Was Judas Present When Jesus Instituted The Lord’s Evening Meal?

April 2nd, 2012 No Comments

Jesus makes a covenant with his 11 faithful apostles.

Someone asked the following question: Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Judas was not present on the night that Jesus presented the New Covenant, instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal, and made the Kingdom Covenant with his apostles? The simple answer is that this is just what the Bible says. When they gathered for the Passover meal, all 12 were present. But during the meal Judas was dismissed, prior to the institution of what became known as the Lord’s Evening Meal.

However, there is one particular Gospel that causes some confusion. A forward reading of the Gospel of Luke would seem to indicate that Judas was still present when these three things transpired, particularly of eating the bread and drinking the wine that were presented as part of these covenant arrangements. But let us take a close look at the four Gospel accounts, and actually pause to give this some honest hearted, open minded thought.

 

Now the Passover was a special observance for the Jews under the Law of Moses, to remember when they were delivered from bondage to the Egyptians. The Passover was an annual event, celebrated on Nisan 14th. This is precisely what Jesus and his apostles gather together to do. On the biblical Jewish calendar, each day started at sunset, and so now that it was evening and the sun had gone down, Nisan 14th had started, and it was time to eat the Passover meal, as the sons of Israel had been doing each year for 1500+ years.

From the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and John, it can clearly be seen that the issue of betrayal had come up while the Passover meal was being eaten, before Jesus instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal and the New Covenant and Kingdom Covenant. According to Matthew, Jesus directly tells Judas that it is him. John’s account alludes to the same thing but also add that Jesus told John privately that the betrayer was the one whom he would dip a morsel and hand it to. This morsel, and the gravy or sauce that it was dipped in, were part of the Passover meal, and not part of the Lord’s Evening Meal that would come later and consist only of wine and dry unleavened bread. According to John, Judas leaves immediately, perhaps even taking the morsel with him.

Now with the unfaithful traitor gone, Jesus can get on with some serious business…

 

So we just learned that Judas left during the Passover meal. Now, after the Passover meal, Jesus institutes what comes to be called the Lord’s Evening Meal or Memorial, and also the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-32), and a covenant for a Kingdom. It is Luke’s account that causes some confusion, as the placement of verses 21-23 of his account makes it sound like Judas was present. However, let’s give this some thought.

Would Jesus say he was making a covenant with them because they were “the ones who stuck with me during my trials”,  yes, faithful to Jesus the whole time, knowing full well an unfaithful traitor was in among them? Would he allow to be part of the kingdom the very one who betrayed the King and expedited his death? Would you willingly enter into a binding contract with such a man?

John says quite clearly that Judas had left before all this. Remember that John was an eyewitness to these events, whereas Luke was not. It seems that Luke made an effort to record the events that happened that night, but did not necessarily concern himself with the strict chronological order of how things proceeded that evening. John, having written his gospel much later, may even have made specific mention of the moment Judas left in order to clear up any misconceptions that Judas might have been present for the Lord’s Evening Meal.

In considering all four gospel accounts, particularly that of John who was present himself in the room on the night when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal, it becomes clear that Judas was not present at that point in the evening. I circled passages from Luke and John above that are separate accounts of the same thing, a thing which Judas was not present for. The verses at Luke 22:21-23 probably should have been placed after verse 18 for a clearer reading.

2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching… [and] for setting things straight.” By utilizing all the scriptures pertaining to this event, we have been able to see things clearly in the manner in which they took place, and eliminate what appears to be a contradiction at first glance.

To sum it all up in a brief few sentences…

Only one gospel account mentions him leaving – John. John says it happened immediately after the discussion of who would betray Jesus. Both Matthew and Mark states this discussion happened before Jesus instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal. John himself doesn’t mention the instituting of the Lord’s Evening Meal specifically, but we know that he did - after the Passover. That makes 3 accounts for Judas having left before the Lord’s Evening Meal was instituted.

Read More »

The Temple that the Apostle John Mentions in Revelation Leaves Preterists Grasping At Straws

February 19th, 2012 No Comments

This post is based on a discussion I had with someone who finds the preterist approach to eschatology to be very intriguing.

