Do Not Tempt the Lord Jesus – But Worship Him Instead! Pt. 2, a post by Sam Shamoun

Do Not Tempt the Lord Jesus –

But Worship Him Instead! Pt. 2

 

We continue from where we left off by examining what Matthew and Luke have to say concerning the Lord Jesus being tempted.

 

Tempting the Lord Jesus

 

Here are a series of examples where people tried to tempt Christ in contexts that actually reveal his divine identity:

 

“In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?… But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?” Luke 10:21-25, 29 Authorized King James Version (AV)

 

A religious scholar tempts Christ to see if he truly knew and understood God’s Law, specifically it’s teaching concerning how to obtain salvation. What makes this ironic is that this challenge took place immediately after Jesus had just finished telling his followers that he is the unique Son whom Father has entrusted all things to, and who actually knows the Father in the same way that the Father knows him!

 

To say that this is an astonishing (in fact, shocking) assertion would be a wild understatement, since the context shows that the Son is claiming to have been entrusted with all of God’s wisdom along with heaven and earth, e.g., Christ has the entire creation under his control and possesses all of God’s wisdom, which he then dispenses to whomsoever he desires.

 

Moreover, the only way the Son can know the Father in the same way that the Father knows him, and be the only One qualified to make the Father known unto others, is if Christ is an incomprehensible, omniscient Being. After all, claiming that the Father alone is qualified to know the Son is a claim to being incomprehensible. To then say that the Son knows the Father in the same way and to the same extent that Father knows him is a further claim to being omniscient, since only an omniscient mind is capable of knowing the Father.

 

In other words, the inspired Scriptures expressly teach that the Father is the only true God,

 

And is therefore Jehovah God Almighty since Jehovah alone is identified as the true God:

 

“Inasmuch as there is none like You, O Lord (You are great, and Your name is great in might), Who would not fear You, O King of the nations? For this is Your rightful due. For among all the wise men of the nations, And in all their kingdoms, There is none like You… But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation. Thus you shall say to them: ‘The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens.’” Jeremiah 10:6-7, 10-11

 

As such, God the Father knows people completely and exhaustively, since he perfectly knows everyone‘s thoughts and actions even before they have even arisen in their minds to do them!

 

“It shall come to pass That before they call, I will answer;And while they are still speaking, I will hear.” Isaiah 65:24

 

I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.” Jeremiah 17:10

 

“Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.” Matthew 6:8

 

No wonder the Psalmist could say that such knowledge is simply beyond comprehension:

 

“O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, And are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether. You have hedged me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is high, I cannot attain it. Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, Even there Your hand shall lead me, And Your right hand shall hold me. If I say, ‘Surely the darkness shall fall on me,’ Even the night shall be light about me; Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to You. For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.” Psalm 139:1-12, 16

 

He realized that God’s knowledge is infinite and therefore beyond the ability of any creature to fully grasp:

 

“Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; And His greatness is unsearchable.” Psalm 145:3

 

“He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name. Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.” Psalm 147:4-5

 

Thus, since the Son knows the Father in the same way that he is known he must be omniscient, possessing infinite knowledge and understanding.

 

Now to our next example:

 

“And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven. But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.” Luke 11:16-22 AV

 

In this particular temptation, we not only see that Jesus knowing the thoughts of his opponents, knowledge which God alone possesses,

 

“then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and act, and give to everyone according to all his ways, whose heart You know (for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men),” 1 Kings 8:39 – cf. 1 Chronicles 28:9

 

“Would not God search this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.” Psalm 44:21

 

Christ also casts out demons in order to prove that he possesses the finger of God and is the King who ushers in God’s rule upon the earth! He even claims to be the stronger One who is able to bind up Satan and dispossess him of all he has taken and stolen.

 

This brings us to our next case of Christ being tempted:

 

“But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” Matthew 22:34-46 AV – cf. 16:1; 19:3; 22:18

 

After being tempted to answer which is the greatest commandment, Christ responds by referencing the Shema (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4-5), which stresses the need to love the one Lord God of Israel unconditionally, and further cited a passage which exhorts loving one’s neighbor as oneself. What makes this rather interesting is that Jesus then goes on to challenge the Pharisees concerning the identity of the Messiah in order to prove that he is more than a son of David, he is also Israel’s Lord!

 

Christ cites the words of the prophet David in Psalm 110:1 where the latter of the Messiah as his Lord who sits enthroned alongside God himself. Now to sit at the right hand of Jehovah basically means that the Messiah sits right next to God upon his very own heavenly throne since this is where God is said to be currently ruling:

 

“The Lord has established His throne in heaven, And His kingdom rules over all.” Psalm 103:19 – cf. 2:4; 11:4

 

The NT confirms that this is precisely where Jesus is right now, namely, seated upon God’s own throne in heaven where he is ruling as the sovereign Lord of all creation:

 

“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.’” Matthew 28:18

 

“But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, ‘Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!’” Acts 7:55-56

 

“The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—… And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.” Acts 10:36, 42 – cf. 2:22-36

 

“and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Ephesians 1:19-23

 

“For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” Ephesians 5:5

 

“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power… If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.” Colossians 2:9-10, 3:1

 

“There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.” 1 Peter 3:21-22

 

“To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” Revelation 3:21 – cf. 1:5; 11:15; 12:1-2, 5, 10; 17:14; 19:16; 22:1, 3

 

And now to our final example:

 

“But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.” Acts 5:1-11

 

In the above example, two professing Christians ended up lying to the Holy Spirit by holding back a part of the money they made from the sale of one of their possessions. In so doing, these so-called believers lied to God and tempted the Spirit of the Lord, since they actually thought they could get away with it and that God wouldn’t do anything about it.

 

There are two important points to notice from this text. First, note that the Holy Spirit is now identified as the Spirit of the Lord which, in the immediate and over all contexts of Acts, is a reference to the risen and exalted Christ. This shows that the first Christians believed and taught that the Holy Spirit belongs to Jesus just as much as he belongs to God, and therefore could be identified as Christ’s Spirit. See the following verses for further examples of this: Acts 16:6-7; Romans 8:9-11, 14-17; Galatians 4:4-7; Philippians 1:19; 1 Peter 1:10-12.

 

The second thing to notice is Peter’s assertion that lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God, obviously because of the close intimate connection between the two, as well as because the Holy Bible witnesses to the essential Deity and Personhood of the Spirit. Hence, lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God because the Spirit is both God in essence and inseparably united to God (the Father). In the same way, we are to infer that tempting the Spirit of the Lord is the same as tempting the Lord himself, due also to the perfect union and intimacy that Christ and the Spirit share with each other (as well as with the Father).

 

This means that Sapphira wasn’t simply tempting the Holy Spirit when she lied to the Apostle Peter, but she was also tempting the Lord Jesus Christ himself, even though she clearly knew that it was a sin for her to tempt the Lord her God.

 

This brings me to the conclusion to the second part of our case. It is time to move on to part 3.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why 1 John 5:7 was always in the Bible, a post from the Will Kinney KJV website

1 John 5:7 “the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”

1 John 5:7 “And These Three Are One” 

Note – If you like, you may now hear a teaching video made with brother Dave Flang, that gives a 30 minute summary of this article -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_oh8YbyWlo 

 

1 John 5:7-8 KJB – “For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”  

 

1 John 5:7-8 – ESV, NIV, NASB – “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree.”


1 John 5:7-8 is the clearest witness in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity, yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NET and Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

English Bibles that contain all these words in 1 John 5:7-8 are the first complete English Bible ever made by John Wycliffe in 1380. It was in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525 – “For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one.”, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible from 1557 to 1599 -“For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.”, the Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Authorized Version of 1611.

It is also in Mace’s New Testament of 1729, John Wesley translation in 1755 and Thomas Howeis N.T. 1795. It was included in Webster’s 1833 translation, James Murdock’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta done in 1852 – “For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.”, Julia Smith Translation 1855,  A Translation of John Calvin’s Version (Calvin Translation Society) of 1856 and Young’s literal in 1898. 

All the words are found in the NKJV 1982, the New Life Bible 1969, Green’s ‘literal’ translation of 2000, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the 2009 Sacred Bible – Catholic Public Domain Version, the Easter/Greek Orthodox Bible 2008, the Heritage Bible 2003, the Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible, the 1994 KJV 21st Century Version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the 2008 Sawyer N.T. and the Knox Bible of 2012 – “Thus we have a threefold warrant in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, three who are yet one.

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 in Chapter II,  Of God, and the Holy Trinity gives 1 John 5:7 as their first reference.

http://www.freepres.org/westminster.htm#chapter2

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; John i. 14, 18; John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 also specifically mentions 1 John 5:7 as being the first verse used to teach and support the doctrine of the Trinity. They certainly believed it was inspired Scripture.  

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1689lbc/english/Chapter02.htm  

They write: “In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him. ( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 )

 

 

The Catholic Connection

The entire reading was included in the earlier Catholic bibles like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and as late as the Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1969, New Jerusalem bible 1985), but now once again the 2009 The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it!

 

Foreign language Bibles that contain all these words are: the Clementine Vulgate – ” Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602,  the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 editions, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (put out by the Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB that omits it) and the 2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible, “Tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno.” 

The words are included in the Italian Diodati Bible of of 1603 and 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991- “nel cielo: il Padre, la Parola e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono uno.“, the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and La Bible de l’Epée 2005, -“dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont un.“, the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681 and A Bíblia Sagrada em Portugués – “Porque três säo os que testificam no céu: o Pai, a Palavra, e o Espírito Santo; e estes três säo um.”.

 

Other foreign language Bible that include these words are the Afrikaans Bible 1853 – “die hemel: die Vader, die Woord en die Heilige Gees, en hierdie drie is een”, Smith and van Dyck’s Arabic Bible – “ فان الذين يشهدون في السماء هم ثلاثة الآب والكلمة والروح القدس وهؤلاء الثلاثة هم “, the Basque N.T.; the Western Armenian N.T.Արդարեւ երե՛ք են՝ որ կը վկայեն երկինքի մէջ.- Հայրը, Խօսքը եւ Սուրբ Հոգին, ու այս երեքը մէկ են”,  Czech Kralicka Bible, Dutch Staten Vertaling “Want Drie zijn er, Die getuigen in den hemel, de Vader, het Woord en de Heilige Geest; en deze Drie zijn Een.”, Finnish 1776Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovate”,  the Hungarian Karoli, Icelandic 1981, Latvian N.T. “Jo trīs ir, kas dod liecību debesīs: Tēvs, Vārds un Svētais Gars; un šie trīs ir viens.”, Maori -“Tokotoru hoki nga kaiwhakaatu i te rangi, ko te Matua, ko te Kupu, ko te Wairua Tapu: kotahi ano enei tokotoru., Lithuanian “Mat yra trys liudytojai danguje: Tėvas, Žodis ir Šventoji Dvasia; ir šitie trys yra viena.” and the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible of 1998 – “May tatlong nagpapatotoo sa langit, ang Ama, ang Salita, ang Banal na Espiritu at ang tatlong ito ay iisa.”

 

The words are in the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible – “Pentru ca trei sunt cei care aduc marturie in cer: Tatal, Cuvantul si Duhul Sfant; si acestia trei una sunt.“, Russian Synodal 1876, Russian Victor Zhuromski, the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Thai Bible, the Czech BKR - “na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou.” Ukranian Kulish 1871, the Vietnamese bible 1934 – “ấy là Ðức Thánh Linh đã làm chứng, vì Ðức Thánh Linh tức là lẽ thật.“, The  Indonesian – Terjemahan Baru (TB) – “Sebab ada tiga yang memberi kesaksian di dalam sorga: Bapa, Firman dan Roh Kudus; dan ketiganya adalah sati.“, the Ukranian New Testament – “Бо три їх, що сьвідкують на небі: Отець, Слово і сьвятий Дух, і сї три – одно.”, the Xhosa language Bible, the Modern Greek Bible and the Modern Hebrew bible – כי ושלשה המה המעידים בארץ הרוח המים והדם ושלשתם לאחת המה:שלשה המה המעידים בשמים האב הדבר ורוח הקדש ושלשתם אחד

 

Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

Cyprian – 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.


Those who say this verse is not part of Holy Scripture will often say it is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and for this reason it should not be included in the Bible.


It is true that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth” are not found in the majority of remaining Greek manuscripts that exist today. However there is very much and weighty evidence for its inclusion.


Those who argue that it is not in the majority of texts are being totally inconsistent when they bring up this argument. Most of the people like James White and Daniel Wallace who use this majority argument, do not care one bit for the majority of texts and what they might read. They themselves follow the constantly changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical Greek text which itself departs from the majority readings in literally thousands of places.


Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: “A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity (few number), appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them” (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45 

Isn’t it ironic that the very reason these two Bible critics gave for choosing a few manuscripts over hundreds suddenly becomes an ‘issue’ for them when it comes to the ONLY clear cut verse stating that  “These Three are ONE”, that is, the Godhead or the Trinity?


It should also be noted that Michael Maynard significantly points out that there are only 5 remaining Greek manuscripts that even contain the epistle of 1 John in whole or in part that date from the 7th century or before. That is a whole lot of time to have past by with only 5 partial Greek witnesses that remain today that were written within the first 700 years of Christianity.

And among these 5 early manuscripts only 2 of them agree with each other in 1 John 5:6-8.  Sinaiticus does not agree with Vaticanus, or Alexandrinus or with 0296. Sinaiticus  and A both say “by water and blood AND SPIRIT” in verse 6 instead of “by water and by blood”. Then Alexandrinus “not by water only but by water AND THE SPIRIT” instead of “not by water only, but by water and the blood” and 0296 omits the verb “are” (εισιν) in verse 7 and  has the unique word order of “by water AND SPIRIT and blood” in verse six. 

As the KJV Today article says: What it demonstrates is that scribes were prone to alter this portion of 1 John based on theological or stylistic motivations.  By 350 AD this portion of 1 John 5  was already corrupt in the Greek tradition. Since verse 6 is corrupt in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and verse 7 in 0296 does not have “εισιν,” there are only two manuscripts (Vaticanus and 048) from before the 7th century which read exactly as the  Nestle-Aland from verse 6 to 7.”

See the KJV Today article on 1 John 5:7 for other examples of textual corruption and disagreement just in 1 John among the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” here -

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-The-use-of-the-Comma-at-the-Fourth-Lateran-Council

What then is the textual evidence for 1 John 5:7?

It is found in several Greek texts – Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Scrivener and Modern Greek Bible; it is quoted by several church fathers as Cyprian 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -380 AD, Varimadum 380 A.D., Jerome 420 AD, Victor Vitensis 430 A.D., Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus 580 A.D,  and is found in many ancient versions of the Bible including the Old Latin, and is found in some copies of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century).

It was part of the text of the Old Latin Bible that was translated in the second century, as it witnessed by some remaining copies that we have today. It is found in “r”, a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, “q”, a 5th to 7th century O.L. mss, and “l” another 5th century O.L. mss.

 

The old commentators on 1 John 5:7 – John Calvin, John Gill, Matthew Henry, John Wesley.


JOHN WESLEY commented on 1 John 5:7 saying: ” I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one.”


“As they lie in the text :” — but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, — the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, YET IT IS FOUND IN MORE; AND THOSE COPIES OF THE GREATEST AUTHORITY: — ( 2.) That IT IS CITED BY A WHOLE GAIN OF ANCIENT WRITERS, FROM THE TIME OF ST. JOHN TO THAT OF CONSTANTINE. THIS ARGUMENT IS CONCLUSIVE: FOR THEY COULD NOT HAVE CITED IT, HAD IT NOT BEEN IN THE SACRED CANON: — (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine’s successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, — “the Arian age;” there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: “Athanasius against the world.”

 

JOHN CALVIN – “There are three than bear record in heaven” The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and AS I SEE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BEST AND MOST APPROVED COPIES, I AM INCLINED TO RECEIVE IT AS THE TRUE READING.”


MATTHEW HENRY on 1 John 5:7 – “We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse…There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading.”


“The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle…Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt—and these three are one. NOW THESE ARE THE WORDS, NOT OF V. 8, BUT OF V. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost…If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt—they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt—they are one. And THEREFORE CYPRIAN’S WORDS SEEM STILL TO BE A FIRM TESTIMONY TO V. 7.”


“It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book.” “I think, in the book of God,… THE TEXT IS WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION.”

JOHN GILL commenting on 1 John 5:7 – “As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerome, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters.”


“And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition the compilers of which made use of various copies; AND OUT OF SIXTEEN ANCIENT COPIES OF ROBERT STEPHEN’S, NINE OF THEM HAD IT.” (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible.)  

These manuscripts underlying the Complutensian Polyglot and the 16 ancient copies of Stephanus no longer exist.

 

Speaking of the citations of the early church fathers John Gill continues: “And yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the “sixth” century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the “fourth” century; AND IT IS CITED BY ATHANASIUS ABOUT THE YEAR 350; AND BEFORE HIM BY CYPRIAN, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD CENTURY, ABOUT THE YEAR 250; AND IT IS REFERRED TO BY TERTULLIAN ABOUT THE YEAR 200; AND WHICH WAS WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS, OR LITTLE MORE, OF THE WRITING OF THE EPISTLE, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANYONE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THIS PASSAGE; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation.”

CYPRIAN (Latin: Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) (c. 200 – September 14, 258) was bishop of Carthage and an important Early Christian writer, many of whose Latin works are extant. He was born around the beginning of the 3rd century in North Africa, perhaps at Carthage, where he received a classical education. After converting to Christianity, he became a bishop in 249 and eventually died a martyr at Carthage.
As a side note, the entire quote by Cyprian is this: In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.”  This cannot be said of verse 8 where it says: “the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”  That verse is not referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Only verse 7 does this.
You can see the quote from Cyprian in context here - http://www.pennuto.com/bible/1jn5_7.htm

THE TREATISES OF CYPRIAN

Ante-Nicene vol. 5 page 423

The Lord says: ”I and the Father are one;” “(4) and again IT IS WRITTEN OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, ANDOF THE HOLY SPIRIT, “AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.”(5)

(4) John X. 30.
(5) I John V. 7 .

(End of shorter Article on 1 John 5:7)

 

Additional Information about 1 John 5:7

 

It is sometimes erroneously asserted that this text originated close to the time of Erasmus. However,  even the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the “comma” is attested by the Latin church fathers (Cyprian) (d. 258), (Pseudo-Cyprian) (4th century), (Priscillian) (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date “445/480″), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts.  And these notes are found in the very Greek editions of those who oppose its inclusion in the New Testament!

The UBS critical text keeps changing both its Greek texts and the footnotes found at the bottom of its pages.   In addition to the names found in the UBS 4th edition that supported the inclusion of the Three witnesses in heaven – Cyprian, Priscillian and Fulgentius, the UBS 3rd edition also lists Varimadum, Cassian and Ansbert.

Varimadum was an anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer in 380 A.D. that states: “And John the Evangelist says, . . . ‘And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one’.”  Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma.

Both UBS texts list Priscillian (380 AD) bishop of Avila, in support of the Three heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7 and many sites list him as “a Spanish heretic”.  And What exactly was his heresy?  He DIDN’T BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY!  Yet he himself writes in Liber Apologeticus: “As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

More on Athanasius

To read their entire quotes in context, see this site: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007_04_22_archive.html
Athanasius appears to have quoted the Comma in Disputatio Contra Arium:

“Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν,  καὶ ζωοποιὸν,  καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν,  οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν,  οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισμακαρίᾳ ὀνομασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς; Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει·  «Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.»”

“But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing [baptism], without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? In addition to all these, John affirms, ‘and these three are one.'”

ONLINE LINK to Disputatio Contra Arium

The clause “and these three are one”, attributed to John, is quoted here explicitly in the context of the Trinity (of Matthew 28:19).  If this work is indeed by Athanasius, then the Comma was cited in Greek by the 4th century.  There is in fact no reason to doubt the Athanasian authorship, other than the fact that anti-Comma critics in modern times have done so in order to discredit the quotation of the Comma.  Even if this work was by someone else, a “Pseudo-Athanasius,” the work is still support for a Greek witness to the Comma well before 1000 AD.  Thus the often heard claim that the Greek Church was unaware of the Comma for over a millennium is false.

In English Francis Cheynell pointed this out as early as 1650; before that, in Latin is Estius (1614). The divine triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; or the blessed doctrine of the three co-essential substances in the eternal Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct substances, or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead (1650)


Francis Cheynell
http://books.google.com/books?id=gQE3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA255

“This Text is cited by the Ancient Fathers, by Athanasius in his dispute with Arrius at the counsel of Nice, and Arrius never denied it for to be Scripture, which certainly he would have done, it there had been any doubt made of it in the Primitive times.”

A Defense of the Johannine Comma
Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

The next to rely upon I John 5:7 in his work is Athanasius, the great (Greek) defender of the orthodox faith in the first half of the fourth century. Gill observes that Athanasius, around 350 AD, cited the verse in his writing against the Arians.  A clear citation of the Comma is also found in the Synopsis, also know as the Dialogue between an Athanasian and an Arian, attributable to Athanasius. Critics have attempted to dismiss the Dialogue as spurious, largely on the basis of stylistic arguments (i.e. the style of the Dialogue is not consistent with Athanasius’ other writings). For example, one early critic to make this argument was the 18th century classics scholar Richard Porson. However, Charles Forster refuted this line of argument by showing that the style and type of citation employed in the Dialogue is entirely consistent with that which appear in other works of Athanasius that are accepted as genuine by all. Additionally, David Martin (who believed that one of Athanasius’ contemporaries was the author) writing in 1772, observed that the Dialogue itself speaks of the Emperor Constantine in the present tense, as ruling with his son Constantius, which would argue for a date of composition in the first half of the 4th century. Hence, there is no real reason to accept the arguments that the Dialogue is spurious or late – a position which appears to exist for no other reason than to try to get around the evidence testifying to the authenticity of the Comma. Further, as Forster points out, even if the Dialogue were attributable to one Maximus, writing in the 7th century, as some revisionists allege, this would still clearly demonstrate the existence of the Comma in the Greek witness at an extremely early date, which destroys the claims of critics that the Comma only appeared in Greek at a very late date.

(73) – See John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, comments on I John 5:7, where he states that Athanasius cites the verse in his Contr. Arium.
(74) – Forster, op. cit., pp. 48-63
(75) – See D. Martin, The Genuineness of the Text of the First Epistle of Saint John, Chap. v., V. 7, pp. 137-8

Tim Dunkin, who is far more qualified than I to defend the historical authenticity of this verse, has written a very good defense of 1 John 5:7.  He supports the contention, made by John Gill and others,  that Athanasius did refer to this verse.  Here are some of his quotes and the link to his site.  He also demolishes the common claim that no Greek texts before the 16th century contained 1 John 5:7.


A Defense of the Johannine Comma
Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

The next to rely upon I John 5:7 in his work is Athanasius, the great (Greek) defender of the orthodox faith in the first half of the fourth century. Gill observes that Athanasius, around 350 AD, cited the verse in his writing against the Arians.  A clear citation of the Comma is also found in the Synopsis, also know as the Dialogue between an Athanasian and an Arian, attributable to Athanasius. Critics have attempted to dismiss the Dialogue as spurious, largely on the basis of stylistic arguments (i.e. the style of the Dialogue is not consistent with Athanasius’ other writings). For example, one early critic to make this argument was the 18th century classics scholar Richard Porson. However, Charles Forster refuted this line of argument by showing that the style and type of citation employed in the Dialogue is entirely consistent with that which appear in other works of Athanasius that are accepted as genuine by all. Additionally, David Martin (who believed that one of Athanasius’ contemporaries was the author) writing in 1772, observed that the Dialogue itself speaks of the Emperor Constantine in the present tense, as ruling with his son Constantius, which would argue for a date of composition in the first half of the 4th century.

Hence, there is no real reason to accept the arguments that the Dialogue is spurious or late – a position which appears to exist for no other reason than to try to get around the evidence testifying to the authenticity of the Comma. Further, as Forster points out, even if the Dialogue were attributable to one Maximus, writing in the 7th century, as some revisionists allege, this would still clearly demonstrate the existence of the Comma in the Greek witness at an extremely early date, which destroys the claims of critics that the Comma only appeared in Greek at a very late date.

- See John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, comments on I John 5:7, where he states that Athanasius cites the verse in his Contr. Arium.

In addition to the ones listed above, D.A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the margin of #635. Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10th century).

Go to this site to actually see for yourself the Facsimile of a portion of I John containing the Comma, as it appears in Codex Montfortianus, a 13th century miniscule (reproduced from T.H. Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 241, Robert Carter and Bros.:NY, 1854).

Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome (347 – 420 A.D.) on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate. At one point in his work, Jerome noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes,

“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.” – Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell.


Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss. (end of selected portions from Setting the Record Straight on 1 John 5:7)


Another witness to the Athanasius witness


The Antijacobin review and true churchman’s magazine (1816) William Hale

 



But further, is not that quickening and sanctifying baptism, productive of remission of sins, without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful, by the thrice blessed appellation? [of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.] And beside all these [texts,] John affirms, “and these three are one.” – Athanasius. op. Paris, 1698, Vol. II. p. 229, or Travis, p. 143.

