The Blessed Trinity

 The Blessed Trinity

Brett A. Todd

In most Christian churches, not all, but most, one of the standard teachings is that of the Trinity (The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), which was “kind of” ratified at the First Council of Nicaea way back in AD 325.  I say “kind of” because not much is said about the Holy Spirit.  It wasn’t until later we saw a more serious discussion concerning the role of the Holy Spirit.  Intriguingly, the word “Trinity” was never used in any of the ancient church creeds. 

Not only will you not find the word “Trinity'' in the ancient creeds, but you also will not find this word in the Bible.  In fact, some are surprised when they find out there is also no explicit teaching of this doctrine in the Bible.  It does not exist.  The closest we come to a trinitarian expression is found in Matthew 28:19, “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.  But these words don’t tell us much about a trinity. They don’t say whether or not all three are coequal or coeternal.  It just tells us there are three and their “name” (singular) is: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  As one can see, the old expression is quite applicable, “It’s a mystery!”  

Interestingly, in the Book of Acts, you never see the disciples baptizing people in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, rather, they baptized their converts in the name of Jesus (ex. Acts 19:5). It seems a little odd if Jesus told his disciples to baptize their converts using the trinitarian formula that they would forgo Jesus’ command by using his name (Jesus) instead.

Some will point to 1 John 5:7 where the King James Bible reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”  We have already discussed this verse early in another study, but it is worth mentioning again.  You will not find these words in any of our earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts.  For this reason, most modern translations of the Bible omit these words and simply state, “There are three that testify”.  Why were these words added to some of the Greek manuscripts?  Whoever added these words more than likely wanted to bolster their position on the teaching of the Trinity.

One Scholar shares the following story about 1 John 5:7, being inserted into the Bible after church leaders’ play of politics basically forced him to. “...Erasmus--possibly in an unguarded moment--agreed that he would insert the verse in a future edition of his Greek New Testament on one condition: that his opponents produce a Greek manuscript in which the verse could be found.” (Barth Ehrmann). So what did they do? They created one.  They forged it.  

Should we ditch the teaching of the Trinity since it is not fully supported in the Bible?  Being a good old Celtic Christian you might have to guess that my answer would be a resounding “No!”  Like Hegel, I’m quite possessed with the number “3”.  And remember, many of the teachings of the church, if not all of them, have been in some kind or another under development from the very beginning and will continue into eternity.  Nevertheless, we must be clear: neither the Jews of the Hebrew Scripture nor early Christians of the New Testament had any inkling of this so-called Trinity as taught by the modern church.

In our next four lessons, we will be looking at some of the Christmas stories to see what it is the Bible teaches.  As you might guess by now, each gospel has a different story about Jesus’ birth.  A couple of them don’t even mention his birth.

Passover Or The Last Supper

 Passover Or The Last Supper

Brett A. Todd

We’ve already discussed how early Christians recalculated and reinterpreted many of the words and teachings of Jesus when they realized Jesus was not returning as soon as they had thought.  One of those teachings is what modern Christians call Holy Communion, the Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper.  This recalculating and reinterpreting should not surprise anyone since the Lord’s Supper is historically enshrined in the apocalyptic teachings of Jesus and God’s Kingdom here on earth.  This is clearly seen in the words of Jesus following their last meal together, “I will never drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:19). 

As already mentioned in previous articles, Mark was the first written Gospel, and Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel to create their own gospels, by adding and subtracting from Mark's stories.  We may ask then, what are the key differences between Mark’s story of the “Lord’s Supper” and that of Matthew and Luke?  

Matthew seemed content to follow Mark’s storyline while Luke changed it up a bit by adding or adopting the words, “This cup which is poured out for you is the NEW covenant of my blood” [Emphasis added].  For Luke, it seemed important to let his Gentile readers know and understand that this Jewish Passover meal was now converted into a new Jesus meal (The Lord’s Supper) and a new covenant made specifically for the gentile people.  However, for Matthew and Mark, this meal was simply a Jewish Passover meal in which Jesus had become the sacrificial lamb (Mark 14:12) and fulfilled the old covenant.   Remember once again, Luke was writing to the Gentiles while Matthew was writing to the Jews.  To be sure, it should not surprise anyone that Matthew would keep the Passover meal while Luke added or adopted a new twist by instituting a new meal for the Gentiles.

