A letter for Seventh-day Adventists

For the majority of my life I cruised along in my Christian beliefs, sure that I knew just about everything I needed to know, but then a friend challenged me on some of the very texts in the Bible that had bothered me, one of those being in Colossians. I set out to prove him wrong, studying on my own to learn what the Bible really said. It turned out that I was the one who was clearly wrong! It was exciting to learn the truth, but a challenging decision to make even minor changes in my personal traditions.

Nearly three and a half years ago, I wrote a letter to my Seventh-day Adventist family to explain to them what I had learned. I included quotes from Ellen G. White, because there is always the question, "What did Ellen White have to say about the feasts?" They trust the Bible as the final word, but Ellen White's commentary is also important.

Here is the letter:

Dear ____,

A few years ago I read Samuele Bacchiocchi's books on the feasts, and I've been thinking about what he had to say. I've listened to the pros and cons, including Ron duPreez's long YouTube video against keeping the feast days.

Ever since I studied Bible doctrines in church school when I was 12 years old, I have been puzzled by Colossians 2. What we were taught troubled me because I could see that our explanation of the ceremonial law but not the moral law being nailed to the cross in verse 14, and the chiastic interpretation of verse 16, were not convincing. If I wanted to convince someone else of the seventh-day Sabbath, I would have to explain these verses, and I knew our understanding of it was lacking something, I didn't know what.

But then I realized -- it was Paul who wrote Colossians. What did he do? What was his practice? Had the law been divided into moral and ceremonial law, and part of it -- the ceremonial law -- nailed to the cross? Did Paul live and talk as if that is what had happened?

When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, Gentile converts, he wrote, “”Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Cor. 5:7-8

When Paul was at Ephesus, they wanted him to stay, but he “bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast in Jerusalem." Acts 18:21. He used the word "keep." He didn't say, "I must by all means be at Jerusalem during the feast [so as to reach as many people as possible with the gospel]," an explanation that many will give for this text. He wanted to keep the feast in Jerusalem, but would he honor the feast elsewhere if he weren't able to get to Jerusalem?

Many Adventists will look to Ellen G. White to see what she had to say on this topic. Regarding Paul's stay at Ephesus, she said, "After leaving Corinth, Paul's next scene of labor was Ephesus. He was on his way to Jerusalem to attend an approaching festival, and his stay at Ephesus was necessarily brief."  Acts of the Apostles 269.

Paul did not make it to Jerusalem in time, so “we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread.” Acts 20:6. They had honored the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread away from Jerusalem, in Philippi.

Ellen White comments on this in Acts of the Apostles 390-391:

At Philippi Paul tarried to keep the Passover. Only Luke remained with him, the other members of the company passing on to Troas to await him there. The Philippians were the most loving and truehearted of the apostle's converts, and during the eight days of the feast he enjoyed peaceful and happy communion with them.

Philippi was city in which there was no synagogue, and many conclude that the converts there must have been Gentiles. Paul was memorializing the Passover and unleavened bread with the Gentiles, not Jews who were clinging to old, familiar customs.

Paul wrote to those at Corinth, “But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.” 1 Cor 16:8, indicating that he wanted to observe Pentecost with these believers in Ephesus. He was observing the holy days everywhere he went, with both Gentile and Jewish converts.

Again, Ellen White said,

Paul greatly desired to reach Jerusalem before the Passover as he would thus have an opportunity to meet those who should come from all parts of the world to attend the feast. Ever he cherished the hope that in some way he might be instrumental in removing the prejudice of his unbelieving countrymen, so that they might be led to accept the precious light of the gospel. He also desired to meet the church at Jerusalem and bear to them the gifts sent by the Gentile churches to the poor brethren in Judea. And by this visit he hoped to bring about a firmer union between the Jewish and the Gentile converts to the faith.

