Striving To Be A Man After God's Own Heart: Have You Ever Tried To Explain the Trinity?

On the 7th October I posted a comment in response to Dave's attempt to define the trinity as shown in the link below ... Striving To Be A Man After God's Own Heart: Have You Ever Tried To Explain the Trinity?

A week later I discovered that my comment was removed! Now that's not very nice! Is it?
Oh well, it is the blog administrator's choice. :-)

However, no need for my comment to go to waste; so here it is in its entirety for the edification of others, as follows :-

Greetings Dave

Personally, I acknowledge that the concept of the Trinity is very difficult for our finite human minds to comprehend because it is NOT based upon Scripture!

The Scriptures lend themselves to the 'simple' belief that there is solely ONE GOD.
ONE Individual Being who is Almighty GOD, the Father; whilst Jesus the Messiah is the ONE GOD's human son.

Now that is not difficult. It is really very simple and a child can understand this!

Jesus himself said, (John 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

So Jesus acknowledged his Father as the only true GOD.
In Mark 12:29 he quoted the Shema as the most important commandment, (
Mark 12:29-30) And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Thus confirming the fact from Deut 6:4,
that YAHWEH his GOD, was ONE!
YAHWEH IS ONE!

Christ's audience, the scribe, understood Jesus to mean: (Mark 12:32) And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

So obviously, both Jesus and the scribe were not trinitarians. They had no concept of three co-equal beings who each can be called 'Almighty GOD'. They had absolutely no concept that God is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. Why? Because it is NOT in Scripture!

They acknowledged solely ONE individual Being as 'Almighty GOD'.

Jesus went on to say to the scribe, (Mark 12:34) And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. ...

Isa 43:10-11 confirms the Oneness of GOD; that there is solely ONE GOD and that there is NO other (co-equal) person or being that can be called Almighty GOD. Isa 43:10-11 speaks of 'one person' who is solely Almighty GOD.

Now, the NT clearly acknowledges the facts that the ONE GOD is the Father; Jesus is His Son; and GOD & Christ operate in the church via the holy spirit which is simply the spirit of GOD;
therefore GOD, His son, and holy spirit is mentioned in Matthew 28:19.

However, Matthew 28:19 says nothing about God eternally existent in three persons. Again, read it! It just does not say that! Besides throughout the Book of Acts, the apostles baptized believers in the name of Jesus! Hmmm!

Concerning John 1:1-3,14.

Dr. Colin Brown (of Fuller Seminary) puts it beautifully ...

"'It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God." '" Incidentally, Dr. Brown goes on to say "'Indeed to be a "Son of God" one has to be a being who is not God!'"

The fact is, John 1:1-3 does not say In the beginning was the Son or In the beginning was Jesus!
John 1:1-3 is about GOD's word. You know! GOD said and IT was done! [Psa 33,6,9; etc]
In verse 14, John informs us that GOD's word became flesh! That's it!

A word is not a person. A word is an impersonal noun. An IT!

Incidentally, did you know that the majority of the English Bibles before the KJV from Tyndale onwards, translated John 1:1-4 as follows: (John 1:1-4) 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 it; and without it was not any thing made that was made. 4 In it was life; and the life was the light of men.

Thus William Tyndale and other translators understood that John was NOT talking about Jesus, the Son of GOD, in John 1:1-4; rather John was talking about GOD's [spoken] word which in the fulness of time (verse 14; cp. Gal 4.4) became flesh resulting in the person of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, Jesus is not the logos/word as such; rather Jesus is what the word/logos of GOD became!

In John 10:30 Jesus indeed said "I and the Father are one."

However, one what? What is the context? He said nothing about them being of one substance and one essence. From John 10:25ff you ought to see that they are 'one' in agreement & purpose! Plus Jesus prayed that his disciples be one with the Father, even as he was one with the Father!! [John 17.11,21-22] Again, absolutely nothing to do with substance or essence! It goes without saying that the disciples/church of Christ are NOT co-essential or consubstantial with the Father!!!