What is Preterism?

Eschatology (from ἔσχατος meaning "last" and -logy meaning "study of") is a part of theology concerned with what are believed to be the final events of history commonly referred to as the end of the world.

Christian eschatology is a major branch of study within Christian theology. Eschatology, from two Greek words meaning last (ἔσχατος, last) and study (λογία, lit. discourse), is the study of the end of things, whether the end of an individual life, the end of the age, or the end of the world. Broadly speaking, Christian eschatology is the study of the destiny of man as it is revealed in the Bible, which is the primary source for all Christian eschatology studies.

Preterism (from the Latin praeteritus, meaning “gone by”) is an approach which sees prophecy as being fulfilled in the past, especially (in the case of the Book of Revelation) during the first century. All prophecies, therefore, have already been fulfilled. Revelation, for example, is seen as referring to the struggle of Christianity to survive the persecutions of the Roman Empire.

It is important that I let my typical readers know right off the bat, that the terms “eschatology” and “preterism” are merely labels made up by Christendom, more or less. The four main approaches to eschatology within Christendom are preterism, historicism, futurism, and idealism – but there are many more. Much like how each denomination in Christendom, while not having the truth, teaches at least one thing that is right, likewise each of these models of eschatology probably get one thing right but miss the big picture overall. Of course, as Jehovah’s people, we have our own “eschatology”, as it were.

Preterism Denies the Traditional Dating of Revelation

Preterists believe that the book of Revelation was written just a few short years before 70 C.E., as opposed to the traditional dating of 96 C.E. While the debate on the date of it’s authorship has been going on for a long time, I maintain that ultimately does not matter whether John wrote Revelation in 68 C.E., or if he wrote it in 98 C.E.

The person sharing these preterist views with me provided a comment in a discussion forum that was more or less based on wording from the website, Models of Eschatology…

“One of the Preterists main arguments [for an early date] is that the Temple was still standing at the time it [Revelation] was written, which would mean it had to be before 70 AD.

Nothing in the book of Revelation actually says the temple has already been destroyed [something John wouldn't likely have left out] nor does anything say it will be rebuilt a third [future] time. Revelation simply refers to the temple as if it is still standing.

When John says in Revelation 11: 1 -2

“Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.”

It would make no sense to the first century readers unless the temple is still standing.

John A.T. Robinson has pointed out that the single most climactic event of this period of Jewish history is the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple and end of institutional Judaism. Based on the fact that the Temple [or its destruction] is never mentioned in any book of the New Testament, and therefore it [the temple] appears all of the N.T., this must have been written prior to that event.

For being such a main argument for the preterists, it is not a very strong one at all. Saying that “Nothing in the book of Revelation actually says the temple has already been destroyed” is a supposition, and assumes that God would have wanted to mention it. But would he really? After all, Jesus said that Jehovah God had abandoned the temple way back in 33 C.E., and the entire New Testament bears witness that the former system of worship had been replaced, and God was now dealing exclusively with the Christians.

Also, saying that the destruction of the temple is “something John wouldn’t likely have left out” is likewise merely hypothetical. If the temple were destroyed 25 years earlier, why would John have to mention it? The event would have been old news. Considering again that Jehovah had abandoned that old Judaic form of worship in 33 C.E. (Read Matthew 23:37, 38; Colossians 2:14) and replaced it with a new one, why speak of the what he turned his back on decades earlier instead of the new arrangement, his new people, and things to come for them? To speak of old things would not be much of a “revelation”, would it?

 

Christians Approach Jehovah at a Temple Even Greater than that in Jerusalem

Christians worshiped at a different temple now. Paul goes to great lengths in describing the new spiritual temple/tabernacle that now existed for Christians, which had been forshadowed by the earthly temple/tabernacle. Let’s first take a look at Paul’s description of this spiritual temple, and then afterwards take a look at John’s words to see if he is really talking about Herod’s temple in Jerusalem city, or if he is describing the same temple that Paul is here.

1) Hebrews 8:1,2 – There exists a heavenly temple arrangement.

“Now as to the things being discussed this is the main point: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a public servant of the holy place and of the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man.” (Hebrews 8:1, 2)

2) Hebrews 8:5 – The physical temple was a representation of the heavenly one.