From every quarter were coming accounts of the spread of the new doctrine by which Jews were released from the observance of the rites of the ceremonial law. ...His plan to reach Jerusalem in time for the Passover services had to be given up, but he hoped to be there at Pentecost. ... At Philippi Paul tarried to keep the Passover. Only Luke remained with him, the other members of the company - Acts of the Apostles, 389-390

Paul preached against observing the ceremonial laws and rites, but he still honored the feasts. It is clear that Paul did not believe that the holy days were included in the ceremonial law.

Paul had done all in his power to remove the prejudice and distrust so unjustly excited because he presented the gospel to the Gentiles without the restrictions of the ceremonial law.” Sketches from the Life of Paul, 208.

Paul did not bind himself nor his converts to the ceremonies and customs of the Jews, with their varied forms, types, and sacrifices; for he recognized that the perfect and final offering had been made in the death of the Son of God.” Sketches from the Life of Paul, 105.

Factions also were beginning to rise through the influence of Judaizing teachers, who urged that the converts to Christianity should observe the ceremonial law in the matter of circumcision...They indicated their position, which was in opposition to that of Paul. Sketches from the Life of Paul, 121.

Paul didn't teach his Gentile converts to do circumcision or take part in ritual sacrifices, but he did teach them to observe the holy days, showing that Paul did not consider these days to be part of the ceremonial law.

The church instituted by our Lord and built up by His disciples in the first century is set forth as the divine model. Its prerogatives and authority are fully acknowledged, and all its ordinances and memorials are observed. Life Sketches, 472.

I've been reading some history of the early centuries of the church. There is evidence that the Waldenses observed the holy days, that Philip, his daughters, and John the Revelator kept them and taught others to do so, that those who were converted to Christianity in India were taught to keep the holy days.

There's lots more. I have learned so much through studying about this subject, and how to apply the lessons from these appointed days to my own life and to prophecy. I thought I would send this to you so you could see what I've been studying and see what you think.

The family members who responded seemed interested but not convinced -- but at least I've planted a seed for thought and consideration.

Paul accused of being against the law

Rumors were going around amongst the new believers. "Paul says we are not supposed to do anything that Moses said. We're not supposed to do any of the religious customs Moses taught us to follow." Paul agreed there was need to defend himself, so he did it in both word and action.

When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.

Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.

Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

Acts 21:19-24, 26 NKJV

Not only did Paul show that the writings of Moses were not passe', but in his defense before Felix, the cruel Roman governor, he said,

Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Acts 24:13,14 NKJV

Paul was following the Way, the new Christian belief, but he also continued to believe "all things" written in the Law and the Prophets. Taking these words of Paul into account when we read Colossians 2, we can see that in no way did he mean that commandments and statues, given by God to Moses, were nailed to the cross.

Asceticism in Colossae

"Let no man judge you" in Colossians 2:16 has been wrongly interpreted by many churches. If someone said to you, "Don't let anyone criticize you for loving your spouse," does that mean you should stop loving your spouse? "Let no man judge" is not an admonition to stop doing what you are being criticized for doing. Instead, it is encouraging you to keep on doing what you are doing! How could we have been so confused for so long?

Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians while imprisoned in Rome. While there, he learned that heresy had crept into the church at Colossae. The type of heresy is evident in chapter 2:

²⁰ Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
²¹ (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
²² Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
²³ Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.

Paul was warning the believers against the religious practices of asceticism -- severe self-discipline and avoiding indulgence in the flesh in any way.

In this context we can more clearly understand verse 16:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Verse 16 indicates that the Colossians had, indeed, been taught, most likely by Paul, to observe the holy days, and they were observing them, the new moons, and the Sabbath -- and were being criticized for how they did it.

Greek philosophies, including asceticism, was the cause of the criticism and conflict in the new church. It could be that the criticism came from those outside the church, or perhaps some of the new converts retained some of those philosophies and wanted to combine them with their new belief in Christ. The conflict was not so much that the believers were observing these days, but that they were being criticized for how they observed them, for what they were eating and drinking on those days.