“This admirable collection and condensation of texts relative to Baptism and the Trinity, concluding with an express appeal to the disputed clause; namely, Mark i. 3; Matt. iii. 11; John iii. 3 – 5; Tit. iii. 5; Matt, xxviii. 19; 1 John V. 7 ; is so conformable to the spirit of the Synopsis, and so worthy of Athanasius himself, that I can scarely be persuaded that it was written by any other.”

Please notice that the quote from Athanasius is not just “and these three are one” but he prefaces this quote with “John affirms “and these three are one.”  It was written in the first epistle of the apostle John!


“Majority text” or “minority readings”


It is also fallacious and hypocritical to suggest that just because the reading found in 1 John 5:7 is not “in the majority of texts” that it therefore cannot be legitimate, when the very men who are behind the ever-changing modern critical text admit that the true reading may be found in a few or even one manuscript.


Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: “A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them” (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45)


J. K. Elliott, a modern textual critic comments on transcriptional probabilities: “By using criteria such as the above the critic may reach a conclusion in discussing textual variants and be able to say which variant is the original reading. However, it is legitimate to ask: can a reading be accepted as genuine if it is supported by only one ms.? There is no reason why an original reading should not have been preserved in only one ms. but obviously a reading can be accepted with greater confidence, when it has stronger support.” 

Even Kurt Aland says: “Theoretically, the original readings can be hidden in a single mss. thus standing alone against the rest of tradition,” and Tasker has a similar comment: “The possibility must be left open that in some cases the true reading may have been preserved in only a few witnesses or even in a single relatively late witness.” – The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism upon New Testament Studies,” The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1956)


Sure, there are a few minority readings in the King James Bible, but for every one in the KJB there are at least 20 minority readings found in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and that is no exaggeration.


Another very common objection to 1 John 5:7 is the allegation that Erasmus said he would include the verse if he found a Greek manuscript that contained it. Then almost made to order, hot off the presses, one appeared.  Bruce Metzger who was partly responsible for propagating this urban myth at least had the integrity to retract this false accusation in the 3rd edition of his book. Here is the exact quote from Mr. Metzger himself.


“What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion.” Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.


You can see the article by DeJonge in the pdf format at this site here -


http://www.thescripturealone.com/De%20Jonge%20-%20Erasmus%20and%20the%20Comma%20Johanneum.pdf

 

The church Council of Carthage in A.D. 415 is highly significant.   Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians and a group of bishops from North Africa.  An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ’s deity. Acting as spokesman for some 350 church bishops Eugenius confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren with these words: “…and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.


The Council of Carthage of 484 AD -

 In English one of the interesting summaries is given in the 

Irish Ecclesiastical Record “Victor Vitensis on the Vandal Persecution”.

Part II is in the 1898 edition, p. 24-37 by Philip Burton. 
 And the basics are that there was a confession of faith presented, and that confession of faith included and emphasized the heavenly witnesses.  Summaries are given, e.g. William Aldis Wright (1831-1914):


“It is also cited by a contemporary African writer, Victor Vitensis, in his history of the Vandal persecution, written about the year 484, who, in his third book, thus represents the clause as contained in the Confession of Faith, drawn up by Eugenius, bishop of Carthage, and signed by 400 bishops.  ” Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unum sunt.”



Victor Vitensis (b. circa 430) was an African bishop of the Province of Byzacena (called Vitensis from his See of Vita). His importance rests on his Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, temporibus Geiserici et Hunirici regum Wandalorum. This is mainly a contemporary narrative of the cruelties practised against the orthodox Christians of Northern Africa by the Arian Vandals.


 Victor throws much light on social and religious conditions in Carthage and on the African liturgy of the period. His history contains many documents not otherwise accessible, e.g. the Confession of Faith drawn up for the orthodox bishops by Eugenius of Carthage and presented to Huneric at the conference of Catholic and Arian bishops in 484.

Victor of Vita: history of the Vandal persecution (1992) 


 

Council of Carthage 484 – confession of faith, with heavenly witnesses, English translation (emphasis added): 

And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’ Surely he does not say ‘three separated by a difference in quality’ or ‘divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them ?’ No, he says that the ‘three are one.’ But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: ‘It is the divine Spirit … (p. 56)


It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in “the most approved copies”.  John Gill also believed in the inspiration of this verse.


When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he included 1 John 5:7-8. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; and he described some of these as very “ancient codices” sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven’t the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these “ancient codices”? They must have contained 1 John 5:7 because Ximenes included the verse.


A Trail of Evidence


We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful time line of references to this verse:

Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: “It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the “third” century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage.”


200 AD – Tertullian’s quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: “And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said “I and the Father are one entity” refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number.”


250 AD – Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One” in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says “IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One.” He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn’t part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?


350 AD – Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]


350 AD – Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]


380 AD – Priscillian in Liber Apologeticus quotes “and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”


In his book A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7, Michael Maynard, M.L.S, has at least two references to this quote. On page 39 he writes: 380 Priscillian. Liber Apologeticus. (This quote as given by A.E. Brooke from Schepps. Vienna Corpus, xviii) As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are on in Christ Jesus.”


Then on page 239 of his book, Mr. Maynard quotes from a Mr. Claude Jenkins’ 1942 article titled A Newly Discovered Reference to the Heavenly Witnesses (1 John 5:7). From this book Mr. Maynard says: Jenkins made an especially valuable comment here: “Since the days of Porson, the most important contribution on the Latin side has been the discovery of the tractates of Priscillian in the Wurzburg MS. which throws the evidence back to the fourth century and quotes the passage (Priscillian Tractate i.4).”


Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: “And John the Evangelist says, . . . “And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one”. (Varimadum 90:20-21).


415 AD – Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the “orthodox.” It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn’t in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as “Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus”.


450-530 AD. Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:


A) Vigilius Tapensis in “Three Witnesses in Heaven”


B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]


C) Fulgentius in “The Three Heavenly Witnesses” [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]


500 AD – Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]


527 AD – Fulgentius in Contra Arianos stated: “Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt.”


550 AD – The “Speculum” has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]


636 AD – Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB.


750 AD – Wizanburgensis, a Latin mss., contains the reference.


800 AD – Jerome’s Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today.


157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.


Now the “Waldensian,” or “Vaudois” Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. Theodore Beza, John Wesley and Johnathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.


Many critics of this passage like to say that 1 John 5:7 occurs in no ancient language version except the Latin. Well, not only is the passage found in the Latin Vulgate, but it is also in some Old Latin manuscripts, and the Old Latin translation dates from around 200 A.D.  As far as I know we do not have any specific manuscript from this date, but we do have some later copies of this ancient translation.  The known Old Latin affirmations of the Comma (some with variations from the “canonical” version) are:

m — around the 5th century in the Catholic Epistles
p — 13th century
c — 12th -13th centuries
dem — 13th century
div — 13th century
q — 7th century


The Old Latin translation was first made 150 years before anything we have in the remaining Greek copies. In addition to this, the newest UBS critical text has now admitted that it is found in some Armenian manuscripts.


The first printed edition of the Armenian Bible was published in 1666 by Bishop Uscan. It contains 1 John 5:7. Also Giles Guthier, using two Syriac manuscripts published an edition at Hamburg in 1664. This edition places the passage in the text. There is a fairly modern translation of the Syriac that includes the verse done by James Murdock in 1852. It contains 1 John 5:7 in full.   And the first printed Georgian Bible, published at Moscow in 1743 contains 1 John 5:7.


Dr. Schrivener mentions a “few recent” Slavonic manuscripts as having the passage. (Jack Moorman, “When the KJV departs from the majority text” 2nd. edition.)


Internal Evidence


Dr. Thomas Holland, who recently wrote “Crowned with Glory”, a very good book which defends the King James Bible, states: “The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are [preceded] by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.”


Michael Maynard, M.L.S. in his 382 page book “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8″ quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) who remarks concerning this verse in his Theological Orations: . . . “he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?”


Mr. Maynard concludes: “Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7.” It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven.


Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek” (1891).


Bishop Middleton in his book, “Doctrine of the Greek Article,” argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage.


Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.


Dr. Edward F. Hills argues the same grammatical points in defending the legitimacy of 1 John 5:7 in his book “The King James Version Defended” on pages 211-212.  Dr. Hills says: “…the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in I John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in I John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. FOR IN VERSE 6 THE WORD SPIRIT PLAINLY REFERS TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, THE THIRD PERSON OF THE TRINITY. SURELY IN THIS VERSE THE WORD SPIRIT IS “PERSONALIZED,” AND YET THE NEUTER GENDER IS USED. Therefore, since personalization DID NOT bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine Comma is retained, as reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. IT WAS DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE NOUNS FATHER AND WORD, WHICH ARE MASCULINE. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.” (Emphasis mine.)


Dr. Gaussen in his famous book “The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures” uses the same grammatical argument and concludes: “Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent.”


Regarding the grammatical argument in favor of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, King James Bible critic Gary Hudson made this erroneous comment: “As far as we have been able to discover, this argument was first suggested by Robert L. Dabney in 1871. Aware of the fact that the manuscript (external) evidence for the verse is extremely scant, Dabney introduced a new argument in its favor based upon what he believed to be an important internal consideration:” (I John 5:7 Grammatical Argument Refuted, Gary Hudson)


Mr. Nolan employed usage of this “grammatical argument” in 1815, that is, 56 years prior to Hudson pinning it on Robert Dabney. Nolan discusses it on pages 259-261,294, and 304 of his work.


Gregory Nazianzus in “Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit, c.XIX acknowledges such a grammatical difficulty as well.


Another King James Bible critic, Doug Kutilek, says: “No Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words.”


On the contrary, Mr. Kutilek is refuted by Ben David in his work, “Three Letters Addressed to The Editor of The Quarterly Review, In Which is Demonstrated The Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses- I John v.7.” Mr. David informs us, “If we turn to the Greek fathers, we shall find them equally well acquainted with the verse, and equally reluctant to quote it. I will notice a few of those who have been brought forward as vouchers for its genuinenss: “Basil paraphrases the text, but is afraid to quote it: “Oi pisteuontes eis Theon, kai Logon, Kai Pneuma, mian ousan theoteta. WHO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND THE WORD, AND THE SPIRIT, BEING ONE GODHEAD.” (Ben David, pg. 57)


Continuing with Ben David: “Theodorus, the master of Chrysostom and a contemporary of the emperor Julian, wrote in “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist” ( Eis ten Epistolen Ioannou tou Euaggelistou peri tou eis Theos en Triadi.) This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century.”


“Cyril, in his Thesaurus, attempts to prove that the Holy Spirit is God. With this view he extracts the 6th and 8th verse, and omits the 7th: yet he inserts an argument which demonstrates that this verse lay before him, though he was too much afraid directly to use it. Cyril’s words are these: Eirekos gar oti to pneuma esti tou Theou to marturoun mikron ti proelthon, epipherei, a marturia tou Theou meizon esti. Pos oun esti poiema to ton olon Patri suntheologoumenon kai tes agias triados sumplerotikon – “For having said that it is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little forward he adds, the witness of God is greater: How then is he a creature WHO IS SAID TO BE GOD WITH THE UNIVERSAL FATHER, AND COMPLETES THE NUMBER OF THE HOLY TRIAD.” The words in capitals form the substance of the seventh verse which Cyril wished to quote, as being direct to his purpose; yet through fear he declined to produce it in express terms. This was in the fifth century.


Mr. Frederick Nolan stated in 1815: “instead of “the Father, Word, and Spirit,” the remaining passage would have been direct concessions to the Gnostics and Sabellians, who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and the Son, were equally obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholics and the Arians. Nor did the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had other passages which would accomplish all that they could effect; and without their aid, they maintained and established their tenents.” (An Inquiry Into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Rev. Frederick Nolan, 1815, pg. 278-279)


Mr. Nolan gives two reasons why I John 5:7 is seemingly scanty in reference to quotations from the church fathers:
One – The passage in I John 5:7 is among those like I Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 that have all been tampered with in the manuscript tradition, all three having to do with the deity of Christ as “God.”


Two – That the major reason for NOT QUOTING I John 5:7 was based on its wording, chiefly, purporting Jesus Christ as the “WORD” instead of the “SON.” Hence, with the Sabellian heresy being debated that Jesus Christ is the Father with no distinction, I John 5:7 would further propagate that notion. Therefore it wasn’t quoted.


Jesse Boyd also suggests the following reasons why the passage may have “dropped out” of 1 John 5:7.  He says: “The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma.  This “unethical intellectualism” had begun to make inroads among churches in John’s day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.  The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John’s mind in his first epistle; the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ.  The Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the Johannine Comma.  In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century.  Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism.  In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries.  Not long after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, “the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian.”  Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the New Testament.  This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.”