“If, now, [Jesus] were upon earth, he would not be a priest {{because he was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi}}, there being men who offer the gifts according to the Law, but which men are rendering sacred service in a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things.” – Hebrews 8:4, 5

3) Hebrews 8:13 – The physical temple is about to vanish away.

“In his saying “a new covenant” he has made the former one obsolete. Now that which is made obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.” – Hebrews 8:13

4) Hebrews 9:9 – This heavenly temple is what concerns us now.

“Thus the holy spirit makes it plain that the way into the holy place had not yet been made manifest while the first tent was standing. This very tent is an illustration for the appointed time that is now here” – Hebrews 9:8,9

5) Hebrews 9:11 – Christ is our High Priest in this greater temple.

“However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation,  he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us.” – Hebrews 9:11,12

6) Hebrews 9:24 – Christ enters into the Most Holy in the heavens, and appears before Jehovah himself to present the value of his sacrifice.

“For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.” – Hebrews 9:24

7) Hebrews 10:1-3 – Literal sacrifices at the literal temple have been stopped as far as Christians are concerned.

“For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, men can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect. Otherwise, would the sacrifices not have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service who had been cleansed once for all time would have no consciousness of sins anymore? To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.” – Hebrews 10:1-4 (compare this with point 5 above)

8 ) Hebrews 10:19-22 – Christians now worship at this heavenly temple exclusively. The house of God is no longer the temple in Jerusalem.

“Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way through the curtain, that is, his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with true hearts in the full assurance of faith.” – Hebrews 10:19-22

Hebrews was specifically written to Christians still living in Jerusalem at the time, many of whom no doubt still had a fondness for the physical temple (after all, they still had a fondness for circumcision, and other old things that they needed to give up). This was written to remind them that Jehovah had abandoned and replaced all that. This was going to be important to know and understand especially since the time for it’s destruction was drawing near.

 

The Temple that John Saw in Revelation? Which Temple Was It Really?

"John! Come on up here!" - Revelation 4:1

Now let’s forward to the book of Revelation. The common preterist argument is that “Revelation simply refers to the temple as if it is still standing, and it would make no sense to the first century readers unless the temple is still standing.”

What the preterist fails to understand is that the book of Revelation is not intended for a general readership. Rather, it is intended for Christians who know that the physical temple would be (or had been) destroyed, as Jesus already mentioned in Matthew 24, and the heavenly temple arrangement had taken it’s place (all those above references from the book of Hebrews we just went over) and this heavenly temple arrangement was now how Christians would approach Jehovah God – and not through the Judaic arrangement anymore.

But the real key to understanding is to actually examine the context, and not get hung up on the word “temple”. When we do, the revelation John saw opens up to us as well, and we might glean some of the following details:

John isn’t asked to measure the literal temple. He cannot, because he is on Patmos…

Revelation 1:9 “I John, your brother and a sharer with you in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance in company with Jesus, came to be in the isle that is called Pat′mos for speaking about God and bearing witness to Jesus.”

He says he is taken into the future and given visions (Rev. 1:1,10).

Revelation 1:1-10 “And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John… By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day”

Also, he is taken to heaven to see it (Rev. 4:1).

Revelation 4:1-11 “After these things I saw, and, look! an opened door in heaven, and the first voice that I heard was as of a trumpet, speaking with me, saying: “Come on up here, and I shall show you the things that must take place.” After these things I immediately came to be in [the power of the] spirit: and, look! a throne was in its position in heaven, and there is one seated upon the throne… [they] fall down before the One seated upon the throne and worship the One that lives forever and ever, …saying: “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.””

The details of what John sees is very very significant. He is taken up to heaven, and sees Jehovah sitting on his throne! Where is John then? Is he in Jerusalem’s temple? No! John is in the spiritual temple that Paul described in the book of Hebrews. Paul said that Jesus himself appeared here before Jehovah after returning to heaven, and that this spiritual temple is the reality, and that the physical temple had only been a mere copy of this grand arrangement.

Hebrews 9:24 “For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.”