Eph 4:4-6 ... great scripture! ... "There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Just as there is numeral one body, spirit, hope, faith, and baptism.
There is in like manner, solely one GOD who is Father of all. This ONE GOD has made none other than Jesus of Nazareth, both Lord and Christ [Acts 2.36, 10.36]. Therefore there is in like manner, solely one Lord, Jesus the Christ. He is the numeral one person whom the ONE GOD, the Father of all, has made Lord of all.

Paul reiterates this truth also in (1 Cor 8:4) ... that there is none other God but one. (1 Cor 8:6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

ONE GOD, the Father.
And ONE Lord, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Father [2 John 3]

So simple! Our finite human minds can gladly grasp these truths. GOD has made solely Jesus, Lord of all. Hence, (Phil 2:11) ... every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Again and again, there is a simple and clear distinction between the ONE GOD & His human son who is the one Lord!

There is solely ONE GOD, the Father. Who has solely exalted & made the man Christ Jesus, Lord of all!

ONE GOD, ONE man!!
GOD alone is GOD!
Whilst Jesus is the one mediator between the ONE GOD & mankind [1 Tim 2.5]
Jesus himself being a man and not GOD, since there is solely ONE Almighty GOD!!

Again, our finite human minds can grasp these simple truths.

Dave, compare your response and trinitarian thoughts to the scribe's response given in Mark 12.32; bearing in mind, Jesus' response in verse 34. Look again, at the above scriptures given. And hopefully you will begin to see that in believing that there is only one God, that is the Father; in believing Jesus as being simply the Son of God, a perfect glorified man; in NOT believing in a so-called trinity (as formulated in the Nicene/Athanasian creeds, etc);

... will bring one much closer to entrance into the Kingdom of GOD.

Dave, May GOD bless you as you endeavor to seek these truths.

Yours In Messiah
Adam Pastor

Holy Ghost Pistoleros: One God Apostolic

Around the 7th October, I posted a comment in reply to the blog dated 2nd October in the link below ... Holy Ghost Pistoleros: One God Apostolic The blogsite had 'moderated comments option' switched on ... and a week later my comment had not been shown, for one reason or another! Therefore I will add my comment here. I was writing in response to 'One God Apostolic's (2nd October) post as follows:

"There is only one God and His name is Jesus! The name of the father is Jesus, the name of the Son is Jesus and the name of the Holy Ghost is Jesus! Only ONE GOD not three! The word trinity does not exist in the bible. Praise God, Jesus!"

The comment I prepared & posted in response is as follows :-

You have made some amazing assertions as a 'One God Apostolic'. However, with very little scriptural backing.

The apostles in the Book of Acts were most definitely One God Apostolics but they never made any of the above assertions.

For example ... There is only one God Amen! But then you say that His name is Jesus

Scripture please? Where does the Bible say that GOD changed His name from YaHWeH to Jesus! Where?

You rightly point out that the word 'trinity' is not in the bible. Amen! (I am not trinitarian). But neither is the assertion that GOD's name is Jesus, in the bible!

The angel of GOD declared that GOD's son will be called JESUS!

Now Jesus himself quoted the Shema [Mark 12:29-30] ... he believed in solely ONE GOD. He called the ONE GOD, the Father ... and called Him the ONLY TRUE GOD. (John 17:1) These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father ... (John 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Yet you say The name of the father is Jesus. So, Jesus is saying to Father Jesus ... you are the only true God!?! As you can see that doesn't make any sense. Where is your scriptural backing?

Being aware of 'Oneness' theology you might attempt to use John 5:43. (I am making an assumption.) Jesus, being the Messiah, indeed came in his Father's (the ONE GOD's) name. Even those who believed on him testified of this using scripture.

(Mat 21:9-11) And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest. 10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? 11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee. (Mark 11:9-10) And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: 10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. (Luke 19:37-38) And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; 38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. (John 12:13) Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.

