Begotten Son (Hypostasis) 

There is only one place in the entire Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are written together clearly with a sense of unity.  This is found in Matthew 28:19 where Jesus speaks about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in reference to baptism.  There are other verses that include the Father, Son, and Spirit, but there is no real sense of unity attached nor is there any inference that they are individual persons. However, since they are mentioned together, I have listed them in the footnotes.1

So let’s begin our study by looking at Matthew 28:19.

Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The first thing that I noticed about this verse was a troublesome phrase about the name applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being only one name.  What then was the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? More on Matthew 28:19.

We all think we know the name of the Son, which is Jesus.  But what about the name of the Father?  And what about the name of the Holy Spirit? Take a minute to think about this question because it’s extremely important.

Since Jesus linked this phrase to a baptismal formula.  Wouldn’t it be great if we could find out the baptismal formula that was used by the early church.  We might then uncover this name that was used by all three.

In my research I found three appearances of a baptismal formula.  There was one by Paul in Acts.

Acts 19:4-6 (KJV)
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

One might argue that Paul wasn’t there when Jesus made his statement about the Trinity and baptism because he wasn’t yet a believer at that time, so maybe he was corrected later about the proper baptismal formal.  This might have some merit to it except there are 2 more statements made by Peter, John, and Luke that we must examine.

The second one is by Peter and John.

Acts 8:14-16 (NKJV)
14  Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16  For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The third one is by Peter alone.

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, 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.

There is also another baptism recorded that helps bring this all together.

Acts 10:48 (NKJV)
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

So, by using only Scripture we can see that it clearly teaches us that the only name that was used in baptism was Jesus.  This was the original and true Baptismal Formula. 

Based upon the first 2 examples we can then determine that Acts 10:48 also refers to the name of the Lord as being the name of Jesus.  It was Peter who made the statement in Acts 10:48 as well as Acts 2:38. But notice that Peter used the word Lord when referring to the name of Jesus.  This supports the idea that Jesus is, in fact, God and nothing less.  And that any time we see the phrase “name of the Lord” it refers to the name Jesus.

Example:

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

We can see the importance of this connection when we link it to the Old Testament.

Joel 2:32 (NKJV)
32 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.

This comes from the Old Testament, and it specifically refers to the name YHVH (‏יהוה) (LORD in all caps).  This also equates the name Jesus with the name Yahweh as the name of the LORD.

So, the original and Biblical baptismal formula was to baptize in the name of Jesus or the Lord Jesus.  It is therefore, this name that traces back to the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but we’ll look at this in more detail later. See The Eusebian Form of the Text of Matthew 28:19.

WHEN AND HOW DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD?  

Now let’s take a look at what scripture says about the existence of the Son.  Was the Son created at some point in time, before time, or did he have an eternal existence as a Son? 

The Trinitarian belief that was stated earlier said that Jesus was always the Son of God and therefore there was never a time when he was not the Son.  Let’s take a look to see if this doctrine is found anywhere in Scripture.

I think that the best place to begin such a search is to look at the scriptures that speak about the actual birth of Jesus during the time that Mary was visited by an angel.

The angel Gabriel clearly tells Mary that it was because the Holy Spirit would come upon her that this Child would be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:31-32 (KJV)
31  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

All of the verbs in this promise to Mary are in the future tense.  She will conceive.  His name will be Jesus.  He will be great.  He will be called the Son of the Highest.  And he will be given the throne of David.

But no reference is made that leads us to believe that he was already the Son of God coming down into the womb of Mary as a pre-existent Son of God.  And the verse that says David would be his father was meant in a physical way to show that this was to be a flesh and blood relationship with David.

Luke 1:35 (NASB)
35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the [a]holy Child will be called the Son of God.

And in this verse Gabriel makes it clear what the reason was that he shall be called the Son of God.  It is because the Holy Spirit comes upon her and overshadows her—and the thing that shall be born will be called the Son of God, not that he already was the Son of God and being somehow transmigrated or transferred through her.2

It is becoming more difficult to find a meaningful translation of this verse probably because it could strongly suggest that the beginning of the sonship of Christ began in Mary’s womb.  But with a little effort I found the proper translation in the New American Standard Version.  It translates the Greek words “dio kai” (διὸ καὶ) correctly as “For that reason.”  Other versions simply use the word “therefore” which means the same thing, but is much weaker and more ambiguous than “for that reason” which refers directly to what Gabriel just said as the reason he would be called the Son of God (See BDAG pg. 250).