Corresponding to Paul’s words here, John next sees Christ next to Jehovah’s throne in this vision in chapter 5 – See Revelation 5:6-10

This also corresponds to the vision Stephen had just before he died.

Acts 7:55, 56 “But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, and he said: “Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.””

So then, what can we confidently conclude? We can be certain that the temple that John is asked to measures is in heaven, not in Jerusalem. John himself actually makes this very clear when he mentions the “temple” in chapter 11. In fact, this is the verse that the preterists get hung up on and use to insist that John must have wrote the book of Revelation before the destruction of Herod’s temple in 70 C.E. But LOOK closer at what it actually says…

Revelation 11:1 “And a reed like a rod was given me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshiping in it.”

Where are we? Are we in Herod’s temple? No, we are still in the spiritual temple in the heavens. We know this because the altar mentioned here is before God and surrounded by angels…

Revelation 8:2, 3 “And I saw the seven angels that stand before God, and seven trumpets were given them. And another angel arrived and stood at the altar, having a golden incense vessel; and a large quantity of incense was given him to offer it with the prayers of all the holy ones upon the golden altar that was before the throne.”

But it is not like we have to piece together these clues as if we were putting together some puzzle, for John clearly states in the same chapter…

Revelation 11:19 “And the temple sanctuary of God that is in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple sanctuary.”

The point is, the context is very clear that this is not the temple physically located in Jerusalem. Much of this corresponds to what Paul wrote in Hebrews, that they had a greater High Priest (Jesus), and a greater temple (in heaven). This is the arrangement of true worship that Christians stream to since the former arrangement of worship and approach to God had been done away with – nearly 40 years before the temple in Jerusalem, the mere copy of the reality, would be destroyed.

“For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.” - Hebrews 9:24

While I am completely open to an early date for the writing of Revelation and find the controversy surrounding the date of it’s authorship very intriguing, I ultimately think it does not matter at all. More importantly, the preterist position often mentioned concerning a “temple” being mentioned by John in his Revelation doesn’t hold much water, and in fact demonstrates that they are grasping at straws.

 

 If you are reposting a portion of the content above, please do the right thing and cite your source along with a link back to my blog. Thank you!
Read More »

John 8:58 – A Claim of Pre-existence or an Admission of Being the Almighty God?

February 6th, 2012 No Comments
The following is a partial transcript of a discussion I had on this subject in a Biblical discussion and debate group. The real names of other participants have been changed, and some of their spelling and punctuation have been corrected. The purpose of posting it here is simply to preserve my efforts expended in the discussion.

Riley: According to Daniel B. Wallace (Trinitarian Scholar) ego emi is not even a claim to pre existence. I quote him:”John 8:58 CANNOT be reffering to pre-existence”

Michael: Why can’t the term “ego eimi” be referring to his preexistance? The context of the conversation is his age. They wondered how he could have seen that Abraham looked forward to his (Jesus’) day. Jesus answered “Since before abraham, I have been’.

Robert Angle: Daniel Wallace (author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) argues against translators who say it is a statement of pre-existence. This is because of his biased trinitarian views. He misleads the reader with a number of false statements to twist it to mean “I AM” and makes a connection to Exodus 3:14. Says Wallace “Jesus is here claiming to be the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, the I AM, the eternally existing One, Yahweh”. So what appears to be a book about Greek Grammar is really a cloaked opportunity to promote certain doctrines. He says it “cannot be referring to pre-existence” because to him it has to refer to his identity/divinity.

Riley: Emi the PRESENT SINGULAR Tense of I LIVE, not I Lived or Im living. You should also understand the difference between aorist infinatives or indicatives that surround Emi that would denote pre existence in John 8:58

Robert Angle: Eimi in John 8:58 should be rendered with some form of the English past tense, because of its modification by the adverbial clause “before Abraham came to be.” <— This very clause, which is an answer to the Pharisees question “You have seen Abraham?”, makes Jesus words a statement of pre-existence. It’s exactly what the context is talking about (this understanding shouldn’t even be a problem for a trinitarian either). The subject of the verb (Jesus) is not simply said to live or exist, but to live/exist in reference to a designated place in time (before Abraham was born). A corresponding English phrase must be able to state that the existence had been before Abraham was born and still continues to the present.