The scripture that the multitude had in mind is Psalms 118 especially (Psa 118:25-26) Save now, I beseech thee, O YAHWEH: O YAHWEH, I beseech thee, send now prosperity. 26 Blessed be he that cometh in the name of YAHWEH: we have blessed you out of the house of YAHWEH.

Recognizing that Jesus of Nazareth was the King Messiah, the people rejoiced and quoted Psa. 118; affirming that Jesus is the promised King who was to come in the name of YAHWEH, the ONE GOD. Therefore, to come in the Father's name didn't mean that the Father's name is Jesus. It simply meant that One had come in the authority of the ONE GOD, as a fully authorized agent of the ONE GOD. One had come with the ONE GOD's authority. Even the Davidic Kingdom is going to come in the name of YAHWEH! [Mark 11.10] Is its name, also Jesus!!! No! It simply means that the Kingdom will be established & inaugurated by the Father's authority. [Acts 1.7]

So the Father's name isn't Jesus. GOD's name hasn't changed. His name is the same forever. (Exo 3:15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD [i.e. YHWH] God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. In our English OT, we simply see '[the] LORD'. However, the Hebrew word is the Tetragrammaton, GOD's four-letter name. It occurs over 6700 times in the OT. His name hasn't changed!

The name of the Son is Jesus! Amen! ... and the name of the Holy Ghost is ???

The Holy Spirit is simply the Spirit of GOD; and especially in the NT, the spirit of 'GOD in Christ'. IT doesn't have a name! The apostles never called on the Spirit, named the Spirit, prayed to the Spirit, etc; much less called IT Jesus! And neither does John 14.26 prove it. (I am making another assumption). Jesus is simply saying that the ONE GOD, the Father, will send the holy spirit in my name i.e. in the authority of Jesus! So just as Jesus came in the authority of GOD his Father, the holy spirit will come in the authority of Jesus from the Father! In the time of Christ, the apostles would fully understand such speech. It is all about authority and agency. The Agent [the one sent] is sent in the name/authority of the Principal [the sender]. The Agent thus acts in the full authority of the Principal, as if, the Agent is the Principal himself. The Jews call this the law of agency. Jesus the Messiah is GOD's fully authorized agent. On the earth, he acted in GOD's authority & stead (cp. Matt 9.8). And now, the holy spirit represents the risen Christ in the church with the same authority. Compare (John 20:21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. Hence, the apostles were sent in the name/authority of Jesus even as Jesus himself was sent in the Father's name.

Only ONE GOD not three! AMEN!

In closing then ... there is solely ONE GOD, the Father, YAHWEH. Jesus the Messiah is the Son of the ONE TRUE GOD [John 17.3], the Son of the Father. [2 John 3] The holy spirit is the spirit of 'GOD in Christ' in the church.

GOD has a name. [Psa 83.18, Exo 3.15, Deut 6.4] YAHWEH!

GOD's Son has a name. [Matt 1.21, Luke 1.31] JESUS!

Jesus the Messiah is the Son of the ONE GOD. AMEN!

Hebrews 1:8

Based upon: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=138

(Please note: my citing of this article does not mean I agree with every subject on www.biblicalunitarian.com esp. in regards to their non-christological teachings)

 

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (KJV)