This is the only reason Paul would have said, "Let no man judge you..." If the problem had been the observance of the those days, he wouldn't have said, "Let no man judge you," he would have said something like, "Let none of you concern yourself with observing holy days, new moons, and sabbath days."

The "shadow of things to come" is to come in my next post.

Colossians and Chiasmus

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days. Colossians 2:16

Many who keep the weekly seventh-day Sabbath but do not believe in keeping the feast days explain that Colossians 2:16 is written as a chiasm, where the first part of the phrase is mirrored by the second part. Therefore, the holy days mentioned is mirrored by sabbath days, giving the conclusion that holy days and sabbath days both refer to feast days or annual Sabbaths.

This is the explanation that bothered me so much when I was a twelve years old. It seemed like a workaround of the literal meaning of the words. And if no man were to judge anyone for these, even under this interpretation, why should anyone be criticized for doing so? At that time I did not know of any Christians who observed the holy days, but still I wondered. The interpretation that omits the weekly Sabbath in this verse implies that, since we are to "let no man judge," feast days and new moons are no longer important, but the weekly Sabbath is important. I have written more about "let no man" in my post, "Asceticism in Colossae."

From what I understand, it is these verses that caused the enormous turnaround of the Church of God when they repudiated the Sabbath. They realized that, through their "new" interpretation of verses 14, 16, and 17, neither the Sabbath nor the feast days were important, because they had been nailed to the cross. The Sabbath and the feast days are clearly linked in this verse. If one is important, the other is, or NOT.

Many verses in the Bible are written as a chiasm, often described as ABBA in style. Here are a few examples, where A mirrors A, and B mirrors B:

A - The sabbath

    B - was made for man

    B - and not man for

A - the sabbath:

Mark 2:27

A - “And whoever exalts himself

    B - shall be humbled;

    B - and whoever humbles himself

A - shall be exalted."

Matthew 23:12

A - God created man

    B - in His own image,

    B - in the image of God

A - He created him

Genesis 1:27

Many more examples are available; one good site for research is Bible Chiasmus. All examples I have found, and I admit I have not searched exhaustively, have at least ABBA, sometimes ABCBA, ABCCBA, ABCDCBA, etc., more than a simple ABA, which is what Colossians 2:16 would be.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an 
A - holyday
     B - or of the new moon
A - or of the sabbath days.  
Colossians 2:16

Does an ABA pattern make a chiasm? I don't know, but we have more than one way to find out if this verse is meant by inspiration as a chiasm. 

I looked at the collection of the words "holy day, new moon, and sabbath days" in throughout the Bible. Should other verses in Scripture that refer to that collection of holy days be interpreted as "feast days, new moons, and feast days" -- a chiastic interpretation?

Here are several of many examples where Sabbaths, new moons, and feast days are mentioned as a triad. More can be found at Bible Gateway (searched for sabbath, new moon).

2 Chronicles 2:4 - ”on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the Lord our God.”

1 Chronicles 23:31 - ”in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts.”

Nehemiah 10:23 - "for the regular burnt offering of the Sabbaths, the New Moons, and the set feasts."

In each verse, the triad clearly refers to three separate kinds of holy days: weekly Sabbaths, new moons, and annual feast days. The pattern would not be changed for Colossians 2:16.

Conclusion: Colossians 2:16 is not a chiasm, as is clearly seen by Scriptural verse comparisons.

How to know what the Bible is saying

The following is adapted and condensed from an article, "Rules of Biblical Interpretation," by Melody Drake.

The reason why there are so many different churches and beliefs among Christians today is because many do not follow sound rules for Biblical interpretation. The Bible itself tells us how to study the Bible, either directly, or indirectly through observation. If all Christians followed these rules, we would not have so many different Christian churches and beliefs.

1. With a good concordance, search out everything the Bible says on the subject before coming to a conclusion. “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.” (Isaiah 28:10) One can pull out a Bible text to prove just about anything, but when one first looks at all the Bible texts on a certain subject, then a pattern of truth will emerge.