Riley: Your understanding of the construction is not correct, with all due respect. For something to be describing something in English as being, “common sense” does not follow in other languages,aorist indicatives or infinatives in Greek grammar speak louder in Greek than what you used for logical context in english.

Daniel B Wallace is a TRINITARIAN recognized scholar, he has NOTHING to gain and everything to LOOSE by making his correct statement that EMI is NOT USED TO DENOTE A Historical present. How long have you been studying the GK Language Robert? Why is the mood infinative not indicative, in the second aorist tense, middle deponent? That is an important question we all need to ask.

Robert Angle: You are correct that Daniel B. Wallace has everything to lose by stating that EMI is not used to denote a historical present, because John 8:58 then no longer stands as some far-fetched proof text of the trinity. Daniel Wallace is just plain wrong. Because EMI is in the present tense, but preceded by the aorist infinitive clause which refers to Abraham’s past, EMI must be viewed as a historical present. This is not uncommon to other Bible passages as well as extra-biblical literature of the time.

That ginomai is in the second aorist tense, middle deponent voice, and infinitive mood is an interesting thing you bring up, although I am not sure why. It is aorist because Abraham’s coming into existence took place in the past (There is no difference between the functions of the first and second aorist). It is infinitive because Abraham’s coming into existence is not ongoing, it is a complete, momentary event in time. Some people argue that the infinitive does not have time significance, but in direct discourses it does. While a present infinitive denotes linear action, the aorist infinitive denotes point action.

Contrast that with EMI, which is present active indicative, and we still have a case for Jesus stating that he was alive from some point in time prior to Abraham’s coming into existence and is still alive up to that point, as opposed to him answering the Pharisees question “Have you seen Abraham?” with a dodgy indirect answer like “Before Abraham came to be… yo dudes I am actually your God himself”.

If you like Wallace, that is fine, but the man does come under a lot of scrutiny. Many other scholars, even trinitarians, think he resorts to intellectual dishonesty to get his points across. A number of respectable scholars agree that Jesus words in John 8:58 is not by any means a claim to divinity, but merely a direct and actual answer to the Pharisee’s question.

Riley: Where is Emi used for a historical present anywhere else in Scripture?

Robert Angle: Challenging me to produce another usage of EMI as a historical present is comical, and essentially parroting Daniel Wallace to boot. Historical presents are not uncommon by any means. A historical present is using a present tense verb in discussing past events (google it). This is exactly what is happening in John 8:58 -> the arrival of Abraham is a past event, and EMI is a present tense verb. The fact that we have a present tense verb being modified by an adverbial clause expressing past time is the only point of worthy consideration. In the LXX and NT, there are over 800 such historical presents, and many of them are aoristic in nature just as it is in John 8:58

EMI is translated “have been” (starting at a point in the past and continuing to the present) because of time indicators in…

John 14:9 “Jesus said to him: “Have I been (Greek EMI, present tense) with YOU men so long a time (time modifier)”

John 15:27 “and you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been (“este” 2nd person plural of “emi” in it’s present tense “are”) with me from when (time modifier) I began.”

Even though the present tense verb is used in both of those verses, you cannot translate John 14:9 to read “Am I with you for so long a time”, nor translate John 15:27 to read “you must bear witness because you are with me from when I began”. It’s senseless, bad English, and hurts the ears. This is because the narrow grammatical tense of the isolated verb eimi must be qualified by its larger grammatical context. We call this the “present of past action still in progress”, or PPA for short.

In John 8:58, we have the present tense verb EMI (“to be”, “am”) being modified by the adverbial clause expressing past time starting with PRIN (“before”). Similarities can be found in classical Greek literature of the time.

Testament of Job 2.1: “For I was (EMI, present tense “am”) Jobab before (time modifier) the Lord named me Job.”

Menander, Dyscolus 616: “For I have been (EMI, present tense “am”) a friend to you long before (time modifier) I knew you.”