1. The English language makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god.” Thus, in English Bibles, the heavenly Father is called “God,” while ... people with God’s authority on earth and important people such as kings, are also called “god” ... The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distinction between “God” and “god.” Since Hebrew and Aramaic have only capital letters, every use is “GOD.” Furthermore, although the Greek language has both upper case and lower case letters as English does, the early Greek manuscripts did not blend them. It was the style of writing at the time of the New Testament to make manuscripts in all capital letters, so the Greek manuscripts were, like the Hebrew text, all upper case script. Scholars call these manuscripts “uncials,” and that style was popular until the early ninth century or so when a smaller script was developed for books. [38] Since all texts were in upper case script, if we translated Genesis 1:1 and 2 as it appeared in the Hebrew manuscripts, it would read: IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH NOW THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS AND EMPTY DARKNESS WAS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE DEEP AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD WAS HOVERING OVER THE WATERS. Actually, Bible students should be aware that in both the early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts there were no spaces between the words, no punctuation marks, no chapters and no verses. The original texts of both the Old and New Testament were capital letters all run together, and it looked like this: INTHEBEGINNINGGODCREATEDTHEHEAVENSANDTHEEARTHNOWT HEEARTHWASFORMLESSANDEMPTYDARKNESSWASOVERTHESURFA EOFTHEDEEPANDTHESPIRITOFGODWASHOVERINGOVERTHEWATERS Of course, the entire Bible was hand-printed exactly the same way, with every letter in upper case and no spaces between any words. As you can imagine, that made reading very difficult, and so it was common to read aloud, even when reading to yourself, to make it easier. That is why Philip the Evangelist could hear the Ethiopian eunuch reading the scroll of Isaiah (Acts 8:30). Such a text was hard to read and practically impossible to teach from. Imagine not being able to say, “Turn to Chapter 5, verse 15.” Therefore, divisions in the text began to appear quite early. However, because scribes lived far apart and hand-copied manuscripts, the divisions in the various manuscripts were not uniform. The first standardized divisions between verses came into being around 900 AD., and the modern chapter divisions were made in the 1200s. It should now be very clear that there was just no way to distinguish between “God” and “god” in the early texts, and so it must always be determined from the context whether or not the word “GOD” is referring to the Father or to some lesser being. Although it was usual that the presence of the definite article in the Greek text alerted the reader that the “GOD” being referred to was the Father, this was not always the case ... For example, in 2 Corinthians 4:4, the word “theos” has the definite article, but the verse is referring to the Devil. Context is always the final judge of whether theos should be translated “God” or “god.”   2. The Semitic languages, and both the Latin and Greek spoken by the early Christians, used the word “God” with a broader meaning than we do today. “God” was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including great people, rulers and people acting with God’s authority. In John 10:33, when the Jews challenged Jesus and said he was claiming to be “a god” (mistranslated in most versions as “God”), he answered them by asking them if they had read in the Old Testament that people to whom the word of God came were called “GODS” (and we use all caps here because the earliest texts did. It is hard to escape the modern notion that “God” refers to the True God and “gods” referred to lesser deities). Any study of the words for “God” in both Hebrew and Greek will show that they were applied to people as well as to God. This is strange to English-speaking people because we use “God” in reference only to the true God, but both Hebrew and Greek used “God” of God, great men, other gods, angels and divine beings. It is the context that determines whether “God” or a great person is being referred to. This is actually a cause of occasional disagreement between translators, and they sometimes argue about whether “GOD” refers to God, the Father, or to a powerful person or representative of God. One example of this occurs in Exodus 21:6, which instructs a master whose servant wishes to serve him for life to bring the servant “to Elohim.” The KJV, the NIV and many others believe that the owner of the servant is supposed to bring the servant before the local authorities, and so they translate Elohim as “judges” (see also Ex. 22:8-9 for more examples). Other translators felt that the master was required to bring the servant to God, so they translated Elohim as “God”(e.g., NRSV). Thus, the verse will read, “God” or “judges,” depending on the translation. Hebrews 1:8 is like other verses in that just because the word “theos” (“GOD”) is used does not mean that it refers to the Father. It could easily be referring to “god” in the biblical sense that great men are called “god.” The Septuagint uses the word theos for God, but also for men in places like Psalm 82 where men represent God. The context must be the determining factor in deciding what “GOD” refers to. In this case, in Hebrews that we are studying, the context is clear. Throughout the entire context from Hebrews 1:1, Christ is seen to be lesser than God the Father. Therefore, the use of “theos” here should be translated “god.” 3. The context must determine whether Christ is being referred to as the Supreme Being or just a man with great authority, so it must be read carefully. In this case, however, one need not read far to find that Christ, called “God,” himself has a “God.” The very next verse, Hebrews 1:9, says, “therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions.” Thus, Christ cannot be the supreme God, because the supreme God does not have a God. Furthermore, Christ’s God “set” him above others and “anointed” him. This makes it abundantly clear that the use of theos here in Hebrews is not referring to Christ being the supreme God, but rather a man with great authority under another God. Andrews Norton writes: Here the context proves that the word “God” does not denote the Supreme Being, but is used in an inferior sense. This is admitted by some of the most respectable Trinitarian critics. Thus, the Rev. Dr. Mayer remarks: “Here the Son is addressed by the title God: but the context shows that it is an official title which designates him as a king: he has a kingdom, a throne and a scepter; and in verse 9 he is compared with other kings, who are called his fellows; but God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is classed with the kings of the earth, and his superiority over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; inasmuch as their thrones are temporary, but his shall be everlasting.” [39] 4. The verse is a quotation from Psalm 45:6,7. The Jews read this verse for centuries and, knowing the flexibility of the word “God,” never concluded that the Messiah would somehow be part of a Triune God. 5. We must note that the verse in the Greek text can also be translated as, “Thy throne is God.” However, because the verse is a reference from the Old Testament, and because we believe that God, the Father, is calling His Christ a “god” (i.e., one with divine authority), there is no need to translate the verse other than, “Thy throne, O god, is forever.” [For further study, read Does the Bible ever refer to Jesus Christ as “God?”] Broughton and Southgate, pp. 196 and 197 Buzzard, pp. 35 Dana, pp. 205 and 206 Farley, pp. 71 and 72 Morgridge, pp. 110 and 111 Norton, pp. 301 and 302 Snedeker, pp. 459-46 38. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (Oxford University Press, NY, 1992), pp. 8-10. 39. Andrews Norton, Statement of Reasons, p. 301.