Just to make it clear again.  There is no reference to Jesus being the Son of God prior to his incarnation.  If the Son of God already existed as a Son, Gabriel should have made this clear.  He could have said that the Son of God shall enter into you and come through you in childbirth.  But he didn’t say anything like that. We therefore, shouldn’t speculate about something as important as the origin of the Son of God.

There are also three references given by Paul and the writer of Hebrews taken from Psalm 2 that declare that the Son was begotten in time and not eternal.

Psalm 2:7 (KJV)
7  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

References are also found in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5.

Of course, if we are set in our minds that Jesus was already the Eternal Son of God, one might look at it differently.  An example of this is the belief that Jesus was an angel held by the Jehovah Witnesses. In spite of the phrasing of the verses in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, they insist that Jesus is still an angel. But in all my dealing with heretical beliefs and cults, I’ve learned that I have to force them to first establish the likelihood of their belief being true before they can manipulate other less clear scriptures to say what they want them to say.  In other words, there needs to be irrefutable evidence that Jesus existed as the Son prior to his incarnation.  There has to be some scripture that actually says this.  Without that we are twisting scriptures to to conform to our beliefs.  I have yet to hear any such clear, irrefutable evidence in the form of scripture that makes the pre-existent Christ an eternal son.

For more information on the Son of God please click on the link below: Word Study on the Only-Begotten Son (Hypostasis) 

A RULE FOR INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE

A basic rule of interpretation that we must apply when we study scripture is noted by the John Knox Institute which says that we must use clear scriptures to interpret ambiguous ones. Here is a quote directly from their website, JohnKnoxInstitute.org:

“The answer can be summarized in a single phrase: Always interpret the obscure in light of the clear. In other words, always interpret difficult and more obscure passages by comparing them to simpler and more plain passages.” (JohnKnoxInstitute.org)

Jesus was the only revelation of God that was actually born through the flesh of child-birth by Mary.  This not only made him the only Son, but made him a unique Son as well. That is the clear teaching of Scripture and my own understanding as well.

Earlier I said that there was only one verse in the Bible that mentioned the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a unity, and in this verse there was clearly no mention of them being three persons.  Then what verses speak about a Trinity as the Being of God existing in three persons?  Actually—none.

Neither the word Trinity nor the concept of God being three different persons appears anywhere in the Bible.  It does not appear in John 1:1 where he says that the Word was with God and was God.  Why not?  Why did John decide to say that the preexistence of Christ was the Word and not as the Eternal Son in a Trinity of three persons?

It does not appear in Phil 2:5 where Paul teaches that Jesus was actually in the form of God, but says nothing about him being a person in a Trinity or a preexistent Son. Why not?  It seems to me a likely place to have put it.  

It does not appear in Hebrews 1:3-5 where the author spends a lot of time describing who Christ is, but nowhere mentions the Trinity of three persons.  Why not? 

If this was so important, I would think that these authors would have made sure that it was memorialized into the Holy Scriptures.

One of my favorite tests of doctrine is not simply finding where it appears in the Bible, but also questioning why it doesn’t appear in the Bible.  In my years as a Bible teacher, I found that there are many false doctrines that people believe that don’t exist in the Bible.  They simply don’t understand that it would have been so simple for Paul or others to simply have written those beliefs down clearly in one sentence, especially if it was so important.  Yet, they didn’t.  

Let’s see if we can understand more about the Biblical version of the Trinity if we look deeper into the name that Jesus was referring to in his statement in Matthew 28:19.

WHO WAS YHVH AND HOW DOES HE RELATE TO THE SON OF GOD?

By now you might be thinking that I do not believe in the Trinity or the deity of Christ, but you would be very wrong.  I believe in both.  But I do not believe in the Trinity the way Athanasius, or the Roman Catholic Church defines it, and how it is taught today in many churches.  So, what do I think is the true definition of the Trinity?

Because of the problem with the lack of Jewish scholarly input from the early church, they have drifted away from the understanding of God’s Old Testament revelations under the name YHVH a.k.a. Yahweh.  The idea of God revealing himself as YHVH had taken a backseat if not disappeared altogether in the Gentile church.

Even today the idea of YHVH has been phased out by the Trinitarian doctrine.  YHVH has always been the name of God as he revealed himself to Israel. Each revelation of himself was progressively closer to the revelation of Jesus as the Savior of Israel. But scripture never teaches that YHVH was one of three different persons. He was taught as being God himself.