2. All conclusions should be based upon the weight of evidence and must make logical sense. God created us with minds to think and He appeals to our intellect. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 1:18)

3. Each passage of Scripture should be carefully considered in its context. What does the Bible say before and after the passage? First we must consider the immediate passage, then the chapter, book, other books by the same author, and finally other writers of the Bible.

4. A literal interpretation of the Bible should be given unless the context clearly shows that the verses under consideration are symbolic. When the interpretation is symbolic, the Bible will tell us the meaning of the symbol either in that passage or elsewhere. The Bible must always interpret itself.

5. One text of the Bible must not undo another text. The Bible never conflicts with itself.  Sometimes Bible texts, at first glance, can appear to contradict with other texts, but upon a deeper study, the contradiction will disappear. For instance, one can find Bible texts that appear to support works in order to obtain salvation. Elsewhere, the Bible states that faith obtains salvation. On the surface these texts appear to be contradicting each other, but upon deeper study one finds that works and faith are the flip sides of the same coin. Without one the other does not exist. Sometimes the Bible will give us a harmonizing text and sometimes it will not, leaving us to do the harmonizing. Here is a harmonizing text. “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” (James 2:18)

6. All words should be accurately defined and understood. A good dictionary and concordance will aid in this. Since, over time, language changes, sometimes we have to search a word through a prophet’s writings to see how they define that word so we can correctly understand what they are saying.

7. We cannot conclude more or less than the evidence allows. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2) “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19) These are serious words not to be taken lightly.

8. Consider the words of the text in the original languages. We do not need to be scholars studying Greek and Hebrew in order to do this. Using Strong’s Concordance one can easily find the original meaning of a word. As in English, some words in Greek and Hebrew have multiple meanings. Sometimes a contradiction may appear because the wrong definition of the word was used. However, by carefully considering all texts on a subject, one can determine the correct definition. For easy access to Strong's, use Blue Letter Bible with the Strong's numbers (click on Strong's box at the top of your KJV Bible text).

9. Each prophecy in the Bible has a beginning and ending point in time, and the elements within this prophecy occur in chronological order. This rule is not for conditional prophecy in the Bible but only for prophecy which has definite time frames. Daniel chapter 2 gives us a model. In this chapter the head of the image, which represents Babylon, comes before the chest, which represents Medo-Persia, which comes before the belly, which represents Greece, etc.

10. When God sets up a pattern, He never breaks this pattern. At times the Bible clearly sets out the beginning of a pattern. By following this pattern one can then determine the rest of the pattern and discover wonderful truths. For example, here is a pattern: three, six, nine. Once we see this pattern the next number is easy to determine. Our Heavenly Father is a God of logic and order.

11. Pray that the Holy Spirit will guide your mind before beginning to study because without the Holy Spirit one cannot obtain truth. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

---

Other writings need to come under the same scrutiny. Do they align with the Bible? New truth doesn't erase old truth. New understandings build on old understandings, and this is good, as long as the old understandings are correct. When the original understandings are not scriptural, or off just a little bit, the newer understandings go farther astray.

Feast days after the cross

For Seventh-day Adventists, a leading theologian's conclusion about the feast days:

A fourth surprise was to discover that I was wrong in assuming that the annual Feasts came to an end with the sacrifice of Christ, simply because they were connected with the sacrificial system of the Temple. I came to realize that the continuity or discontinuity of the Feasts is determined not by their connection with the sacrificial system, but by the scope of their typology. If the Feasts had typified only the redemptive accomplishments of Christ's first Advent, then obviously their function would have terminated at the Cross. But, if the Feasts foreshadow also the consummation of redemption to be accomplished by Christ at His second Advent, then their function continues in the Christian church, though with a new meaning and manner of observance. 