There is another argument based on internal evidence that anyone can clearly see just by reading the Holy Bible in English. This has to do with the spiritual significance of numbers. We all know how significant the number 7 is, representing the spiritual perfections of the Godhead.


There are many highly significant words or titles that are found either 7 times or in combinations of 7 only in the King James Bible. Words like Son of man (49×4) Son of God (49 or 7×7 in the New Testament), Most High (49), Jesus Christ (196 or 49×4 – different numbers in Critical Texts), Word of God (49 – different numbers in Critical Texts), My Beloved Son (7 times), It is written (63 or 7 times 9 in N.T.), Firstborn (7), Kingdom of God (70), Holy Spirit (7 in the KJB), Church (77 – different numbers in Critical Texts), Worshippers (7), Jerusalem (144 times in Textus Receptus, 21 times 7, different numbers in Critical Texts since they omit Jerusalem in Luke 2:42; 24:49 and Acts 18:21) and only when 1 John 5:7 is included does the title referring to Jesus Christ as the Word occur 7 times.


It is found in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”


John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…”


1 John 1:1 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.”


1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”


Revelation 19:13 “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.”


Not only does the expression “The Word”, referring to the Lord Jesus Christ occur 7 times with the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, but also in the epistle of 1 John itself, the word “ho logos” (the word) occurs exactly 7 times when including this verse. See 1 John 1:1,10; 2:5,7,14; 3:18; and 5:7. Just another coincidence – huh?


If you are looking to scholars to settle the issue for you, there will never be any certainty at all. Those who criticize the King James Bible as being just another fallible book, riddled with errors, have nothing sure and certain to give you in its place. They set themselves up as the final authority but they constantly differ among themselves. It is like playing “scholar poker”. “Well, my scholars can beat your scholars.” No, they can’t. I’ll see your scholars and raise you two more.”


They may say that Dr. So and So went to Dallas Theological Whatever and he doesn’t believe 1 John 5:7 should be in the bible. Well, on the other hand, there are many learned men with just as much knowledge who absolutely believe 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Holy Bible.


Again, here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.


Cyprian – 250 AD,
Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Thomas Strouse, Floyd Jones, Peter Ruckman, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.


“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 7 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the French Martin and Ostervald bibles, the Russian Synodal, the Portuguese de Almeida and Bíblia Sagrada, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, and in most English versions till 1881.

 

It is important to note that the Greek Orthodox Church’s New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions. The first printed text of the entire Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot Bible of 1520.  It included all of 1 John 5:7 and it continues to be found in the Greek New Testaments used by the Greek Orthodox Churches today.  The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America


http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/biblegreek/

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι·


Pre-Lutheran German Bibles  that include 1 John 5:7


1466 A.D. Strassburg:  Johann Mentel
1470 A.D.  Strassburg:  H. Eggestein
1475 A.D.  Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer
1476 A.D. Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer
1476 A.D.Nuremberg:  Johammes Sensenschmidt & Andreas Frisner
1477 A.D.Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer
1478 A.D. Kolner Bible, Die Neiderdeutschen Bibelfruhdrucke
1483 A.D.Nurember:  Anton Koberger
1485 A.D. Strassburg:  Johann Reinhard de Gruningen
1490 A.D. Augsburg:  Johann Schonsperger:

“wann drey sind, die da geben gezeugknub auff der erde, der geyst, das wasser, onnd auch de blutt, onnd dise drey sind eyns.  Und drey sind die da geben gezeugknub im hymmel.  Der vater, das wortt, onnd der heylige geyst, on dise drey sind eins.  Ob wir auffnemen.”

And it is in the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 today – “7 Denn drei sind es, die Zeugnis ablegen im Himmel: der Vater, das Wort und der Heilige Geist, und diese drei sind eins;”

The full text of 1 John 5:7 is found in several of the surviving Old Latin copies.  The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 includes the verse.  In the Clementine Vulgate it reads just like the King James Bible: “Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.”


The Clementine Vulgate can be seen here:  

http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html


Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide.


Will Kinney


The numerical “coincidences” will not convince the gainsayers, but one brother posted the following example of numerical symmetry regarding this most disputed verse.


Standing Up for The King James Bible:  Beauty of Gods Perfect Word.
The First Verse and Last Verse in King James Verse Bible: Who knows what lies in between!
 Genesis 1:1
 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 Rev.22:21
 Now this last verse: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
 1 John 5:7
 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 Count the number of letters in the first verse of the KJB 44
 Count the number of letters in the last verse of the KJB + 44
 Count the number of letters in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 88
 Count the number of vowels in the first verse of the KJB 17
 Count the number of vowels in the last verse of the KJB + 17
 Count the number of vowels in the 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 34
 Count the number of consonants in the first verse of the KJB 27
 Count the number of consonants in the last verse of the KJB + 27
 Count the number of consonants in 1 John 5:7 in the KJB 54
 Therefore the total number of letters, consonants, and vowels in the 1 John 5:7 
equal those in “the first and the last” verse in the Holy Bible.
 Now if that’s not enough proof…

The first verse’s words – 10 
The last verse’s words – 12
 The words in the verse 1 John 5:7 -22 


For further study and documentation about the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, may I recommend a well done article by my Christian brother and friend, Marty Shue. He has written a response to Daniel Wallace’s criticism of this verse found here:

 http://www.avdefense.webs.com/1John5-7.html

Here is another good one on 1 John 5:7 by brother Joshua Alvarez at his site KJV Only Education

http://kjvonly.us/thesethreeareone/ 


Another good site is KJV Today. It has a lot of historical references to 1 John 5:7 and other evidence proving that 1 John 5:7 is inspired Scripture and belongs in our Bible


http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Origen-or-Pseudo-Origen-


Additional comments: At our Which Version club – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/ – we were discussing the textual and historic evidence for 1 John 5:7 and one of the members wrote in with these questions:


“I know there are other reasons why ya’ll claim the comma (1 John 5:7) should be included, but doesnt it makes sense to just admit that the KJV is assumed to be right, and where evidence supports it, that evidence reigns supreme, and if the same type or even the same exact evidence does not support it, that evidence is lacking in that case?”


I then replied: Hi Kevin, these are good questions. I think basically what you are asking is Why do we sometimes uphold a particular reading (1 John 5:7 for example) that does not share the same textual evidence as do many other verses that are in dispute?


Kevin, this is the problem faced by ALL translations and all Bible versions. Modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, Holman, NKJV etc. ALL often will adopt or include a reading or omit an entire verse or several whole verses, even when the vast majority of texts and other Bible versions do not agree with them, and none of these modern versions agree all the way through with any other.


Sometimes the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of a whole verse, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, Holman etc. will omit it all because it is not found in one or two mss. The KJB will also, though not nearly as often nor to the same extent, sometimes adopt a “minority” reading.


Very often, particularly in the book of Revelation, the textual evidence for certain readings is equally divided. If one takes a purely humanistic view of Scripture, then the only conclusion we can come to is that there is no complete and inerrant Bible in any language and that God has basically left the scene as far as preserving His words is concerned. This also means that God actually lied to us when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His WORDS (NOT just the general, ballpark message) shall not pass away.


It is my belief that Textual Criticism or Textual Studies alone will never solve the problem or answer the question of “Do we have an inerrant Bible?” Generally speaking, the textual evidence is far and away in favor of the King James Bible readings, but there are a few notable exceptions.


What I believe we need to do to come to a final decision on the issue of an inerrant Bible is to look elsewhere than mere Textual Criticism (which is a totally confused mess, and I can prove it). We need to look at the internal evidence and the spiritual fruit produced by the two different approaches to God’s pure words.


The true Holy Bible will be internally consistent and always true (even if there are some “apparent” contradictions). I have found through my comparative studies that ONLY the King James Bible is internally consistent and doctrinally sound 100% of the time.
ALL other versions, especially the more modern ones like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and the NKJV break down at several points and teach false doctrines, thus proving themselves to be false witnesses.


Here is one study you might like to look at called “No Doctrines are Changed?”

http://brandplucked.webs.com/nodoctrinechanged.htm


ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and the NKJV frequently (or sometimes as in the NKJV), reject the clear Hebrew texts, and God only gave His inspired words in the O.T. to the Jews – not to the Latins, Syrians or the Greeks.


Another huge difference is the spiritual fruit produced by the various bible versions. God has used the King James Bible like no other in history. It has replaced all other previous English Bible versions, and was the one God used in bringing about the worldwide modern missionary movement. People who use and still believe the King James Bible are the only ones who actually believe The Bible IS (NOT “WAS in the non-existent originals”) the inspired and inerrant words of God.


The fruit of the modern, multiple-choice and contradictory bible versions is the open denial of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in any language. Unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture is increasing more and more every day, and it will only get worse, not better. The Bible itself tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days, and this is happening now at an alarming rate.


For more information on this growing unbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture, may I suggest you read this article I have put together called “There is NO inerrant Bible”

http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm


The Battle for the Bible is a spiritual battle and only God can open the eyes of the blind, and He does this by His grace and mercy alone; not because we are more holy, or smarter, or pray and study more than others do. It is all by His grace and He often chooses the weak and the babes to reveal these things to.


“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; That no flesh should glory in his presence.” 1 Corinthians 1:26-29


“I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Matthew 11:25-26


You either believe that the King James Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God, or you become your own final authority and make up your own peculiar “bible version” as you go along and your version will differ from everybody else’s. You won’t even believe that “yours” is the 100% true and inerrant words of God Almighty.


Will Kinney

Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm


Another site called King James Version has some useful information on how even among the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” like Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, we see textual differences and corruptions in 1 John 5:6 (the previous verse) and Why as well as How the words in verse 7 would have “dropped out” of the inspired text.  You can see that article here:


http://sites.google.com/site/kjvtoday/home/translation-issues/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

The Sine Qua Non of Enduring Freedom, a post from the Trinity Foundation.org

Editor’s note: This essay first appeared in A Man of Principle: Essays in Honor of Hans F. Sennholz, the Festschrift for Dr. Robbins’ Economics professor at Grove City College, which Dr. Robbins co-edited in 1992. It has since been published in Dr. Robbins’ Freedom and Capitalism: Essays on Christian Politics and Economics (The Trinity Foundation, 2006).

Dr. Robbins was blessed by the Lord to see the logical implications of the policies of our federal government long before others saw where we were heading and now are. The Bible gives us all we need to know for life and godliness, which includes the limits on governments. If we wish to see God bless America with freedom again, then the church needs to (1) repent of rejecting the Bible as its only source of truth and authority, (2) read it, (3) believe it, and (4) live according to it.

 

Hans Sennholz is a greater defender of freedom and free enterprise than most of his teachers, peers, and students. The reason is simple, though little mentioned in polite society: A logically competent defense of a free society requires divinely revealed information; all other defenses fail. Sennholz, almost alone among eminent free enterprise economists, rests his defense of a free society on revelation.

 

Failed Defenses

There are four principal methods of defending a free society: economics, Natural Law, Utilitarianism, and Biblical revelation. In this essay, I shall briefly point out some of the fallacies in the first three defenses, beginning with economics.

Economics. A competent defense of freedom and free enterprise cannot rest on Austrian economics, Chicagoan economics, Keynesian economics, or any other body of economic theory. The reason is quite simple: Wertfreiheit. Economics, as a value-free science, simply is not and cannot be a source of values. Like physics, economics describes (or purports to describe) what is, not what ought to be. An economist qua economist, even (or especially) if he be the purest Austrian, cannot logically say that free markets, wealth, and increasing productivity are good, or that price controls, shortages, and unemployment are bad; at best he can only point out the consequences of price controls and free markets. An Austrian economist cannot logically say that John Maynard Keynes was wrong in preferring the short run to the long run. An economist cannot even say that economics is good. Economics can establish no values, including its own. An economist, qua economist, can make no ethical statements whatever. He can, however, give technical advice; and the better the economist, the better the advice. If a ruler wishes to impoverish a people, he would do well to listen to his Austrian advisers: They would be able to advise him how best to do it.

Utilitarianism. Since economics is a descriptive science, those interested in defending a free society must find their means of defense elsewhere. Ludwig von Mises chose Utilitarianism. It was an odd choice for a refugee from totalitarianism, for if Utilitarianism could justify any political regime, it would surely be totalitarianism. The “greatest good of the greatest number” is a slogan that has been used to justify all sorts of (at the time) politically correct murders and depredations in the twentieth century. But Utilitarianism, though it purports to offer ethical guidance, is an ethical failure. It can provide no ethical guidance, for the calculations of pains and pleasures that it requires are simply impossible.(1) Utilitarianism commits the naturalistic fallacy as well, for the fact that men are motivated to act by pain and pleasure does not imply that they ought to be.