There was no understanding of God being three persons according to any Jewish understanding of God nor any Old Testament scripture that I could ever find.  As a matter of fact, I searched the entire Bible and couldn’t even find one reference to God as even being one person anywhere.  And there’s a reason why.

To label God as a person would be to diminish his divine power and glory.  In order to truly know God’s essence, we would have to see God face to face, which we cannot do according to the Bible.  Therefore, we must be satisfied with God simply being God.  Perhaps it’s natural for men to want to create a god in their own image and I believe that is what happened in the 3rd Century and contiues today.

Isaiah 40:18 (KJV)
18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

We have to stop trying to define God as though he were some kind of philosophical idea that we can control through definition. In the Jewish understanding of things, if Jesus was a true revelation of God, he would have to be YHVH and nothing else.

There is no such record in the Old Testament showing that God had a Son prior to his birth through Mary.  There are references to sons of God, but these are either of angels or believers.

God had only one name and that name was YHVH (Yahweh). Jesus confirmed this by reciting the prayer called The Shammah in Mark.

The Shammah: Hear Oh Israel.  The LORD our God, The LORD is one!

Mark 12:29 (KJV)
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Why didn’t Jesus simply say:  Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is three persons?!

THE NAME OF GOD

Philippians 2:9 says that Jesus was given a name that was above all names. He was given the one name of God which was YHVH.  There is no other name greater than that name.  This name comes to us in the form of YESHUA or Jesus which means Yahweh Our Salvation.  There is only one name of God because there is only one being of God who has been revealed in numerous revelations as the name of YHVH (Yahweh).

Scripture says that there is only one name by which we are saved:

Acts 4:12 (NKJV)
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

There aren’t three names that save us as in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but only 1 name—Jesus!

So why does the church make this doctrine the litmus test for authentic Christians?

  1. It is not a belief taught by Paul, Peter, James, John, or any other Bible author.
  2. It doesn’t exist as a teaching in the Bible—either in the Old or New Testament.
  3. But it is the result of early Gentile philosophy and possibly a Pagan understanding of God blended into a doctrine and forced upon the believers in the church.
  4. Failing to accept this doctrine resulted in not only excommunication but also to torture and murder carried out by the church in the name of God. (See the story of Michael Servetus) Click here.

It is time to reunite our LORD under one name and that name is Jesus. 

The story doesn’t end here.  There is so much more to say that would fill up an entire book.  But few would actually buy it and even fewer would read it because the church would never let that happen.  Instead they put fear into the believer who challenges or even tests or questions this doctrine.  

WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY ABOUT TESTING DOCTRINES?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

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.

We must test any belief that takes away from the glory of Jesus’ name being YHVH.  Our faith is in Jesus as our LORD and not in the Trinity.  There is no such scripture that prevents a person from salvation because they don’t believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, but there are scriptures warning us against believing in anything other than Jesus as being our LORD and the incarnation of God. 

We must hold fast to the idea that God in Christ is a mystery:

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
16 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.

Colossians 2:2 (NET1)
2 My goal is that their hearts, having been knit together in love, may be encouraged, and that they may have all the riches that assurance brings in their understanding of the knowledge of the mystery of God, namely, Christ,

Christ is the mystery that must capture our faith as well as our imagination and awe–not the Trinity of Nicaea.

Please see my other posts relating to this topic:

History of the Trinity

  1. Matthew 3:16,17, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32, Galatians 4:6, 1 Peter 1:2, ↩︎
  2. The idea that God already had a Son that was to come down through her was not an idea that Mary would have been able to understand unless Gabriel had told her this outright. Scripture cannot mean something to us today that it didn’t mean to the one originally intended to hear it. ↩︎

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 · 3 Comments

The Only-Begotten Son: A Word Study on Monogene (μονογενῆ)

These comments are directed towards the TDGNT (Theological Dictionary of the Greek New Testament) Vol 4, pp. 739-741 regarding the meaning of the word μονογενῆ (monogene).

On these pages of the TDGNT we are told that the word monogene means “only-begotten.”  References to the use of this word are given as Heb 11:17 which tells us that Isaac is Abraham’s only-begotten (monogenes).  In Luke 7:12, the dead man raised is called the only son (monogenes) of his mother.  In Luke 8:42, Jairus is called the only child (monogenes).  In Luke 9:38 (the TDGNT mistakenly has Luke 8:42), the demonic boy is called the only son (monogenes) of his father (739). The word monogenes as used in each of these verses is translated as either only-begotten, only child, or only son.  Notice that there is nothing to lead us to believe that any of these children are a different “kind” of child, but simply an only born child. 