God's Festivals in Scripture and History, Volume I: The Spring Festivals, from the chapter, "Preview of the Book," by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi

Colossians 2

The first response by those who have studied the question of feasts and Sabbath keeping, and are quite sure observance is wrong, is to refer the Torah-observant Christian to Colossians 2:14, 16-17:

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

The common interpretation of these verses is that when Jesus died, the commandments were erased, nailed to the cross, and we no longer have to keep them. The "handwriting of the ordinances" is the ten commandments, they say; the ten commandments were against us, were contrary to us, but they are now gone, nailed to His cross. In addition, they say, we don't have to worry about what we eat or what days we keep holy, because they are a shadow of things to come. The "body is of Christ" means important thing is Christ, goes that interpretation.

Judith Koch has written a good article that is worth reading, What Was Nailed to the Cross?

There is so much in these veses, in every phrase, in every word! I remember studying these verses with a teacher when I was 12 years old. We were Bible Sabbath keepers, and it bothered me that the verse said, "Let no man judge you... in respect of any holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

"Does that mean we're not supposed to keep the seventh-day Sabbath?" I asked.

"No," said the teacher. "That is referring to the annual sabbaths, the Jewish feasts."

"Oh," I said, then asked, "Why does it say holydays, and then sabbath days? It's just repeating itself."

"That's for emphasis," said the teacher. "It's a pattern of Jewish writing."

So that's where it was left in my mind for decades, a verse in the Bible that didn't make sense to me. When I really began to study it and discovered what it actually was saying, I was excited!

The first thing I learned was the meaning of "handwriting of the ordinances." God is the one who gave us the ten commandments and the accompanying statutes and judgements. They were given to guide our lives, to give us boundaries within which we would be happier than if we did not follow these guidelines.

Are these guidelines against us, contrary to us? How can they be? They were given by God! David said, "Oh, how I love thy law!" The believers in the New Testament, even Paul, continued to believe "all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets" (see my post, Reasons Christians should keep Torah).

Along with the ten commandments, God gave a listing of punishments that would happen if the commandments and statutes were broken. It is these that are against us, contrary to us. The handwriting of the ordinances that are against us is the declaration that we are guilty and deserve punishment. By Jesus' death on the cross, He nailed our guilty verdict to the cross, declared us righteous, no longer on Death Row for being sinners.

More to come.

Reasons Christians should keep Torah

I've been watching the pros and cons of the controversy between Christians who want to keep the feast days and those who believe that keeping them is denying Christ, at worst, or perhaps more common, that the feasts are a distraction from our path to salvation. I leaned toward thinking they were an unnecessary distraction for a long time, but then I was challenged to look at the issue more closely -- from a Biblical view rather than just listening to people's opinions.

My first question on this topic is: What is the difference between a Christian who follows the Bible law--Torah--and one who doesn't? Both believe in Christ as their Saviour, and it is their purpose in life to live to bless others. A major difference, in practical terms, is what days they keep holy - Sunday vs. Sabbath and God's feasts, or maybe even seventh-day Sabbath only vs. Sabbath and feasts. Are there other differences? I guess I will eventually find out if there are.

It all comes down to what Scripture says. Wouldn't it seem that if we all read the same Book, and believed all the messages of that Book were true, that we would agree? Sometimes, as I see the various differences between denominations and groups of people, I think that people will interpret the Bible based on what seems easiest, or what fits with how they are already living and believing, often influenced by emotional attachment to long-held practices, and by religious leaders who may or may not be honestly seeking to share the truth in God's Word.

I will share the principles of understanding and coming to agreement on what the Bible says in a later post.

I recently heard a sermon (I don't remember the name of the speaker), and I took notes, below.

Five reasons Christians should keep Torah

1. Torah is all about Jesus.

2. Jesus kept and taught Torah.

3. The Apostles kept and taught Torah.

4. The Holy Spirit empowers Christians to keep Torah.

5. Keeping Torah is a blessing.

What did the disciples do and teach?