Perhaps most striking are Luke’s words “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).  Both Matthew and Mark simply say, “he broke the bread…” and “and he took the cup…”, but neither says anything about doing this in remembrance of Jesus.  We might ask then, why would Luke add these words?  It is clear both Matthew and Mark were content with the Passover theme story reinterpreted in light of Jesus' death and resurrection.  Luke, on the other hand, decided to add or adopt something new.  Instead of keeping the Passover theme, he added or adopted a new ritual celebration for the Gentiles, and he knew this.  Basically for Luke, the Jews could keep their old Passover meal while he and his Gentile Christians would celebrate the new covenant and new Jesus meal (Lord’s Supper).  In other words, Luke instituted in his gospel a new Jesus meal to replace the Jewish Passover meal.  The Apostle Paul seems to have followed this same new method (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

One might be more accurate to follow Michelangelo in calling this Passover meal found in the gospels, “The Last Supper”.  It was the last Passover meal Jesus celebrated with his disciples just before his crucifixion.  Though it is true some Christians, early on, began celebrating the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:46), it does not appear this was Matthew or Mark’s intention at all.  For them, this was their last Passover meal with Jesus and possibly, “if the Lord should return”, their last Passover meal as well.  In the words of Jesus, “I will never drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”

We might ask how this affects our practice of the Lord’s Supper (the Eucharist)? Like so many of the teachings of the church, the Lord’s Supper developed into what it is today, over hundreds of years.  

  The church and what it believes is in a constant motion of beautiful change.  The church is not a stagnant theological thesis, rather, it is a living spiritual organism in which the divine is present.

In our next study, we will see what the Bible teaches about the Trinity, once again, from a literary and historical perspective.

The Apocalypse (Part 2)

The Apocalypse (Part 2)

Brett A. Todd

Back when I was attending a Christian conservative college, a new book captivated much of the conservative Christian movement, including many of the students at this college I attended.  The book was called, “88 Reasons Why The Rapture Is In 1988” written by a former NASA engineer by the name of Edgar C. Whisenant.  It was a crazy time for sure.  I remember students from this college going to a church nearby to practice for the rapture by wearing white rapture robes and jumping off from chairs as a way to simulate and prepare for the real rapture that could happen at any moment.  But there was no rapture. The Apocalypse never happened.  What did Edgar C. Whisenant do? He recalculated his numbers and came up with another date for the rapture to take place.  But once again, it never happened.

The word “rapture'' is used by many conservative Christians who believe that in the end-times, the Apocalypse, Jesus would take up all the good Christians into heaven to escape, in most cases, the great tribulation.   This is what the series of books, “Left Behind” was all about.  Jesus would split through the skies and sweep away all the good conservative-born-again Christians into heaven.

As already mentioned, Jesus and his disciples believed the Apocalypse would happen during their generation and not ours or any other generation for that matter. So, what were these early Christians expecting? You may find the following answer to this question interesting. 

You may remember the story when Jesus' two disciples, James and John asked Jesus if they could sit at his side, one at his right and the other at his left when he took his throne in his new kingdom (Mark 10:35-45).  Jesus makes it clear to these disciples they didn’t understand what was all involved in the coming of his kingdom.  It meant not only would he have to suffer, but they would have to suffer as well.

Verse 37 is key, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” The glory, James and John were referring to, was not in heaven, but was Jesus’ earthly Kingdom here on earth in Jerusalem.   This is why in the Lord’s prayer, as found in Matthew 6:10, we read these words, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on EARTH as it is in heaven” [Emphasis added].  In Luke 9:27, Jesus tells his followers there will be those present and listening to him who will not die until they see this kingdom on earth:

But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” It is sort of a joining together of heaven and earth by the kingdom coming down out of heaven to earth.  This is what the author of the Book of Revelation 21:2 says, “And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

So what were these early Christians expecting?  They believed that after Jesus’ death and resurrection, Jesus would return to earth during their generation to set up God’s Kingdom.  His twelve Disciples would rule with Jesus over the twelve tribes of Israel.  This is essentially what Jesus said in Luke 22:28-30, “You are those who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”  Rome would no longer be in control because there was now a new King and his name was Jesus.

Here is the problem, just as the rapture never happened for those conservative Bible students, at the college I attended, and for Christians around the world in 1988, neither did Jesus return to earth to set up God’s Kingdom for his generation.  More than likely, there were a lot of followers of Jesus who were greatly disappointed in this fact.  So, what did these early followers of Jesus do?  As the years passed, they started to recalculate and redefine what Jesus meant by his words, Matthew 24:34, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”

In our next study, we will look at some very interesting words of Jesus concerning what modern Christians call “Holy Communion” and discuss how Jesus’ and his disciples’ view of the Last Supper was recalculated and redefined by later Christians.