Concerning 1 John 5:7 & 1 Tim. 3:16 by George F. Simmons

Here is an excerpt from George F. Simmons' 1839 tract entitled
"Who Was Jesus Christ?"

I quote a portion of his tract which deals with the spuriousness of
1 John 5:7 & 1 Tim 3:16 :-

• 1 John 5:7. "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth] the spirit, the water, and the blood…"

  Thus reads our English translation. But the words enclosed in brackets are spurious; that is, they are no part of the Bible, no part of the epistle as it was written by John, but have been added without authority at a later time. This is not a matter of any doubt; it is a certainty, and universally allowed at the present day by the advocates, as well as by the opponents, of the Trinity.

  A writer in the Eclectic Review, for instance, "the religious character of which is unsuspiciously orthodox," writes thus of the passage: "We are unspeakably ashamed that any modern divines should have fought for the retention of a passage so indisputably spurious. We could adduce half a dozen, or half a score of passages of ample length, supported by better authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed edition and translation."

  Bishop Lowth, also a Trinitarian and a learned man, is equally decided. "We have some wranglers in theology," he says, "sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to defend anything, however absurd, should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree conversant with sacred criticism, and having the use of his understanding, who would be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse 1 John 5:7."

  I do not therefore dwell on this text for the sake of making its spuriousness any more evident, but because its history will illustrate the manner in which some few other corruptions have crept into our text.

  The books of the New Testament are written in the Greek language from which our English Testament is a translation. Before the invention of printing, the Greek text was handed down by means of manuscript copies of the different parts, on parchment or paper, each taken from one more ancient, and so originally from the autograph of the apostle or evangelist himself. Of these manuscripts we have a large number preserved to us, of different degrees of antiquity, dating probably from the seventh century downwards. Of this epistle of John between one and two hundred codices have been examined; and from this number only one is found containing our present text, or rather, I should say, containing a form of words nearly resembling our present text. That one is the Dublin manuscript. When Erasmus published his edition of the Greek Testament about the period of the Reformation, knowing this verse to be spurious, he of course omitted it; but when his first and his second editions appeared without it, the uninformed "Orthodox" of the day, who had been accustomed to read the text in their Latin translation, "the Vulgate," raised a great clamor against the learned Editor for omitting their favorite stronghold. He answered that it was no part of the epistle of John, and that if they would produce a single manuscript containing it, he would insert it. This Dublin manuscript was finally produced, and in his third and subsequent editions he did insert it, for the sake, as he says, "of avoiding calumny." Thence it has come into the common editions of the present day. But Luther rejected it in his translation, as well as others in theirs; and in some versions and editions it is enclosed in brackets.

  The corruption of the Dublin manuscript is discovered, by certain signs which it would be out of place to explain here, to have been imitated from the Latin Vulgate, which was the version in common use throughout Catholic countries. It appears in the greater part of the copies of this version, although from the best manuscripts of that also, it is cast out. It is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, although in the Arian controversy which arose in the fourth century, we find the Scriptures ransacked from beginning to end, and even the verse succeeding this cited to furnish confirmation to the doctrine of the Trinity. It was not quoted by them because it was not there. Nor do we find it in the writings of any Latin writer, till Vigilius Tapsensis at the end of the fifth century. It was possibly first inserted in the Vulgate by him, for it was his habit to put his own words in other people’s mouth, and he is supposed to be the author of the creed which goes by the name of Athanasius. But it may, more probably, have been first written in the margin, according to the custom of that age, as a note or gloss, and by a subsequent transcriber have been incorporated into the text, by mistake, or as an authority convenient to the advocates of the Trinity and supposed to be conformable to the true opinions of St. John. It has thence stolen into the fashionable texts of different languages, and stands there like a thief in the crowd, whom everybody knows but nobody seizes. We would better now lay hands on it at once, and cross out the suppositious words in all the Bibles we may possess.

  In this state of the case, it is a very wicked treachery to use this text in argument; and it is also wrong, as it seems to me, to read it from the pulpit without comment, as a part of the epistle, thereby imposing on the ignorant and giving countenance to forgery. The former offense we have to charge on no writers of consideration at the present day; but the latter, I believe, is the prevalent custom in the Trinitarian churches. ...

• 1 Timothy 3:16. It thus reads in our English: "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."

  The true Bible reading is decided to be "He who was manifest in the flesh" (i.e. Christ) "was justified in the spirit, seen of angels…" It being admitted by men of all modes of belief who have examined the matter that the present is not the true reading, the only doubt is between "which" and "he who." And you will easily perceive by merely looking at the Greek letters how the word "God" might have arisen from either of these. The Greek for God, contracted, as is usual in the manuscripts, is QS. The Greek for "he who" is OS. The Greek for "which" is O. Now the copyist seeing O might have added S to make it OS, or finding OS might have added the two dashes which convert it into QS signifying God, either by mistake, or more probably from thinking that they had been omitted from mistake by his predecessor, and his theological opinions would have led him to prefer the latter reading. This conjecture is made probable by its having been discovered that the two dashes in question have been added to several of the important manuscripts by an after hand, and with a different ink from that in which the rest is written. But however these conjectures of the manner of the corruption may be received, it is placed beyond any reasonable doubt that the word "God" is no part of the genuine text.