The TDGNT goes on to say “As the only-begotten Son Jesus is in the closest intimacy with God.  There is no other with whom God can have similar fellowship” (740).  It says that if one translates monogenes as only, when it applies to Jesus, it would simply create a comparison rather than the intimate relationship due Jesus.  It says that the meaning of the word as it’s used here denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus (741).  It also denotes the origin of Jesus (741). 

It is this last conclusion that we must take exception to and seek out the rationale behind such a conclusion.

I believe that this statement on page 741 implies that by interpreting monogenes as “only Son” or perhaps “one and only Son,” as translated by several newer Bible versions, when it applies to Jesus would then be in error because it does not reflect the intimate relationship that Jesus has with God nor his origin.  So then using “only” instead of using “only-begotten” is incorrect.  John 3:16 would be an example of the acceptable way to translate monogenes versus the unacceptable way.

 John 3:16 (KJV) (Acceptable)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (NET1) (Unacceptable)
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

The TDGNT goes on to say, “When John speaks of the Son of God, he has primarily in view the man Jesus Christ, though not exclusively the man, but also the risen and pre-existent Lord” (741). 

It then claims that this idea is supported by reference to John 17:5, 24.  It says that this is indisputable evidence that John refers to the pre-existent Lord as Son.  Please note that there is a difference between referring to Jesus as a pre-existent Lord and a pre-existent Son. One does not prove the other.  They are independent ideas.  So just to make it clear, the TDGNT is saying that the word monogenes, when used only of Jesus, refers to his being a son prior to his earthy birth making him an eternal Son in his pre-existent state.  Although these verses might support the idea of a pre-existent Lord, do they support the idea of a pre-existent Son?  Could there be an alternative way to take these verses?  Below are the indisputable verses in question. 

John 17:5 (KJV)
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:24 (KJV)
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Let’s take a closer look at these verses and see exactly how indisputable they refer to a pre-existent Son. 

What glory did Jesus have before the world existed?  If he was an eternal Son as the 2nd person of the Trinity, it might explain these verses, but can we really use these verses to create or even support the belief that he was a pre-existent Son and not simply pre-existent?  Can these verses stand on their own merit without further support as being indisputable?  A connection, therefore, must be made between the pre-existence of Christ and his Eternal Sonship and it must be clear and distinct.  Without such a connection we cannot make this indisputable claim. 

We know that Paul wrote about Jesus’ pre-existence in Philippians 2:5-7:

 Philippians 2:6-9 (KJV)
6  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

We can see from these verses that whoever Jesus was prior to his incarnation that he was not only in the form of God, but that he was also equal with God.  He then became a man, was crucified, and then exalted by being given a name above all names.  Note that Paul does not make any mention here of Jesus being in this form as a son.

I believe that the key to understanding these verses is that Jesus was given a name above all names so that he would be exalted.  What was this name?  We must consider that Paul was a Jew and the only name a Jew would consider above all names is the name Yahweh.  This was the name that God spoke to Moses when he asked him for his name.  But was this the name that Jesus had prior to his incarnation?  Let’s look at another scripture. 

John 17:5-6 (ASV)
5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.

Jesus asked his Father to give him the same glory that he had previously, the glory which was in the name which he already had and manifested to them.  The difference being that the name has now been glorified because God has now actually become our Savior through the life and death of Christ and he is now entitled to be called by the name of God, Yahweh Our Savior (Yeshua/Jesus). 

And in this next verse we now can further see that Jesus is sending them out into the world just as he was sent out into the world. 

John 17:16-18 (KJV)
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

It might sound a bit strange to our ears to hear about Jesus being sent into the world and exactly what that might mean.  So the best way to determine that is to follow one of the rules of interpretation which is to use scripture to interpret scripture. 

This scripture doesn’t mean that his disciples were in heaven and were being sent down to earth.  It means that they were sent out into the world on a mission in the same way that he was.  Here is a verse that might help us to see this meaning clearer.

John 1:6 (KJV)
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

I don’t think that anyone would suggest that although John was sent from God, that he had a pre-existence in heaven beside God.  It simply says that God authorized the mission of John as he authorized the mission of Christ.