Natural Law. Other students of Mises have chosen some form of natural law theory as the basis for their defense of a free society. But natural law, whether in its Aristotelian, Stoic, Thomistic, or Lockean form, rests on a logical blunder of the first order, first pointed out by David Hume: Natural law theory violates the rule that conclusions of arguments can contain no more than the premises.

John Locke unwittingly illustrated the naturalistic fallacy when he wrote that persons in the state of nature, “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.”(2) If the premises of an argument are descriptive (as in Locke’s statement), the conclusion must also be descriptive. Ought cannot be derived from is. The Marquis de Sade illustrated what happens when one tries to base ethics on nature. It is not surprising that natural law has been used by various natural lawyers to reach various conclusions on such issues as the rights of women, children, and animals; slavery, abortion, infanticide, and marriage. Natural law, being unwritten, is very much a wax nose that can be used to “justify” any conclusion one prefers.(3) Actually, of course, it justifies no action and offers no ethical guidance. Natural law is not a logically competent defense of a free society.

 

A Logically Competent Defense

In contrast to his secular colleagues, Sennholz rests his defense of a free society on information revealed by God. In that, he has displayed far more perspicacity than most other contemporary apologists for freedom.

In a 1987 book, Debts and Deficits, he wrote, “A [political and economic] reform…would have to restore the harmony of interests and repair moral standards. It would have to rebuild the economic order on the old foundation of the Eighth Commandment – Thou shalt not steal – and the Tenth – Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor’s.”(4) In a discussion of Social Security, he wrote: “When public assistance seems to be called for, the children of a retired worker should be given an opportunity to contribute to the support of their parents. As parents are responsible for their children, so are children responsible for their parents. No Social Security System should eradicate this moral law and Biblical Commandment.”(5)

Discussing the burden that AIDS is placing on government health and welfare programs, Sennholz has written: “In ages gone, when moral obligations meant conformity to the will of God, carriers of contagious diseases who knowingly and willingly infected other individuals, and thereby inflicted great suffering and early death on others, would have been treated as criminals, yea, even as murderers, and been promptly quarantined from the healthy community….”(6)

Sennholz uses Christ’s story of the Good Samaritan to make another point:

 

A helper and benefactor to the unfortunate and poor, the Good Samaritan binds the wounds, nurses the sick, and helps them get back on their feet. He does not call for government programs that make poverty a permanent social institution playing a central role in politics. He does not favor progressive income taxation, nor depend on poverty administrators consuming the lion’s share of the poverty budget, or poverty politicians enacting minimum wage laws, occupational licensing, and union power or privilege. To be a helper indeed is to lend a friendly hand to a needy person; it is personal effort and sacrifice.(7)

 

In one of his most recent works, Three Economic Commandments, Sennholz asserts that

 

Both economic systems [capitalism and socialism] rest on the foundation of an ethical order that provides answers to questions such as: Why and when is an economic act called “good” or “bad,” “right” or “wrong”? What standard of conduct is acceptable and commendable or distasteful and repugnant? What is virtue in economic life?

The market order or capitalism finds its answers in the Judeo-Christian code of morality. Private ownership in production is squarely based on the Ten Commandments. It obviously rests on the Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not steal. The private-ownership system also builds on the solid foundation of the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill, which includes every form of coercion and violence…. To freely exchange goods and services, the contracting parties must not deceive each other. They must not bear false witness, which is the Ninth Commandment of the Decalogue.(8)

 

These quotations from Sennholz’s writings – and there are many more – clearly teach that it is information revealed in the Bible that forms the basis for capitalism and freedom. It is the purpose of this essay to summarize some of the Biblical information on the nature, power, and limits of government; specifically, what role government should play in money, banking, and foreign affairs.

 

The Hebrew Republic

The Old Testament, in particular the book of 1 Samuel, is the oldest textbook in political freedom. Absent from its pages are the communism of Plato, the fascism of Aristotle, and the democratic totalitarianism of Rousseau. Written about 1000 bc, the book of 1 Samuel may be the first handbook in republican political theory.

God established a model government in ancient Israel, and it is the only government for which he gave explicit rules. While many of those rules applied solely to ancient Israel – cities of refuge, for example – others apply to all governments. The judicial laws of Israel expired with that nation, but it is possible to discern general principles in the Old Testament laws that may be applied to modern governments.

As for the form of government, God established a republic in Israel. The nation was divided into twelve tribes, much as the United States is divided into fifty states. Each tribe had its own territory and border; each had its own local government; and the nation as a whole had a national government. There was no king; there was no powerful central government. The government consisted mostly of judges; there was no legislature to create new laws each year, only judges to settle disputes in accord with the laws that God had already given.(9) There was no standing army. There was no military draft or national service. Education was not a function of government, but of parents, schools, and synagogue. Charity was handled privately. Taxes were extremely low. Money – gold and silver – was provided by private merchants, not by the government.

The remarkable thing about this political arrangement is that it apparently was unique in ancient times, at least in the Middle East. This very uniqueness became an objection to it during the time of the prophet Samuel. The people of Israel rebelled against their model government. The story is told in 1 Samuel 8:1-18:

 

Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba.

But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them…. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties; he will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your menservants and your maidservants and your finest young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

 

Despite this detailed and explicit warning from God, the people of Israel persisted in their demand to have a king “like all the nations.” So God instructed Samuel to give them what they wanted. In Augustinian terms, big government is both the result of, and the punishment for, sin.

God’s warning against monarchy makes it clear that God despises all earthly monarchies: The people of Israel rejected God as their invisible king in favor of a visible, human king. This account in 1 Samuel makes it clear that human kings, powerful governments, are ersatz gods; they are idols of a wayward people. Subsequent verses in 1 Samuel repeat God’s disapproval of monarchy:

 

But you have today rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations, and you have said to him, “No, but set a king over us!” (10:19). “Is today not the wheat harvest? I will call to the Lord, and he will send thunder and rain, that you may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking a king for yourselves.” So Samuel called to the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day…. And all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves” [12:17-19].

 

But God’s warning was directed at more than monarchy: It is a warning against big government generally, a warning of what happens when God’s model government, a republic of limited powers, is rejected. Rather than the governors being servants of the people, the people become servants of the governors. There is an echo of 1 Samuel in the New Testament:

 

But there was also rivalry among them [Christ’s disciples] as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves” [Luke 22:24-26].

 

The American notion that government ought to be the servant of the people, not exercise dominion over them, may be traced directly to 1 Samuel 8 and Luke 22.

 

Taking

In the warning God gives the Israelites through the prophet Samuel he uses the phrase “he will take” six times. The monarchy, the strong central government demanded by the people, will be a tyrannical government. The king will take:

 

their sons and their daughters; their best fields, vineyards and olive groves; a tenth of their grain and vintage; their menservants, their maidservants, their finest young men and their donkeys; a tenth of their sheep; and the people themselves to be his servants.

 

Through this warning we can understand more clearly what the Hebrew republic was like, for none of the evils about which God warned the Israelites characterized the republic. First Samuel is the earliest historical account that contains such a detailed analysis of the overweening powers of big government and explains the powers of such a government as the result of a defection from God and from the divinely revealed model government.

Notice that the people of Israel demanded a change in the form of their government because of corruption among Samuel’s sons, whom Samuel had unwisely installed as judges. Rather than eliminating the corrupt officials, as they ought to have done, they blamed the system of government itself and exchanged their unique republic for the pagan system of monarchy.

The king they demanded would take their sons for himself, for his chariots, to run before his chariots, to be captains in his armies, and to work for him growing food and making weapons. The primary difference between the Hebrew republic and the later monarchy was what we have come to call a military-industrial complex. The growth of this establishment would begin with a draft and national service, for the king would need enormous quantities of cheap labor to sustain his war machine.

The draftees would be the servants of the king. Some would work closely with him; others would be part of his personal entourage and palace guard. A standing army would be established for the first time – there would be captains of thousands and captains of fifties. Chariots, which at that time were offensive weapons, would be added for the first time to Israel’s defense forces. Other draftees would work to support this military machine, tending the crops in the fields the king had taken from the people, reaping the harvests for the army and the bureaucracy, and making weapons of war and equipment for the king’s chariots.

The first warning that God gives to the Israelites who were demanding a king is a warning against the militarism of the king. Militarism is not an exclusive characteristic of monarchies, but it is a trait of all large governments, whether they be called monarchies, people’s democracies, or welfare states. The military draft, a standing army, weapons factories, a large government bureaucracy, large government farms – all these were absent from the Hebrew republic, and all were disapproved by God.

But this military-agricultural-industrial complex was merely the first of the oppressions the king would impose on the people. He would compel their sons to serve him, and he would take their daughters as well. They would feed his troops, his bureaucracy, his weapons makers, and his own appetites: “He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers.” The taking of both sons and daughters for the king’s service would be the monarchy’s version of national service.

Forced labor, however, would not be enough to support the new central government. There are three factors of production, and the new king would take all of them: labor, land, and capital – land and capital in the form of fields, vineyards, groves, and grain. Eminent domain, the right of the ruler to take private property for public use, became, for the first time, a policy of the government of ancient Israel.

After the king had taken all this property from the people of Israel he would give it to his supporters: “He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants” (1 Samuel 8:15). Today we might call such a program a transfer or entitlement program, redistributing the wealth, or, echoing Bastiat, legalized theft. The last phrase is the most accurate, for God regarded these actions of the king as violations of the Eighth Commandment, “You shall not steal.”

But the king, God warns, will take more. In addition to their children, land, and capital, he will take their servants, their servants’ children, and even their farm animals “and put them to his work.” When this massive program of compulsory labor and taxation is finally in place, God continues, “You will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.” The kind of government that God had created for ancient Israel, a government in which the governors were the servants of the governed, would be changed into a pagan form of government in which the rulers would exercise dominion over the people.

In his detailed warning to the ancient Israelites God explains, by way of contrast, the kind of things governors are not supposed to do. Rulers exceed their authority if they:

 

1. Use compulsory labor, either for their armies, bureaucracies, or households.

2. Establish standing armies.

3. Establish government production facilities.

4. Redistribute property.

5. Impose taxes of ten percent or more.

6. Nationalize the means of production.

 

From this warning we can see how far the United States has moved from the Biblical model: Our taxes are far higher than ten percent; they are closer to forty percent. Our government, although it is not drafting anyone at the moment, is registering young men for the draft, and it asserts its right to compel them to serve at any time. We have an enormous standing army of more than 2.6 million. There is an even larger federal bureaucracy, to say nothing of the state bureaucracies. Altogether, nearly twenty million people work for the local, state, and federal governments. The federal government owns factories, power plants, banks, and one-third of the land in the United States. More than half of the federal budget consists of transfer programs by which the government takes property from taxpayers and gives it to tax consumers. Our kind of government, in brief, is the one about which God warned the ancient Israelites.

 

The Hebrew Constitution

While 1 Samuel 8 establishes the limits of governmental power in a negative way by warning against the consequences of rejecting a republic and establishing a monarchy, Exodus 21-23 and some other important passages establish the limits of governmental power in another way, by telling rulers what they are permitted and required to do. As one examines these chapters, one is struck by the preponderance of laws about domestic and internal affairs. There are laws about murder, accidental killing, kidnapping, assaulting and cursing one’s parents, negligence, stealing, trespass, seduction and rape, witchcraft, idolatry, lying, bribery, and the treatment of foreigners. There is little mention of either foreign or commercial relations.

This dearth of information is in itself important. It means, first of all, that the Hebrew republic was to be primarily concerned with its own affairs, not with either economic or foreign interventionism. It was supposed to mind its own business. Its business was to see that justice was done within its own borders. The judges of the republic were not to be concerned with establishing similar governments elsewhere, even in neighboring states, nor with rectifying the enormous injustices that must have occurred daily in the pagan nations that surrounded the republic. The borders of Israel were the limits of the jurisdiction of the republic. Even within those borders, government was not to concern itself with commercial regulations; its primary interest in commerce was to punish fraudulent weights and measures.

 

The State and Money

In his book Honest Money, The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking, Gary North makes an excellent point: “There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that gold and silver became money metals because Abraham, Moses, David, or any other political leader announced one afternoon: ‘From now on, gold is money!’…the State didn’t create money.”(10) This is quite true. The Bible is the oldest and most reliable history book we have, and there is nothing in it to indicate that the State originally created money. Rather, the evidence is that money originated in the market, when merchants offered their own coins and weights of metal in trade.