Just like in John 8:58, the present tense of “am” is modified by the grammatical context that points to the past, so a corresponding English phrase must convey the sense of starting in the past but yet also continuing to the present as long as it remains good English grammar (which in the case of Testament of Job 2:1, it would not be, so a strict past tense does indeed sound better, or perhaps even “had been”).

Constantly appealing to Daniel Wallace is to me is ad verecundiam, because there are several respectable scholars who disagree with him. An exhaustive list of other translations who recognize the relevance of the construction of John 8:58 and render it properly in their English translations will follow in the next post.

Next Post: List of other translations of John 8:58

 

The discussion fell dead at this point with no further responses.

 

FAIR USE DISCLAIMER: If you want to republish a portion of the content of this post, you may do so as long as you provide proper credit by naming and linking to this page as the source. Thank you.

Read More »

The Role of the Governing Body / Jerusalem Council in First Century Christianity

February 3rd, 2012 No Comments

What does the Bible say about the organizational structure of the first century congregation?

Is Organized Religion a Choice? Or a Requirement?

There are some who claim that the congregations throughout the known world in the first century were completely autonomous, to which such claims are made usually with the intent of justifying a personal dismissal of all denominations today, or negating the need to assemble for worship with others altogether. “I just wanna worship God in the way that I personally want to” they say, which for many is often a clever way of minimizing the worship of God as a whole in favor of self-indulgence. Though for others, it is because organized religion has proved to be disappointing to them, at least to the degree in which they have sincerely and with fairness investigated them. This can be understandable, as the majority of organized religions are disappointing! But what do the scriptures teach us about the organization of first century Christianity? Was the first century Christian congregation an organization, or not?

The book of Acts contains accounts of the establishments of congregations in the years following Christ’s death. Apostles and their companions would travel around in missionary journeys, preaching the good news, and establishing congregations through the lands. Each congregation was given instruction on how their gatherings for worship were to be conducted.

A Decision That Affected All Congregations

“Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem." - Acts 16:4

In Acts chapter 15, Paul and Barnabas have just returned to the Syrian city of Antioch from their first missionary tour. Antioch had already been established as a congregation, and now many Gentiles (non-Jews) were coming in a joining themselves to this congregation (Acts 11:20-26). But a significant problem arose: Jewish Christians had been circumcised in accord with the Law of Moses, and were insisting that the new Gentile converts be subjected to circumcision too in order to have God’s approval. As a result, “there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them” (Acts 15:2) While Barnabas and Paul, even though he was an Apostle, tried to reason with them on the matter, they insisted that the issue be taken to the Jerusalem Council (or Governing Body). The council, after coming to a decision, wrote a letter and sent it back. To fortify their decision, they sent 2 more council members, Judas and Silas, to go along with Paul and Barnabas and the men from the congregation that came with them, back to that congregation to settle the matter.

Acts 15:2 – The Antioch congregation argues with Paul and Barnabas, and insists on sending the matter to the elders in the Jerusalem congregation. Paul and Barnabas acquiesce.

Acts 15:4 – They arrive at Jerusalem and visit the congregation as a whole.

Acts 15:5 – The issue divides the Jerusalem congregation just as it did the Antioch congregation.

Acts 15:6-22 – The Body, made up of Apostles and other older men, then meets separately to discuss it.

Acts 15:22-29 – The Body compiles a letter and has it sent to Antioch, along with 2 of the Body’s members, Judas and Silas – so there can be no accusation it is just Paul and Barnabas returning with their own views again.

Acts 15:30-35 – After the matter has been clearly settled, Judas and Silas return to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas stay in Antioch, now able to do the work they went their to do without hinderance.

Now was this a unique situation that only pertained to Antioch? In other words, was this just one instance where it just so happened that Antioch had to reach out for advice from just another neighboring church, and it just happened to be the one in Jerusalem? No, for upon leaving Antioch, Paul decides “let us return and visit the brothers in every one of the cities in which we published the word of Jehovah to see how they are” (Acts 15:36). Guess what was one of the reasons why Paul wanted to do this thing? The Bible tells us…

Acts 16:4, 5 “Now as they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem. Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.”

So we can see that the account clearly says that it was a private meeting of apostles and older men that took place in the city of Jerusalem, where they would meet at that particular time in their early history. Their decision becomes an official decree, and all other congregations in the then known world are subject to being obedient to this decision.