Here is a collection of verses that show the apostles keeping and teaching Torah.

Paul exhorted Christians to uphold the Torah by faith in Christ.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Romans 3:31

Paul instructed Gentile Christians to observe Passover.

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8 KJV

The apostles continued to celebrate the feasts.

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Acts 2:1 KJV

And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

Acts 20:6 KJV

For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.

Acts 20:16 KJV

And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

Acts 27:9 KJV

The apostles continued to keep the Sabbath.

And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

Luke 23:56 NKJV

And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there.

Acts 16:13 NKJV

Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:1-2 NKJV

And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 18:4 NKJV

Paul defended himself against those who were falsely accusing him that he was against Torah

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.

Acts 21:20-24, 26 NKJV

Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Acts 24:13,14 NKJV

Throughout the New Testament we are told to imitate the apostles.

Therefore I urge you, imitate me. For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Corinthians 4:16, 17 NKJV

Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. Philippians 3:17 NKJV

And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe.

1 Thessalonians 1:6 NKJV

The Spirit in John 16

I recently have seen some commentary from antitrinitarians about John 16:13, bolded below with the contextual verses. At this point I am neither firmly trinitarian nor antitrinitarian. I am studying.

¹² “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. ¹³ But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. ¹⁴ He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. ¹⁵ All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. John 16:14-17, NIV

The KJV translated verse 13 this way:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. John 16:13 KJV

The KJV leads to the interpretation that the Holy will not speak about himself. However the NIV makes the meaning of "of" clearer. The Holy Spirit will not speak of his own accord. 

The Holy spirit does not speak of his own accord, but what he is given to speak. What is said here echoes what Jesus said in John 12:49-50.

⁴⁹ For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. ⁵⁰ I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

It is clear that the Holy Spirit and Jesus both get their messages from someone else, and Jesus says His words are from the Father. It makes sense that the Holy Spirit has the same source for what he says. The Spirit referred to here could be an emanation from the Father and Son, or he could be a third person. The verse is not proof of the existence or nonexistence of a third person, though it is often used to prove the existence of a trinity.

Verses 14 & 15 may be closer to what a trinitarian needs:

¹⁴ He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. ¹⁵ All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you. John 16:14-17, NIV

 Those verses seem easy to explain from a trinitarian point of view, but not so easy from an antitrinitarian point of view. I haven't seen any of them trying to explain these two verses.

Further study required.

Trinity -- or not?

In my first 20+ posts I wrote about our Savior's name, and names of various characters in the Bible. I think I have worn out that topic for now, and I plan to move on to several others. A couple of topics demanding my attention right now are the trinity and the feast days. What does the Bible say about them?

I probably won't have that much to say about the trinity, because it is not a topic I've studied exhaustively, I'm not sure there is an easy answer, and I'm not sure how important it is that we know the exact answer!

The questions that I ponder are:

1. Doesn't the Bible teach the trinity? The short but somewhat evasive answer is: No, the Bible does not mention the trinity -- or at least not the word trinity.

2. Are there three separate persons in the Godhead, three-in-one, or are there two, Father and Son, and a Holy Spirit that emanates from them? I don't know. I can see arguments on both sides of this question.

3. Doesn't 1 John 5:7-8 explicitly teach there are three persons? This requires a long answer, but the shortest possible answer is that a clause has been inserted here, called the Johannine Comma. The translators added a message they felt was missing. What a lot of problems would be avoided if humanity would not add their own traditions to scripture!

Without the Johannine Comma, the verses read:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. ESV

With the later-added text, the Comma, the verses read (the added text in brackets):

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. KJV

Many use the Johannine Comma as proof that there are three-in-one, not knowing that they are not quoting the inspired words of John.

4. What about Jesus' baptism instructions in Matthew 28:19?

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

I have been told that Jesus didn't perform baptisms Himself, but I would love to have seen Him give an example of how this is done. Most baptisms include the phrase, "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)." Have you ever noticed the sentence structure, that it sounds like there is only one name? He didn't say "in the names of," but "in the name of." I don't know if that is significant; it's just something I've thought about.