Those who think that the use of gold or silver as money evolved relatively late in human history might learn something from the history of Abraham. About two thousand years before Christ, he paid for a field by weighing out 400 shekels of silver. The account is given in Genesis 23.(11)

Honesty. From this example of Abraham we see that money in the Bible is a weight of metal. Talents were certain weights of silver. Now this historical fact does not require modern money to be a weight of silver or even of metal. But it does lead to another major teaching of the Bible on money: If money consists of weights, and throughout history it usually has, then the money must be full-bodied; less than honest weight constitutes fraud. There are several passages on this point in the Bible:

 

You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt [Leviticus 19:35-36].

The Lord abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight [Proverbs 11:1].

The Lord detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him [Proverbs 20:23].

Do not have two differing weights in your bag – one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house – one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you [Deuteronomy 25:13-15].

 

Any use of fraudulent weights was subject to the penalties imposed for theft: at least double restitution, with the ultimate penalty being required for recidivism. The dishonesty of fraudulent weights is a case of the broader principle that nothing is to be misrepresented.

Fractional Reserves. If modern money does not consist of weights of metal, and it need not, it must nevertheless not misrepresent itself. The Biblical requirement is not for metal money and one hundred percent gold reserves, but for honesty. So long as private (not government) paper money is not misrepresented by its owners, it is clearly acceptable. Government paper money, on the other hand, even when backed by gold or silver, is always wrong, for government has no authority to print money.

Retribution, not Regulation. There is another principle besides honesty underlying these rules. It would seem that there were no regulatory police in ancient Israel; buyers and sellers and their agents were responsible for making sure that they were not being cheated, and if detected in fraud, a person was subject to stiff penalties. Biblical law follows the principle of punishing wrong-doers rather than trying to regulate everyone in the hope of preventing wrongdoing. That is why Paul writes in Romans 13 that the purpose of civil government is to punish evil-doers.

Legal Tender. Another thing that follows from the restricted Biblical role of government with regard to money and banking is the absence of legal tender laws. I wish to make clear what I mean by “legal tender,” since it seems to have at least two different meanings. Of course, if a government is to collect taxes or payments of any sort, it must specify acceptable forms of payment. This is one meaning of “legal tender.” In the early years of the American republic, this problem was solved by the government publishing a list of monies in which it would accept payment. It did not restrict payment to one form of money, but published a broad list of acceptable means of payment. The constitutionality of this form of legal tender was not challenged.

But there is another meaning of the phrase “legal tender”: Usually it means that a creditor is compelled to accept whatever the government has declared to be tender as payment for outstanding debts. Each Federal Reserve Note bears the words, “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.” Those words mean that a private creditor must accept them in payment for a debt. It makes little difference that the creditor may have a contract calling for payment in something else, for the courts do not, as a rule, order specific performance of contracts. Perhaps at one time they did. But today a creditor is compelled to accept the government paper as payment.

There is no warrant in the Bible for this sort of legal tender. Rather, the clear implication is that the parties to a contract may set the terms of the contract, so long as they are not illegal in themselves, and those terms must be obeyed. The Bible praises the man who makes a promise and keeps it, even though he might be injured by keeping it. It condemns the man who defaults on a deal, or seeks to substitute something of lesser value for that which he promised to deliver. Legal tender laws are an institutionalized form of defaulting on debts.

Mammon. Finally, there is another aspect of money and the Bible that we ought to consider: money as mammon. Everyone knows that the Bible strongly condemns mammon, and many people equate mammon with money. The two, however, are not the same. Mammon is money worshiped. That is why Christ said, “You cannot serve God and mammon.” Mammon is money become an idol, and even beneficial things can become instruments of destruction if they are regarded more highly than they ought to be. The Bible condemns all forms of idolatry, including the idolatry of money. Ayn Rand did not understand this when she wrote her books, but perhaps she has a better understanding of it now.

This Biblical view of money and banking is reflected in Dr. Sennholz’s 1986 book, Money and Freedom, in which he advocates the repeal of compulsory tender laws and concludes:

 

Sound money and free banking are not impossible; they are merely illegal. That is why money must be deregulated…. In freedom, the money and banking industry can create sound and honest currencies, just as other free industries can provide efficient and reliable products.(12)

 

The State and Foreign Policy

Any adequate discussion of the foreign policy of ancient Israel must deal with several subjects: treaties, alliances, diplomacy, colonialism, espionage, and war. I shall discuss each of these briefly.

Treaties. In Exodus 23:20-33 there is an explicit command to Israel not to make treaties with the nations of Canaan: “You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods” (verse 32). God intended to destroy those nations, and he did not want Israel fraternizing with them. The command does not imply that all treaties are wrong, only that it was wrong for Israel to make treaties with the nations God was about to destroy. It was a command intended only for ancient Israel.

When treaties are made, however, they are to be kept, even if one is tricked into making the agreement. A treaty negotiated by Joshua with the Gibeonites resulted from his failure to follow God’s instruction (“The men of Israel…did not ask counsel of the Lord,” Joshua 9:14), and Joshua was deceived by the clever Gibeonites. Nevertheless, because the Israelites had sworn an oath, they were bound to keep it:

 

But the children of Israel did not attack them [the Gibeonites] because the rulers of the congregation had sworn to them by the Lord God of Israel. And all the congregation murmured against the rulers. Then all the rulers said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by the Lord God of Israel; now therefore we may not touch them” [Joshua 9:18-19].

 

Alliances. God’s command to ancient Israel not to make treaties with its neighbors does, however, raise the question of the legitimacy of making treaties and forming alliances. On alliances the Bible seems to speak quite clearly:

 

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but who do not look to the Holy One of Israel, nor seek the Lord…. Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh and not spirit. When the Lord stretches out his hand, both he who helps will fall, and he who is helped will fall down; they all will perish together [Isaiah 31:1, 3].

 

This seems to be a general condemnation of alliances and of trust in armies and weapons. The Bible disapproves of political and military alliances because they are acts of faith in weapons and soldiers, and not in God; and it discourages treaties because they are serious agreements that must be performed.

Diplomacy. The limitation on government-to-government contact in the Bible is so restrictive that embassies and permanent diplomatic missions were not authorized for the Hebrew republic. Rather, when the necessity arose, an emissary was dispatched for the specific purpose of carrying a message or discussing a problem. For example, after the Israelites had escaped from Egypt, Moses sent out emissaries to the King of Edom asking permission to pass through Edom: “Please let us pass through your country. We will not pass through fields or vineyards, nor will we drink water from wells; we will go along the king’s highway; we will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory” (Numbers 20:17). The King of Edom refused Moses’ request, and “Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory; so Israel turned away from him” (verse 21).

There are two things that ought to be noticed about this account: the use of emissaries for specific and unavoidable negotiations, and the refusal of Moses as the leader of God’s chosen people to cross the border of Edom without the Edomites’ permission.

Even when ancient Israel was a monarchy, it seems that it had no ambassadors or embassies abroad: “Now Hiram King of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon, because he heard that they had anointed him king in place of his father, for Hiram had always loved David. Then Solomon sent word to Hiram” (1 Kings 5: 1-2). Even between friends, Hiram and David, there apparently were no permanent ambassadors. King Hiram had helped David build his house, but he sent messengers to Solomon. There were no permanent ambassadors even under the monarchy.

No provision was made for resident ambassadors and embassies in the model government, the Hebrew republic; and even the monarchy, apparently, did not enlarge its meddling in foreign affairs to the point of sending and receiving permanent representatives.

Espionage. A related foreign policy question is the matter of spies, for perhaps the predominant function of embassies today (and perhaps whenever they have been used) is espionage. Ancient Israel used spies, but only during war and for short periods of time. Just as there was no standing army, so there were no standing armies of spies and diplomats. God commanded Moses to “Send men to spy out the land of Canaan,” one from each tribe (Numbers 13:2). Ten of the spies were worthless; two were useful. I suspect the same ratio has always held. Moses also sent spies to Jazer (Numbers 21:32), a Canaanite city. Joshua sent two spies to Jericho (Joshua 2:1).

Some of this spying was commanded by God, and perhaps all of it was, but we are not told that all of it was done at God’s express command. But spying was used exclusively during wartime. Spying on other nations was not a normal, peacetime practice of either the Hebrew republic or the monarchy. It seems clear that spying on one’s neighboring governments during peacetime, even more than maintaining embassies that harbor spies, is a form of prohibited foreign intervention. It can hardly be argued that God’s command to Moses justifies the regular use of spies, for the command was very specific: Spy out the land of Canaan. Espionage, except during wartime, is not a proper function of government.

Colonialism. In the nineteenth century the phrase “white man’s burden” was used to justify the colonial policies of the European nations. Because of his superior culture, intelligence, race, and learning, so the argument went, the white man has the burden of ruling the lesser breeds. Ancient Israel, by contrast, had no burden to rule over the benighted nations of the world. God’s foreign policy, even when he was establishing a political state in the Middle East, was very limited in scope.

This was as it had to be: A government of limited domestic powers must also be a government of limited international powers. The proper concerns of foreign policy cannot exceed the proper concerns of government in general: the safety and freedom of the territory and people within its borders. Israel, though it was the only nation specially chosen by God, had no authority to liberate Egypt from the Pharaohs. If ancient Israel did not have such authority, even though it had specific commands from God and occupied a unique place in human history, far less does any modern nation have such authority.

War. God commanded the ancient Israelites at different times both to refrain from war as well as to attack certain nations. In Deuteronomy 2:5 God says, “Do not meddle with them [the children of Esau who lived in Seir], for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as one footstep…. You shall buy food from them with money, that you may eat; and you shall also buy water from them with money, that you may drink…. Do not harass Moab, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land” (verses 5, 6, 9). Continuing commercial relations are not forbidden, but continuing military and political relations are. Borders were instituted for the purpose of separating rulers, not peoples, from each other.

From all these considerations it is clear that the people, not the governors, play the major role in foreign relations. The governors are to settle disputes by negotiation, if possible, and by war if necessary and justifiable. Free trade and travel between nations is the rule. The absence of both resident ambassadors and spies is the norm.

In foreign policy, the role of government in ancient Israel was not to make the world, or even the Middle East, safe for theocracy. The nation was simply to occupy the land that God had given them. Had God not commanded them to do so, in specific detail, they would have had no authority to act even as they did.

 

Conclusion

It is not to Plato’s Republic nor to Aristotle’s Politics, not to the Greek city-states nor the City and Empire of Rome, and not to the Code of Hammurabi or Solon that we must look for a model of good government and a competent defense of a free society, but to the Bible and the Hebrew republic. Because the Bible is divinely revealed information, it furnishes us with the principles we need to defend a free society.

 

Notes:

1.See Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things (The Trinity Foundation); Religion, Reason and Revelation (The Trinity Foundation); and Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy (The Trinity Foundation) for some destructive analyses of Utilitarianism and other ethical systems. It is remarkable that Ludwig von Mises, the economic genius who pointed out the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism, accepted Utilitarianism and the possibility of hedonic calculation. Utilitarian calculation is even more absurd than socialist economic calculation.

2. Two Treatises of Government, Peter Laslett, editor, 31. Locke tries to save his argument by appealing to Scripture. Modern natural lawyers generally make no such attempt.

3. The recent revival of natural law theory is more than remarkable; not only does it fly in the face of David Hume and logic, it ignores Charles Darwin and biology as well. If one accepts some variety of the theory of evolution (as many natural lawyers do), one has adopted a view of nature that undermines natural law theory: Nature and nature’s laws are constantly changing.

4. Hans F. Sennholz, Debts and Deficits,164; see also page 44.

5. Sennholz, 166.

6. Sennholz, 170.

7. Sennholz, 44-45.

8. Sennholz, Three Economic Commandments, 1-2.

9. Compare Bruno Leoni, Freedom and the Law.

10. Gary North, Honest Money, The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking, 22.

11. It is bizarre but not surprising that secular economists rely on fables about the origin of money while ignoring a reliable history book like the Bible.

12. Hans F. Sennholz, Money and Freedom, 83.

 

Book Offer

 

Get Freedom and Capitalism: Essays on Christian Politics and Economics by John W. Robbins (Hardback $29.95) for $10 plus $5 shipping ($13 for foreign orders) now through November 1, 2010. Send check or money order to The Trinity Foundation, PO BOX 68, Unicoi, TN 37692. To order using a credit card, call 423.743.0199

- See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=271#sthash.0RZPqfur.dpuf

The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche.

Copyright © 1998-2011 The Trinity Foundation
Post Office 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692
Phone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005 – See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=271#sthash.0RZPqfur.dpuf

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Series of Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses Pt. 10, a post by Sam Shamoun

A Series of Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses Pt. 10

 

Unless noted otherwise, all Scriptural quotations taken from the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (JWs’) 2013 revised edition of the New World Translation (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/).