The idea that Jesus was a pre-existent Son is certainly not indisputable in these verses, for it simply says that he was sent out on a mission as the Son of God after having taken on the form of a man. 

Does this mean that Jesus didn’t have a preexistence?  No.  He did have a preexistence which John speaks of as the Word.  We will get into that later.  But for now there is nothing indisputable about these verses as pointing to a pre-existent Son before the birth of Christ.

Now let’s take a closer look at the second verse that was used as indisputable evidence.

John 17:24 (KJV)
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

God loved Jesus before the world’s foundation or creation.  We might think that we know what this verse might mean, but let’s see if there are any other verses that we can use to interpret this one.  There are several verses that can help us out here.  The first one is from Ephesians.

Ephesians 1:4 (KJV) 
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

We were chosen before the foundation of the world.  This doesn’t mean that we all have a pre-existence before God created the world.  It simply means that God is able to predestine things based upon his foreknowledge (See Rm 8:29-30).  God predestined his love for Jesus before the world’s foundation in the same way he predestined our being chosen. 

And a verse from Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 1:4-5 (KJV)
4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.  

These verses have something in common and that’s God’s ability to see things from his eternal time frame.  God loved Jesus, chose us, and knew, sanctified, and ordained Jeremiah to be a prophet before they actually happened without any pre-existence on their part. 

And here’s another verse from Peter.

1 Peter 1:19-20 (KJV)
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Here we have Peter teaching us that Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be our Savior but was actually manifested as Savior in these last times.  Again, there is nothing indisputable about these verses meaning that Jesus pre-existed as a Son before his incarnation.  This verse clearly says that Jesus was foreordained, meaning that God already had a plan in place for our salvation.  But it wasn’t until Jesus was actually born in the flesh and manifested to us that it actually happened in space and time.

The TDGNT goes on to make its point.  It does admit that John does not use the term son for the pre-existent Lord either in his prologue (John 1:1), or in John 8:58, but he does describe his relationship with God as that of a son.  It concludes that you cannot extrapolate that this means that the pre-existent Lord is only the Word, and that the son is only the historical and risen Lord (741). 

Apparently, it does mean that you can somehow only extrapolate that Jesus is the Eternal Son?  But is that really what John is trying to say here?  Is he really saying that Jesus was an Eternal Son?  He had every opportunity to say exactly that but chose not to.  The question is why didn’t he take these perfect opportunities to make this idea of the Eternal Son’s pre-existence clear?  

There is a rule of interpretation given to us by Gordon Fee saying that a Bible verse cannot mean something to us today that it never meant to those for whom it was originally intended.1  And there is no way that John could have believed that Jesus was the 2nd person of a Trinity as a pre-existent Eternal Son, or he simply would have said it.  It certainly is not found in any Jewish writings or theology of that time.   

It appears that the only way the TDGNT can come to this conclusion is that it isn’t actually a conclusion, but a supposition.  One must already have this idea firmly in their mind as a conclusion prior to translating or interpreting John’s writings. You cannot and should not interpret scripture based upon supposition. 

There is another rule of interpretation that says we cannot use ambiguous scriptures to interpret clear and distinct ones.  But rather we must use clear and distinct scriptures to interpret the ambiguous ones.2

A doctrine must be based upon verses that can only have one clear and distinct meaning. Ambiguous verses might be helpful in supporting those clear and distinct verses, but they cannot be used as source scriptures for creating doctrines or teaching.

The TDGNT makes another comment about the beginning of John’s prologue. 

John 1:1-3 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

The TDGNT doesn’t believe that John’s reference to Christ as the Word is intimate enough as it would have been if he had used the term son.  But let me point out that John is telling us that not only is there an intimate relationship between the Word of God and God, but that the Word of God is God.  And John is trying to make this very clear by telling us that Jesus was the very being of God and not another person or being distinct from God.  He was God! 

It is true that in our day our word doesn’t really mean very much, but in the Biblical days it was very different.  But it isn’t what we think of our word today that matters.  It’s what it meant at the time that John penned his gospel.  This is what John thinks about the Word.

John 17:17 (KJV)
17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

God’s relationship to his Word is the most intimate relationship that there can be.  God’s Word represents his thoughts and his will.  God’s Word is his truth expressed in our time and space in the form of the Christ.  This is what John was actually saying.  There is nothing in any of these verses above that even hints that he was speaking about a pre-existent Eternal Son of God.

John tells us more about who Jesus was in the following selection of verses.   