"Keep on seeking, and you will find." - Matthew 7:7

A Scriptural Organizational Precedent

True Christians today see the account in Acts 15 as a historical record that sets a pattern to be followed, inasmuch as the direction found in 1 Timothy 3 is likewise an organizational precedent preserved for us in the scriptures. Since the individual congregations of the first century were established by the apostles to be part of a larger unified organization, it’s clear that True Christianity is literally a unified organization with a common denominator, or set of beliefs rooted in God’s Word. Therefore, we should not be quick to dismiss organized religion as a whole when we are on a serious pursuit of finding the truth today. Organized religion is not an option for individuals, but actually part of God’s purpose – something we want to be including ourselves in.

 

 

.

Read More »

John 8:58 – Various English Translations that Recognize Jesus Did Not Say “I AM”

January 31st, 2012 No Comments

A deeper look at John 8:58

 

Trinitarian critics of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, often take issue with the verse recorded at John 8:58, which reads…

John 8:58 “Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.””

In translations that they prefer, it has Jesus saying “I AM” instead of “I have been”, and they mistakenly claim that Jesus was claiming to be the God of the Old Testament who says “I am that I am” at Exodus 3:14 according to the same translations (which is also incorrect). The charge is that the New World Translation is unique in that it renders the passage in a way that suits our belief that the trinity doctrine is a false teaching. But is the New World Translation really unique in this regard?

The answer is No. In fact, several translations also correctly convey the correct thought that Jesus was expressing at John 8:58, and many scholars, even modern day translators, will admit and attest to the fact that Jesus was not uttering “I AM” in some mysterious fashion in this verse. Below is an exhaustive list of other versions demonstrating that the New World Translations rendering of John 8:58 has merit.

To the surprise of many, the 1960 and 1973 printings of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) also has "I have been" as a variant reading in the margin.

The Living New Testament: “The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.”

The 20th Century New Testament: “before Abraham existed I was.”

Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878) “Jesus said to them, _truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham was, I have been.”

Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884) “Jesus said to them, “truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was
born.”

Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962) “With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence).”

Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T. “Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed.’”

Cotton Patch Version (1970) “To this Jesus replied, ‘I existed before Abraham was born.’”

Good News for the World (1969) “Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was
born.”

The Complete Bible, An American Translation Goodspeed: “I tell you I existed before Abraham was born.”

New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: “I existed before Abraham was even born.”

The New Testament, C. B. Williams: “I solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.”

The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.”

The Living Bible: “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.”

Lattimore: “Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born.”

The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: “Before Abraham was born, I was.”

An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: “I was before Abraham.”

New Testament Contemporary English Version: “I tell you, that even before Abraham was, I was,
and I am.”

The Unvarnished New Testament: “Before Abraham was born, I have already been.”

The New Testament, Kleist & Lilly: “I am here-and I was before Abraham.”

The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams: “I existed before Abraham was born.”

The New Testament, Noyes: “From before Abraham was, I have been.”

A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: “Before Abraham was, I have been.”

The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: “Before Abraham existed I was.”

The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt& The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere “Before Abraham came to be, I was.”

The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: “I was before Abraham was born.”

The 20th Century New Testament 1904: “Before Abraham existed I was already what I am.”

The New Testament, Stage: “Before Abraham came to be, I was.”

International Bible Translators 1981 “Jesus said to them, _I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham
was born!”

The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: “Before Abraham came into being, I have existed.”

Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) “Jesus answered them: ‘Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham
was born.’”

The Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson: “I existed even before Abraham was born.”

A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: “Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed.”

The Simple English Bible: “I was alive before Abraham was born.”

The Original New Testament, Schonfield: “I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born.”

The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: “I existed before there was an Abraham.”

Swann, G. N.T. (1947) “Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born”

International English Version (2001) “I was alive before Abraham was born”

 

FAIR USE DISCLAIMER: If you want to republish a portion of the content of this post, you may do so as long as you provide proper credit by naming and linking to this page as the source. Thank you.

Read More »
« Older Entries
Subscribe to RSS Feed Get Email Updates