 

According to the Apostle Paul, a time will come when Christ will no longer reign as the Last Adam who stands as the head of a new creation of human beings that have been redeemed and restored in union with him. Rather, at the end of the age when Christ abolishes death itself, the Lord will then voluntarily subject both the kingdom and himself to God the Father so that God may become all things to everyone:

 

“But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death. For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.  But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and powerFor he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. For God ‘subjected all things under his feet.’ But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God (ho Theos) may be all things to everyone.” 1 Corinthians 15:20-28

 

That Paul is talking about Christ in his role as the last Adam is not only brought out by the context here where he contrasts the Lord with the first man, it is further highlighted by what the Apostle goes on to say later on in the same chapter:

 

“So it is with the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised up in power. It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living person.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one.” 1 Corinthians 15:42-49

 

The following translation does an excellent job of capturing what Paul meant by his assertion that God would become all things to everyone:

 

“But when all things have been placed under Christ’s rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God, who placed all things under him; and God will rule completely over all.” 1 Corinthians 15:28 Good News Translation (GNT)

 

The Apostle’s position is therefore clear.  A time will come when Christ will abolish every opposing rule and enemy in order to present to God a fully restored creation where he will then subject himself to the Father. This is done so that God’s reign over the heavens and earth remains unhindered by anyone trying to oppose his rule and purpose for his creation, a point also made by the prophet Zechariah:

 

“And Jehovah will be King over all the earth. In that day Jehovah will be one, and his name one… And people will inhabit her; and there will never again be a curse of destruction, and Jerusalem will be inhabited in security… Everyone who is left remaining out of all the nations that come against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to bow down to the King, Jehovah of armies, and to celebrate the Festival of Booths.  But if anyone among the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to bow down to the King, Jehovah of armies, no rain will fall on them.” Zechariah 14:9, 11, 16-17

 

Yet this is precisely where the problem comes in. The same Apostle speaks of Christ reigning supreme over all creation not just in this age, but also in the one to come:

 

“and how surpassing the greatness of his power is toward us believers. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come. He also subjected all things under his feet and made him head over all things with regard to the congregation, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.” Ephesians 1:19-23

 

Moreover, the book of Revelation explicitly states that Christ shall continue to rule in the new heavens and earth, which will begin after the millennium period is over, right after death has been abolished and the wicked have been sent to the lake of fire:

 

“And I saw thrones, and those who sat on them were given authority to judge. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed for the witness they gave about Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had not worshipped the wild beast or its image and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years… And I saw a great white throne and the One seated on it. From before him the earth and the heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. The dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.” Revelation 20:4-6, 11-15

 

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: ‘Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.’ And the One seated on the throne said: ‘Look! I am making all things new.’ Also he says: ‘Write, for these words are faithful and true.’” Revelation 21:1-5

 

“And he showed me a river of water of life clear as crystal, flowing out from the THRONE of God AND OF the Lamb down the middle of its main street. On both sides of the river were trees of life producing 12 crops of fruit, yielding their fruit each month. And the leaves of the trees were for the healing of the nations. And there will no longer be any curse. But the THRONE of God AND OF the Lamb will be in the city, and his slaves will offer him sacred service; and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. Also, night will be no more, and they have no need of lamplight or sunlight, for Jehovah God will shed light upon them, and they will rule as kings forever and ever.” Revelation 22:1-5

 

Notice that it is the throne, not thrones, of both God and the Lamb that shall be in the city after God Almighty ushers in the new heavens and earth. This means that Christ shall continue to rule together with his Father in the everlasting age to come.

 

That Jesus continues to reign with God even in the new heavens and earth makes absolute sense when we keep in mind that there are several passages, which speak of Christ possessing an everlasting kingdom, one that will never be destroyed. Note, for instance, the following OT texts:

 

“However, the gloom will not be as when the land had distress, as in former times when the land of Zeb′u·lun and the land of Naph′ta·li were treated with contempt. But at a later time He will cause it to be honored—the way by the sea, in the region of the Jordan, Gali·lee of the nations. The people who were walking in the darkness Have seen a great light. As for those dwelling in the land of deep shadow, Light has shone on them… For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. To the increase of his rulership And to peace, there will be no end, On the throne of David and on his kingdom In order to establish it firmly and to sustain it Through justice and righteousness, From now on and forever. The zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.” Isaiah 9:1-2, 6-7

 

“I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14

 

The NT applies these specific verses to the Lord Jesus:

 

“Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Gali·lee. Further, after leaving Naz′a·reth, he came and took up residence in Ca·per′na·um beside the sea in the districts of Zebu·lun and Naphta·li,  so as to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, who said: ‘O land of Zeb′u·lun and land of Naph′ta·li, along the road of the sea, on the other side of the Jordan, Gal′i·lee of the nations! The people sitting in darkness saw a great light, and as for those sitting in a region of deathly shadow, light rose on them.’ From that time on, Jesus began preaching and saying: ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’” Matthew 4:12-17

 

“In her sixth month, the angel Ga′bri·el was sent from God to a city of Gali·lee named Naza·reth, to a virgin promised in marriage to a man named Joseph of David’s house, and the name of the virgin was Mary. And coming in, the angel said to her: ‘Greetings, you highly favored one, Jehovah [Gr.  ho Kyrios – “the Lord”] is with you.’ But she was deeply disturbed at his words and tried to understand what kind of greeting this might be. So the angel said to her: ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus. This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah [Gr. Kyrios – “[the] Lord”] God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule as King over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his Kingdom.’” Luke 1:26-33

 

“And then they will see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from earth’s extremity to heaven’s extremity.” Mark 13:26-27

 

“… Again the high priest began to question him and said to him: ‘Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?’ Then Jesus said: ‘I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” Mark 14:61b-62

 

For God loved the world so much that he GAVE his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him. Whoever exercises faith in him is not to be judged. Whoever does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” John 3:16-18

 

“Then Jesus spoke again to them, saying: ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life.’” John 8:12 – cf. 1:4-5, 9; 9:4-5; 12:35-36, 46

 

These passages show that as far as the NT is concerned, Jesus is the great light who was to shine forth in Galilee of the nations, the Mighty God himself who was to be born as a child, God’s Son who was given for the salvation of the world, as well as the very Son of Man who comes riding on the clouds of heaven. As such, Christ is clearly being presented as an eternal Sovereign who rules over an indestructible kingdom.

 

This can be further seen in the following texts:

 

“But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.” Hebrews 1:8(1)

 

“In fact, in this way you will be richly granted entrance into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” 2 Peter 1:11

 

“The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: ‘The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.’” Revelation 11:15

 

When we add the Lord Jesus’ own testimony to his possessing absolute sovereignty over the entire heavens and earth,

 

“Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: ‘All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.’” Matthew 28:18

 

Then the Bible’s message couldn’t be any clearer that Christ is the eternal Sovereign Lord who forever reigns supreme over all creation. As one noted Bible scholar and expositor explains:

 

Exousia (authority) refers to the freedom and right to speak and act as one pleases. In relation to God, that freedom and right are absolute and unlimited. The all is both reinforced and delineated by the phrase in heaven and earth. The sovereign authority given to Jesus by His heavenly Father (see Matt. 11:27; John 3:35) is absolute and universal.

 

During His earthly ministry, Jesus demonstrated His authority over disease and sickness (Matt. 4:23; 9:35), over demons (4:24; 8:32; 12:22), over sin (9:6), and over death (Mark 5:41-42; John 11:43-44). Except for forgiveness of sins, Jesus even exhibited the authority to delegate such powers to certain of His followers (Matt. 10:1; Luke 10:9, 17). He has authority to bring all men before the tribunal of God and to condemn them to eternal death or to bring them to eternal life (John 5:27-29; 17:2). He had the authority to lay down His own life and to take it up again (John 10:18). He has the sovereign authority to rule both heaven and earth and to subjugate Satan and his demons to eternal torment in the lake of fire (Rev 19:20; 20:10). Satan’s tempting Jesus by offering Him rulership over the world (Matt. 4:8-9) not only was wicked but foolish, because lordship of both heaven and earth was already Christ’s inheritance by divine fiat.

 

Even the prophet Daniel foresaw sovereign authority being given to Christ… (Daniel 7:13-14; Isa. 9:6-7).

 

Jesus Himself described His coming dominion. “The sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky,” He said, “and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30; cf. 26:64).

 

Jesus’ sovereign authority was given to Him by His Father, who “has given all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22), “made Him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), and has “highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil. 2:9-11). Then, finally, in an act of adoring love and submission, “when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary Matthew 24-28 [Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL 1989]; underline emphasis ours)

 

Here is summation of what we have seen thus far.

 

The inspired Scriptures proclaim that Christ will hand over the entire kingdom to God at the end of the present age so that God may be all things to everyone, i.e., so that God ends up ruling completely over everything without there ever again being any other authority or rule which stands in opposition to his kingdom and will. This will be the time when the Lord’s Prayer will be finally realized and perfectly fulfilled:

 

“You must pray, then, this way: ‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. Give us today our bread for this day; and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.’” Matthew 6:9-13

 

The same God-breathed revelation also proclaims that Christ shall continue to rule over the entire creation even during this period. Yet he will no longer do so in his role as the last Adam who stands in the place of a humanity which has been redeemed and made new in him. Rather, Christ will do so by virtue of being God’s divine Son who is one with the Father in nature. After all, as God in essence Christ cannot help but to rule forever and ever.

 

Therefore, Paul must be including Jesus within the identity of the one God who shall end up having absolute possession of the entire creation with none opposing him ever again. Otherwise, we are left with an irreconcilable contradiction.

 

To break this down logically:

 

  1. God alone will eventually rule over the entire creation directly.
  2. Jesus will continue to rule over all of creation forever since his kingdom is indestructible.
  3. Therefore, Jesus must be included within the identity of that one God whom Paul says shall become all things to everyone.
  4. As such, Christ will cease ruling as the last Adam, as the head and representative of a restored humanity. Rather, he shall continue to reign as the divine Son who shares in the very nature and being of God the Father.

 

Therefore, how can Jesus be a mere creature (albeit the first and most exalted of those created by Jehovah according to JWs) if he will continue to possess absolute and total sovereignty over the entire creation for all eternity when the inspired Scriptures make it abundantly clear that only Jehovah God shall reign supreme forever and ever, with everything else being completely subjected to his perfect rule and power?

 

We will leave it to the JWs to answer this dilemma.

 

Endnotes

 

(1) Unfortunately, this is one of the many texts which the Society has mistranslated in order to hide the fact from its members that the inspired Christian Scriptures identify the Lord Jesus as God. Contrast the NWT rendering with the following translation:

 

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God (ho Theos), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Authorized King James Version (AV)

 

In this verse Jesus is being identified as the God who reigns forever, something which the Society could not allow for since it emphatically denies the absolute Deity of Christ. The NWT rendering also obscures any connection this text has in helping the Bible reader properly understand 1 Corinthians 15:28. After all, since Jesus is the God who rules forever according to this passage then this only reaffirms the fact that Paul is actually including Jesus within the identity of the one God who ends up becoming all things to everyone.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do Not Tempt the Lord Jesus – But Worship Him Instead! Pt. 1, a post by Sam Shamoun

Do Not Tempt the Lord Jesus –

But Worship Him Instead! Pt. 1

 

When the Lord Jesus went into the wilderness in the fullness of the Holy Spirit for the express purpose of confronting the tempter, he expressly told the enemy that the Lord God alone is to be worshiped and served:

 

“Then Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry… Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, ‘All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.”’ Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, ‘If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. For it is written: “He shall give His angels charge over you, To keep you,” and, “In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.”’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘It has been said, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.”’ Now when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time. Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region.” Luke 4:1-2, 5-14

 

Here, also, is the Matthean version of this same event:

 

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil… Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, ‘If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: “He shall give His angels charge over you,” and, “In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.”’ Jesus said to him, ‘It is written again, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God.”’ Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, ‘All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.’ Then Jesus said to him, ‘Away with you, Satan! For it is written, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.”’ Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.” Matthew 4:1, 5-11

 

Now some will argue that Jesus’ response indicates that the Lord God whom Scripture says is not to be tempted, and who alone is to be worshiped and served, is the Father. As such, Jesus was basically telling the devil that he (meaning Christ) will neither fall down and worship anyone other than God the Father, nor will he tempt him.

 

However, there may be another legitimate way of interpreting these texts, especially when we examine them in the light of the immediate and over all contexts of Luke-Acts and Matthew. Since Satan was actually tempting Jesus, the Lord may have been reminding him that the God-breathed revelation expressly forbids doing such a thing. In other words, Jesus would have been identifying himself as the Lord God whom Satan shouldn’t be tempting. This would further mean that Christ is actually the Lord God whom Scriptures says is the only One (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit) worthy of being worshiped and served. I.e. Jesus was essentially telling the evil one that, instead of the Son falling down before the deceiver, the enemy should be bowing down before Christ and worshiping him instead.