 John 14:6-7 (KJV)
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.    
John 1:14 (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Seeing Jesus was the same as seeing his Father.  The two were not only equal but had an ontological bond that was inseparable.  And that truth was now expressed in flesh and glory of God as was seen through his grace and truth.  And this all took place after his incarnation.  It does not imply that he was an Eternal Son, but that he was an incarnated Son.

The TDGNT also mentioned John 8:58 as a scripture that somehow supports the idea of a pre-existent Eternal Son. 

 John 8:58-59 (KJV)
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Here Jesus is telling the Jews in their own language that he existed before Abraham, not as an Eternal Son, but as Yahweh, the LORD.  We know this by the fact that he uses the name of God, “I AM.” This was his pre-existent identity!

The TDGNT does, however, concede that John may not be directly using the term monogenes as referring to his pre-existent sonship.  But it still believes that he probably is. 

The note at the bottom of page 741 states that since the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world, there is no room for doubt that the pre-existent Lord was already a Son.  The term logos (Word) as used by John does not give us the right to assume that logos was a power of God standing in an impersonal relationship to Him. (741)

We already covered this idea of the Word being more than capable of carrying the idea of such a personal relationship and perhaps even more as it makes the Word equal to God. 

There are many questions that I have concerning this teaching of an eternal son and among them are why it’s not directly mentioned in scripture by anyone and why didn’t any of the writers of the New Testament teach that Jesus was the 2nd person of a Trinity or that he existed as the Eternal Son of God long before he was ever born to Mary?

No New Testament writer addresses these issues because these beliefs were never believed by Jesus’ disciples nor the very early church.  These ideas came about much later and weren’t accepted into the church until almost 300 years after the crucifixion of Christ and more than 200 years after the New Testament was finally completed. And not without much argument and disagreement between the bishops. (See my History of the Trinity post).

To further justify my point, I suggest that you should do a Bible search on the phrase “The word of the LORD” and you will find a great many verses that speak about the authority of God’s word.  When God spoke, all the prophets listened and obeyed.  In this very same way Jesus was also the Word of the LORD.  God spoke through Christ as the Word of the LORD.  Jesus didn’t simply speak the Word of the LORD, but he became the Word of the LORD.

Psalm 33:6-11 (KJV)
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

But Jesus wasn’t simply the word of God.  He was the Word of YHVH (LORD).  Today the whole idea of the Jewish identity of Christ as YHVH (Yahweh) has become diminished if not entirely lost because it has given way to the Gentile idea of a pre-existent eternal son.

In summary, if we apply the rules of interpretation to this belief, we must use clear and distinct verses to clarify obscure and ambiguous ones. Those clear and distinct verses say that Jesus was born to Mary and for this reason he is called the Son of God (Luke 1:35).  This is the only time that Jesus was spoken of as having been actually born.  So, any ambiguous verses about a pre-existent son being eternally born or begotten cannot carry their own meaning as authoritative without having a clear and distinct reference verse as its authority.  All scriptures therefore must be interpreted in reference to this event of the incarnation of Christ as a human child.

If there was another event when God himself gave birth to a son, whether in time, before time, or eternally, it must be clearly and distinctly set in scripture and not ambiguous.  

But no writer of the New Testament ever wrote any such verses because they simply did not believe that there was any such pre-existent son.  If they did, they didn’t share it in their writings.   

In a follow-up paper I will show how Athanasius mis-represented the Trinity through his lack of understanding Jewish theology and the importance of the Name of God (YHVH) in understanding the true identity of Christ.

  1. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon Fee, 2nd Ed. Pg 19. ↩︎
  2. https://media.johnknoxinstitute.org/file/johnknox/hermeneutics/hm_04.pdf ↩︎

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 Power of Suffering for Christ

This video is one of my favorites. It is a refresher course in the true gospel and the price that we are asked give. It is really not a price as much as it is a means by which we become perfected children of God. Suffering should be no surprise to us as Jesus as well as Paul taught that it would accompany all true believers. I hope that this re-awakens that same spirit in you as it did in me.

Posted on by rschut1945

Think On These Things

This video addresses the issue of where a Christian needs to focus their attention and attitude. Both Jesus and Paul gives us excellent advice on how to become a mature Christian. It has become too easy to get distracted by the evil that exists in the world today. However, we must not become absorbed into the troubles of the world, but become lights for the world by showing it the goodness of God through our own behavior and character