The Apocalypse (Part 1)

 

The Apocalypse (Part 1)

Brett A. Todd

It never fails, when you start talking about the Apocalypse or the end of the world, the discussions frequently turn into a theological debate or discussions over fiction books such as the, “Left Behind” series which many think is gospel truth.  Not!  Sorry, Larry Norman, “I Wish We'd All Been Ready”, is a modern human invention.  So moving away from all of these non-biblical, distorted theories, we will look at a historical question:  Did Jesus and his followers believe the end of the world, as they knew it, would happen in their lifetime? 

Turning to the earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is speaking to his followers and says in Mark 13:32-37: 

But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.

As I already mentioned, Jesus is speaking to his followers and his disciples.  He is not speaking to a future generation and the “you” does not include you.  Rather, Jesus wants his present followers to be ready for the imminent end, hanging in the balance, as Jesus enters Jerusalem and is crucified by the Romans on the cross.  This becomes more clear as we look at Matthew 24:34 where Jesus declares, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”  This generation that Jesus is referring to is his Jewish followers and disciples.  Once again, we need to be very clear, “this generation” does not include you or any other generation other than Jesus’ followers 2000 years ago.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, the New Testament’s earliest writing, the Apostle Paul concurs with Jesus that the Jesus generation, not some future generation, would not pass away before seeing the Apocalypse.  However, Paul is dealing with something interesting and unique.  Twenty years had passed since the death of Jesus and some of the Christians were getting a little antsy and they were wondering about all those Jesus followers who had already died.  Were they going to miss out on Jesus’ return now that they were dead?  Paul assures these early Christians that their deceased loved ones would not miss out but they would be raised from the dead as Jesus the Messiah descends from heaven with a shout as the King of kings. This is what Paul said:

For this, we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.”(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17).

Did Jesus and his followers believe Jesus would return during their generation?  Yes,  but it didn’t happen?  No.

In our next study, “The Apocalypse (Part 2), we will look at what exactly were these earlier followers expecting.  What did this apocalypse look like to Jesus and his followers?

A GOSPEL WITH NO NAME

 

A GOSPEL WITH NO NAME

Brett A. Todd

As previously explained, Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark to write their own stories, Luke states in his first chapter that he used other sources as well to write his gospel story (Luke 1:1-2).   We also mentioned there were many other gospels other than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that did not find acceptance among the majority of Christians and were more than likely lost in time.  However, there is one of those gospels, a “gospel with no name” that did find its way into Matthew and Luke, Bible scholars call this gospel, “Q”. 

“Q” is short for the German word “Quelle'' which means source.  Most scholars agree, not only did Matthew and Luke have the Gospel of Mark lying in front of them as they were writing their Gospel story, but they also had this “gospel with no name”.  Here it is important to draw attention to the fact that “Q” is found in Matthew and Luke and not in Mark. To be straight with you, the use of “Q” material is not as easy and clear-cut as it may sound, rather, it can be a very complicated study for a variety of reasons which we can discuss another time.  Perhaps the best way to see both Matthew and Luke using “Q” is to give you a sample parallel.  Again, remember, Mark does not contain these verses.

Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. [Emphasis added]

Luke 16:13

No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. [Emphasis added]

As one looks at the Matthew and Luke reading above, it is evident both Matthew and Luke were using the same “Q” source, the gospel with no name.  The readings are almost identical except for two words, “one” and “slave”.  This is true in the New Testament Greek language as well.  In modern academics, we would call this plagiarism.  Someone was copying from someone, and that someone was Matthew and Luke copying, the gospel with no name, “Q”.

The development of Matthew and Luke was not an easy one-step quick publication.  Just copying “Q” and Mark by rewriting these Greek words alone was a feat in itself.  More important for our topic today, it took Matthew and Luke a great amount of time and effort to take these two sources and choose what they were going to share as well as arrange how they would arrange their own storyline.  This was all done by hand.  There were no computers or printers in those days.

Here is what we do know: when Matthew and Luke are in agreement with each other by sharing familiar stories and verses, but not Mark, they were using the gospel of “Q”.  When Matthew, Luke, and Mark were in agreement, Matthew and Luke were copying the Gospel of Mark.  With the use of “Q”, one could say that in our Bible, there are not just four Gospels, but there are five.

In our next study, we will ask the question: The Apocalypse: Did Jesus and his followers really believe the end of the world as they knew it would end in their lifetime?