  The manner in which the passage is often cited is an instance of the looseness with which thoughtless readers generally interpret texts of a like kind. It is frequently quoted as if it read "Great is the mystery of the Godhead," but "godliness" means nothing of the sort. Godliness means piety, which it is the great burden of the epistle to enforce. You will perceive from reading the previous and succeeding chapters that certain schismatics had arisen in the church of Ephesus, who inculcated celibacy and an ascetic life as that which was acceptable to God. And there were those also who professed to reveal the hidden philosophy of religion, the mystery of the faith, the secret things of heaven and of futurity, against whom the warning in the last verses of the last chapter is pronounced, and to whom History traces much of the gradual corruption of Christianity. To these teachers Paul alludes in the present text. He has instructed Timothy that with regard to officers of the church, the great concern is that they should be pious; for however much value might be set on other pretended mysteries, yet "the pillar and ground of the truth, and without controversy great, is the mystery of piety. He who was manifest in the flesh, was justified in the spirit" was not justified by knowledge of a dark philosophy, but by the state of his soul, by inward purity, "was seen of angels," even to higher Intelligences was a spectacle of moral beauty, "was preached unto the Gentiles," ... "was believed on in the world," and among the believers were the Ephesians themselves, and finally was "received up into glory," which was a sign of confirmation and acceptance ... All this is a strong enforcement of the great principle that "the pillar and foundation of the faith is" (not asceticism, nor a knowledge of mysteries, but) piety, "godliness," a mysterious bliss, a state of the heart known only to the few who experience it. So that this text, far from favoring the way of thinking called orthodox, is one of those which might perhaps, without injustice, be turned directly against it; for I apprehend that those who follow that way are apt, like the Ephesian Gnostics (although the virtues of the truly devout are continually operating to counteract the tendency), to rely rather on their theological zeal and their knowledge of mysteries than on spiritual purity and heavenly-mindedness; or, at least, that they set a disproportionate value on the former class of virtues.

How does Christ’s Sacrifice Work to Remove Sin? by Kenneth Westby

How does Christ’s Sacrifice Work to Remove Sin? Was it necessary for Jesus to be the Creator— being “worth more” than his creation— in order for his sacrifice to be effective in removing mankind’s sins? By Kenneth Westby

Since “the wages of sin is death,” and “all have sinned,” does it follow that to forgive sin, “pay” the debt of sin; the “payer” must be worth more than the entire sinful human race? Only the Creator of man could be worth more than his creation. Hence, for Jesus’ self-sacrifice to be effective in “paying” for the sins of humanity, he had to worth more than humanity and only the Creator fits that requirement. Jesus, assuming this premise, must have preexisted as the Creator in order for his sacrifice to be effective.

There is cash register logic to this proposition that is so commonly used to explain how Christ’s sacrifice pays for man’s sin. In times past I remember using this logic at baptismal counselings in explaining why Jesus had to die; the value of the sacrifice had to outweigh the debt. But is this really how sacrifice in Scripture works?

... We understand the Passover story of being under the sacrificial blood of a lamb to be pointing to Jesus, the Lamb of God. In that original Passover the blood of a slain lamb was painted upon the door lentil causing inhabitants to go under it to enter the dwelling and be spared from the death plague sweeping Egypt. The first born of all under the blood were spared from death.

Question: Was the killed lamb of greater worth than the human inhabitants within the home? Did the “angel of death” (sent by God) spare the firstborn of Israel because of the great worth of their animal sacrifice? Is that how sacrificing works? Was it their animal that delivered them or was it their obedience to God that merited his mercy.

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams (1 Sam 15:22). God asks, “Do I eat the flesh of strong bulls, or is the blood of goats my drink? Offer to God praise as your sacrifice and fulfill your vows to the Most High; then call upon me in time of distress; I will rescue you, and you shall glorify me” (Ps 50:13-15, NAB).

The only thing that made a sacrifice effective in the OT was God’s acceptance of it. The only sacrifices that he accepted were those offered with an obedient and pure heart. God said, “I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats…What are they to me?” God wants our heart and minds. He says, “Come now, let us reason together…though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow…if you are willing and obedient…” (Isa 1:11-20).

Again, “the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel says: …I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all my ways I command you, that it may go well with you” (Jer 7:21-23).

What makes a sacrifice effective isn’t a magic formula that of its own can effect some desired result. The incantations and sacrifices of ignorant pagans have that cachet. Sacrifice in Scripture is directed Godward and appeals to his mercy and kindness. It functions like prayer which, if arising from a sincere and obedient heart and directed to the one true God, will be heard in heaven.

The blood of bulls, goats and lambs don’t remove sin and never did. God forgives and removes sins as he sees a repentant and sincere heart desiring to follow him. Continually God makes plain what he expects from man: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos 6:6).

Blood sacrifice in the OT was a deadly business. There was a vicarious element in the sacrificial rite that spoke a serious truth: God alone accepts or rejects (or ignores) the sacrifice based on the heart and actions of the one offering it. The sacrificer must identify with the sacrifice in the sense that its life is given to God with an appeal for God’s forgiveness, mercy and blessing.

Abraham’s offering of Isaac in sacrifice to God perfectly illustrates the dynamic. What was God’s objective in asking this supreme sacrifice—that of his only son, the son of promise? Was it not to measure the depth of Abraham’s belief, trust, and obedience to Yahweh? God didn’t want Isaac’s blood, just Abraham’s total commitment of mind, body and soul. It was the most difficult request ever made of a man and when Abraham obeyed God he was told, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Gn 22:12).

Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son prefigures the Father’s gift of his son. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that who ever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (Jn 3:16).

What makes Christ’s sacrifice efficacious to forgive the sins of the world? Jesus’ sacrifice was not vicarious—he was the Lamb of God to be slain for the sins of the world. He willingly offered up himself for that purpose. So what made his sacrifice acceptable to his Father, Yahweh? Was it that he was “worth” more than the entire creation? Remember, God loved the world before he offered his son, and mercy and forgiveness is not based upon worth or merit.

What made Jesus the perfect and supreme sacrifice was that he was the unique, one and only Son of His Majesty; and, most importantly, that he was well pleasing to his Father. Jesus’ sacrifice is effective on our behalf because it has been accepted by God. This is called God’s mercy. “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rm 3:28).

What made Christ’s sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to his heavenly Father? Was it not the perfect fulfillment of the same expectations God has always had: reverent submission and obedience to him and his will? Speaking of Jesus, “he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he because the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him…” (Heb 5:7-9).

Jesus provided both the sacrifice and the proper attitude of heart to accompany the sacrifice. Jesus was a lamb without blemish not needing to repent of his own sins for he was sinless. Yet he became the vicarious offering for our sins. He did so in obedience and reverence for his God.

The Father was involved at both ends of this once-for-all-eternity sacrificial rite: He offered his son (like Abraham) and he also accepted the offering, the precious life-blood of his beloved son. He did this on our behalf.

For Christ’s part, the words of Psalm 40 fit perfectly: “Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—I have come to do your will O God” (vs 7). Jesus’ life was one of total submission and obedience to his Father, the Creator. The will of the Father was Jesus’ all consuming concern (see Lk 22:42; Jn 4:34). Further, “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (vs 10).

Scripture makes plain that the Father accepted his son’s sacrifice because he was a “son in whom I am well pleased.” What made Jesus a perfect and pleasing sacrifice? Everything about him: his heart, mind and strength, his love, mercy, justice, character and his total obedience and devotion to the heavenly Father. Jesus said “I do all things to please him” (Jn 8:29).

This is why the Father graciously accepted Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf and offers to remove the sins of all who come in the spirit of his son. Peter announced to the multitudes on the Day of Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Ac 2:38).

God wants us to become like his son in heart, mind and action. He is a merciful and kind God ready and willing to forgive. He asks that we come in the name and spirit of his son and not only will he forgive our sins, but raise us to eternal life as he did his son.

It is not cash-register logic (Jesus had to preexist as Creator in order to be worth more than the debts of sinful humanity) that is required to pay for sin. It is the love and mercy of God the Father and Jesus Christ that forgives our sins and brings us into the Kingdom of God.

The Bible plainly tells us what was required to forgive the sins of the world: A perfect sacrifice—the man Jesus, Son of God, Son of Man; and the mercy of our good and gracious Father.