The above are the only two verses I can find that mention the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all at the same time. If believing in a trinity is of utmost importance, wouldn't there be more about it in the Bible, and wouldn't what is there be less ambiguous? The first example, with the inserted clause, is not a true example. The second implies that all three carry the same name!

Did the disciples follow Jesus' baptism instructions? I found only four verses that tell about baptisms in the name of anyone, and these examples use only the name of Jesus Christ (or Lord Jesus). I can't believe they were disobeying their beloved Master's directive. They were doing what they understood Him to have told them to do:

On the Day of Pentecost: And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

When Peter and John went to Samaria: For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts 8:16,17

Peter at the house of Cornelius: And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. Acts 10:48

Paul at Ephesus: And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5

That's all I have for now. The two commonly-used New Testament proof texts do not prove there is a trinity, but then I am not convinced there isn't some kind of three-ness there. Perhaps I am influenced by a few decades of hearing about the trinity. I do know that within my own congregation, the teaching has grown toward a more trinitarian-type belief, with a Holy Spirit who is a separate and third person, but years ago, within my lifetime, it was not so.

To me the bottom line is that I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and He has saved me by His sacrifice and His grace. Whether I believe the Holy Spirit is a separate person or not, will it affect my salvation? If it did, wouldn't the Bible tell us so?

Easy reading?

I was just reading a friend's post, and as I read, I wished he would not use such scholarly language. I can understand what he writes, but I get the feeling that those who write about Biblical topics feel more believable if they sound like a professor in their writing. I do know, however, that sometimes it is easier to transmit your exact meaning when you use the exact four-syllable word you want rather than searching your mind for words more commonly used.

As I read through my old posts, I see that I have used language that could be improved for readability. If I have a chance, I may go back and change some of it.

My Name is Me

There is a growing group of people who believe that you cannot be saved unless you call on the right Name. They quote Acts 4:12:

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."

When I first started studying the phrase, My Name, I didn't know what conclusion I would come to. I was receiving strong pressure from others to never use the name Jesus, because Jesus is a Greek transliteration of the name Yeshua, given to our Savior before birth, that the word Jesus has no meaning, that the name Jesus comes from the god name Zeus. I was influenced to change the spelling to Yahshuah, which I did in my earlier posts.

I started my studies with open mind, leaning toward agreeing, except for the part about Zeus. I have found nothing convincing on that point. And now, it turns out, I don't agree.

Acts 4:12 clearly shows that the Name is the Person. Salvation is found only in our Savior, Jesus Christ, Yeshua Hamashiach. This agrees with my previous posts, though I didn't know it at the time, and I now understand that when our Savior says "My Name," He means Himself. When he says, "Call on My Name," He is saying, "Call on Me." Can we be so obtuse as to believe that He will not hear those who say the Name wrong, who spell it wrong, who have the wrong accent, who cannot speak at all? He knows the heart, He knows when we call on Him.

Some argue that, since people don't change their names when they move from country to country, that Jesus likewise would keep His name Yeshua (I will keep that spelling for now, so that I won't have to keep repeating the variations), and He should be called Yeshua, no matter what language you speak.

One problem with that thought is that the premise is wrong. Many people, as they migrate from one country to another, change their names so that they can be more easily spelled and pronounced in their new location. Our Savior will hear us, no matter what language we speak. He knows our heart.

Isaiah 9:6 keeps coming to mind, and I can't help but singing it every time I think it:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

"His name shall be called" = HE will be called. He IS His name. 

Returning!

It's been a long time since I have written. In the interim, I have thought much about the Name topic. Many voices have said one thing, and many voices another, but my studies have led me to a different conclusion than you might have thought from reading my previous posts. I will take a little time to put the thoughts together in the coming days.