 

With the foregoing in perspective we are now going to take a look at Luke-Acts and Matthew to see if whether Jesus received worship, and whether there is any record of individuals trying to tempt him in any way, especially after his ascension into heavenly glory. These factors will strengthen our interpretation that Christ was identifying himself as the Lord God who alone is worthy of worship, and whom no one should ever put to the test.

 

But first let’s look at how the Apostles and righteous servants of God responded whenever someone tried to worship them.

 

Jesus’ disciples took their Master’s words to heart since they expressly forbade anyone from worshiping them, as we find in the case of the blessed Apostle Peter:

 

“As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I myself am also a man.’” Acts 10:25-26

 

Paul and Barnabas reacted similarly when some of the Lycaonians attempted to offer sacrifices to them, thinking that they were the gods Zeus and Hermes appearing in human form:

 

“And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, ‘Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked. Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, ‘The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!’ And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out and saying, ‘Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,’” Acts 14:8-15

 

On the flip side, God struck Herod dead for allowing people to praise him as a god, thereby robbing God of the glory he alone deserves:

 

“Now Herod had been very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; but they came to him with one accord, and having made Blastus the king’s personal aide their friend, they asked for peace, because their country was supplied with food by the king’s country. So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. And the people kept shouting, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!’ Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.” Acts 12:20-23

 

These examples from Luke make it abundantly clear that God will not tolerate worship and/or service being given to someone else. Therefore, if Jesus were/is not God in the flesh then we would expect him to respond the same way that his disciples did whenever someone attempted to worship him.

 

This brings us to the next part of our discussion. So please proceed to part 2.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is James White splitting hairs to try and find a way to discredit the KJV?

These are some of the english translations cited below of Titus chapter 2 verse 13. James White criticizes the KJV for it’s translation of this verse. We can compare the translations with each other as they are listed together here.

New International Version
while we wait for the blessed hope–the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

New Living Translation
while we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.

English Standard Version
waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

New American Standard Bible 
looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

King James Bible
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Holman Christian Standard Bible
while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

International Standard Version
as we wait for the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Savior, Jesus the Messiah.

NET Bible
as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
While we look for the blessed hope and the revelation of the glory of The Great God and Our Lifegiver, Yeshua The Messiah,

GOD’S WORD® Translation
At the same time we can expect what we hope for-the appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Jubilee Bible 2000
waiting for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,

King James 2000 Bible
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;

American King James Version
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;

American Standard Version
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,

Darby Bible Translation
awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;

English Revised Version
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;

Webster’s Bible Translation
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ;

Weymouth New Testament
in expectation of the fulfilment of our blessed hope–the Appearing in glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;

World English Bible
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ;

Young’s Literal Translation
waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

James White and his criticism of Titus 2:13 in the King James Bible, a post from the Will Kinney KJV website

James White and his criticism of Titus 2:13 in the King James Bible

 

Titus 2:13 – ” Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” 

James White has a lot to say in his book, The King James Version Controversy, about how badly he thinks the King James Bible mangles the meaning of this verse and obscures the Deity of Christ.  On page 81 he says: “the KJV is shown to be wanting in Titus 2:13.” On page 201 he says, regarding Titus 2:13 in the KJB: “The simple fact is that the KJV provides an inferior translation, one that unintentionally detracts from the presentation of the full deity of Jesus Christ. The unwillingness of KJV defenders to overlook this fact is most disturbing.”

James White is entitled to his personal opinions, but there are a couple of things you should know about this man. He SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God, but if you ask him to show you a copy of this infallible Bible he professes to believe in, he will never tell you. He will immediately try to change the subject.

Secondly, I believe he and many like him have been deceived when it comes to the Bible version issue. The modern version he promotes like the ESV, NIV, NASB are all in fact the new Vatican Versions. The Vatican has made a formal agreement with the United Bible Society to create an “inter confessional” text to unite “the separated brethren” and one of the main editors of this text was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini.  Nobody seriously believes any of these modern versions are the inerrant words of God; certainly not the people who put them together.  Don’t believe it? Then please see my article and the links found in it called James White – the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jameswhiteppopevv.htm 

And thirdly, James White is completely wrong in his understanding and analysis of Titus 2:13 as it stands not only in the King James Bible but in many others as well.  The King James Bible is actually the most literal translation of the Greek text here and it brings out a special truth that apparently is hidden from Bible correctors like James White.

 

Titus 2:13 “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ;”

Here the critics like James White and others say the KJB rendering does not fully bring out the deity of Jesus Christ. I don’t really understand what they are talking about, because when I read this passage, it clearly declares that Jesus Christ is both the great God as well as our Saviour.

Dr. Larry Bednar, who also addresses this passage at his KJV Textual Technology site correctly asks: “One wonders if White thinks saints and faithful brethren (Col.1:2) separates saints and faithful brethren, as if they were two different types. Or does he think God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col.1:3) separates God from the Father, as if the Father were not God?”

http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/kjv-classical-language-of-emphasis.php 

The NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB translate this verse in different ways.  They don’t even agree with each other.  The NKJV is not quite as bad as the NIV, NASB, ESV in that it says: “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of OUR great God and Savior Jesus Christ”. The NKJV does not follow the literal Greek word order as does the King James Bible and it obscures the full and wonderful truths we see in the King James Bible.

 

But the NIV, NASB, ESV don’t have us looking for THE APPEARING OF GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ” but instead looking for THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”  God’s glory and His actually appearance can be two different things.  The heaven declare the glory of God, but it is not God Himself.

 

At one of the forums a Vatican Version defender and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible, named Sam, posted: “As you can see the word for “appearing” (επιφανειαν) precedes the words “the glory” (της δοξης). So if we go by word order then the versions which read “and appearing of the glory…” are more correct.However, the reason why some versions along with the AV render the phrase “glorious appearing” is because they take the words της δοξης (“the glory”) as an adjective modifying the word επιφανειαν (“appearing”). So it isn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Therefore, you need to either revamp your article to address these points or, better yet, you need to simply drop this point altogether since such an argument only provides further documentation for your inconsistency.”

 

To whom I responded: Sam, is it wrong to use a Greek noun in conjunction with another noun and translated it as an adjective? Yes or No?  The fact is, even in his modern Vatican versions they do the same thing with the same word “glory”  (της δοξης) and make it an adjective when connected to the main noun in a phrase.  

 

For example, the ESV does this both in Philippians 3:21 – “to be like his GLORIOUS body” (συμμορφον τω σωματι της δοξης αυτου) and in Colossians 1:11 – “according to his GLORIOUS might” (κατα το κρατος της δοξης αυτου).  

The NASB does this same thing with the same word in Colossians 1:11 and in 1 Timothy 1:11 “according to the GLORIOUS gospel” (κατα το ευαγγελιον της δοξης) and the NIV does the same in 2 Corinthians 3:8 “the ministration of the Spirit be even more GLORIOUS” (διακονια του πνευματος εσται εν δοξη), in Philippians 3:21 “his glorious body” and in Colossians 1:11 “his glorious might”.  

While the NKJV does the same thing with the same word in Romans 8:21 – “the GLORIOUS liberty of the children of God” (την ελευθεριαν της δοξης των τεκνων του θεου), 2 Corinthians 3 verses 7, 8 and 11 (twice) – “ministry was GLORIOUS”, Philippians 3:21 “his GLORIOUS body”, Colossians 1:11 “His GLORIOUS power”, and 1 Timothy 1:11 “the GLORIOUS gospel” for a total of 8 times.

However, it is necessary to point out two very important things in this verse. Number one is that the Greek reads exactly as it stands in the KJB, and not as it is in the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB.

The Greek in all texts reads “the great God and OUR Saviour.”  This is one of the few verses in the N.T. that has no textual variants; they all read the same and the King James Bible is the most literal by far. All Greek text read -προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου

This is the important part here – της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου = the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

The crucial difference in meaning is this. When Christ appears again in glory, He is the God of everybody – every man, woman and child, believer or unbeliever – but He is OUR Saviour. He is the Saviour of only those who are true Christians, but He is the God and creator of all, and He will be the judge of those who have not believed on Him.  Jesus Christ is BOTH the Great God AND OUR Saviour.  We are looking for Him to appear as such, and this truth is fully brought out in the King James Bible and many others that have likewise translated it this way by following the literal Greek text. 

Another big difference in meaning between the KJB and such modern versions as the NASB, NIV and ESV is this which was pointed out to us recently on a Facebook King James Bible club. The Bible believing brother wrote the following: “The glorious appearing of our great God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ is taught by Paul in one single text in Titus 2:13. Modern bibles twisted and denied it!

Titus 2:13 (King James Version) “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” Comment: You see the words glorious appearing of the great God?

 

Titus 2:13 (New International Version) “while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,“ Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!

 

Titus 2:13 (New American Standard Bible) “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!

 

Titus 2:13 (English Standard Version) waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” Comment: Where are the words glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!

 

Comment: Where are the words “the glorious appearing of the great God? We are not waiting for the glory of God but His glorious appearing!” At first glance you may think modern bibles say the same as KJV says, but they are not!”  (end of comments by this Bible believer. And he is right!) 

So the KJB is actually more accurate here than the NIV, ESV, NKJV or the NASB.

Other Bible translations that read as does the KJB are Wycliffe’s 1380, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 – ” appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ”, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishop’s Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582 – ” the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”, the Geneva Bible 1599 – “that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ”, Mace’s N.T. 1729, Whiston’s Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s translation 1755, Worsley Translation 1770, Etheridge Translation 1849, Murdoch’s translation 1851 and Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 – “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English – “the revelation of the glory of The Great God and Our Lifegiver, Yeshua The Messiah,” the Emphatic Dioglott 1865, the Living Oracles 1835, Julia Smith translation 1855, Noyles Translation 1869, the ASV of 1901 – “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”, Webster’s Bible 1833, J.B. Phillips 1962, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902 “the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus”,  Worrell N.T., Alford N.T. for English Readers, James Moffatt N.T. – “the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus”, Riverside N.T., the World English Bible – ” appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”, Hebrew Names Version,  the New American Bible 1991, the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 – “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” 

Many foreign language Bible translate the passage exactly as the King James Bible has it. Among these are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and 1865, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000, and Spanish La Palabra 2010 – “la manifestación gloriosa del gran Dios y Salvador nuestro Jesucristo.”, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 – “l’apparition de la gloire du grand Dieu, et notre Sauveur, Jésus-Christ”, the Italian Diodati 1649, and La Nuova Diodati 1991 – “della gloria del grande Dio e Salvatore nostro, Gesú Cristo.”, the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués –  “o aparecimento da glória do grande Deus e nosso Salvador Jesus Cristo”, the Russian Zhuromsky New Testament, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930-“og åpenbarelsen av den store Guds og vår frelser Jesu Kristi herlighet,”, the Finnish Bible 1776 – ” ja suuren Jumalan ja meidän Lunastajamme Jesuksen Kristuksen ilmestystä”,  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible – “van den groten God en onzen Zaligmaker Jezus Christus;” = “of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” 

Martin Luther’s German translation of 1545 also reads just like the King James Bible as does the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 with: “großen Gottes und unsers Heilandes Jesu Christi”.  = “the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Matthew Henry comments – “Jesus Christ, that great God and our Saviour, who saves not only as God, much less as Man alone; but as God-man, two natures in one person. He loved us, and gave himself for us…they are not two subjects, but one only, as appears by the single article”  

John Gill comments – “and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; not two divine persons, only one, are here intended.”

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment – “the great God and our Saviour Jesus—There is but one Greek article to “God” and “Saviour,” which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being.

Joseph Benson’s Commentary – “the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ…Beza is of opinion, that one person only is spoken of, namely, Jesus Christ, to whom he thinks the title of the great God is given in this verse.” 

Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible – “Of the great God –  There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus…No one, accustomed to Paul‘s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God”  

 

Matthew Poole comments – “And the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; and in order thereunto, looking for the coming of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the last judgment. The same person is here meant by the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

 

James White, who is now promoting the modern Vatican Versions and who SAYS the Bible is the infallible words of God but will NEVER tell you where to get one, is dead wrong in his criticisms of this verse, and the King James Bible is absolutely correct and infallible, as always.  

All of grace, believing the Book – the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney

Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm 

See also Dr. Larry Bednar’s explanation of Titus 2:13 in the KJB and why it is absolutely correct and better than the ESV, NIV, NASB and NKJV at his KJV Textual Technology site here -

 

http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/kjv-classical-language-of-emphasis.php

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments