Category: Evangelism

Posted on

Does Philippians 2 Prove Jesus is God? Examining the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Claim

Philippians 2

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature* of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

For those who deny the deity of Christ, such as today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses, Philippians 2 offers one of the clearest passages in the New Testament to attest to the divine nature of Jesus.

Verse 6 is the key statement as Paul says that Jesus, “who being in very nature God…”

According to this verse, Jesus possessed the very nature of God, which means, of course, that Jesus IS God.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses explain this passage?

Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly deny that this passage teaches that Jesus is divine. They point to the Greek word “morphe” that the NIV translates as “nature”.

This Greek word “morphe” actually means “form”.

Here then is how the passage is translated by the New American Standard Bible:

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11, NASB)

Let’s look at this passage where it is translated with the word “form” and  try to determine which interpretation makes more sense – the traditional Christian understanding or the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding.

While most Biblical translators contend that this passage strongly communicates that Jesus, in his very nature, existed as God, which explains why the NIV uses the phrase “being in very nature God”, the Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that this passage demonstrates that Jesus is NOT God.

Their argument is as follows:

Verse 6 says that Jesus existed in the “form” of God.

What is God’s form?

According to John 4:24, “God is Spirit.”

Hence, when Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus existed in the “form of God”, it’s saying that Jesus existed as a spirit.

This argument is not convincing and fails on many levels.

First of all, their understanding of the word “form” does not align with the underlying meaning of the Greek word morphe.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words gives this definition for the word “morphe” [G3444, morphe]:

[morphe] denotes the special or characteristic form or feature” of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Philippians 2:6–Philippians 2:7, in the phrases “being in the form of God,” and “taking the form of a servant.” An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: “morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. … Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses assign a meaning to the word “form” that is more akin to “shape”, “pattern”, or “that which is seen externally.” The problem is that there is a different Greek word that communicates that idea (G1491, eidos) and Paul did not use that word.

Secondly, if Paul was trying to communicate that Jesus existed as a spirit, why does he say that Jesus existed in the “form of God” instead of the “form of a spirit”? Would that not communicate exactly what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach without any of the confusion?

Alternatively, why would Paul not just say that Jesus existed in the “form of an angelic being” since Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus is the exalted archangel Michael?

Furthermore, in verse 7, Paul says that Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant”.

What exactly is the form of a bond-servant?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses will likely respond that the form of a bond-servant is a person, or a man.

If that’s the case, why does Paul not just say that Jesus took the “form of a person” or the “form of a man”?

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

If we’re to adopt the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of this passage, we are forced to believe that Paul used the phrases “form of God” and “form of a bond-servant” as euphemisms to communicate the simple concept that Jesus was once a “spirit”who then became a “man”.

This is a curious interpretation indeed. Instead of assuming that Paul used the phrases that he did for a particular purpose, we’re asked to believe that Paul used the phrases as sort of intermediate codes that actually point to a different meaning that is not as obvious as the original text. It’s as if we need secret decoder rings to decipher what these phrases actually mean.

There’s another reason why the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding of these terms is flawed.

Later in verse 7, Paul says that Jesus was “made in the likeness of men”. So he explicitly says later in the same verse, using a different phrase, that Jesus became a man. So how can one argue that the phrase “taking the form of a bond-servant” means that Jesus became a man when Paul communicates that very idea later in the same verse but with a different phrase?

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation, if we swap out Paul’s “form of” phrases for the meaning that the Jehovah’s Witnesses ascribe to them, we’re left with the following bizarre rendering of verse 7:

Jesus emptied himself….he became a man, and being made in likeness of men.

We end up with a garbled redundancy that makes no sense. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ explanation of this passage is a classic example of Scripture twisting. In their effort to make the passage say something other than what it clearly states, we end up with meaningless phrases and incoherent sentences.

It’s obvious that the phrase “form of” carries the meaning of “nature”, which means that Jesus possessed the nature of God but then took on the nature of a bond-servant. There is no other reasonable explanation for why Paul would couple the terms “God” and “bond-servant” with the phrase “form of” if he only intended to communicate that Jesus existed as a “spirit” but then became a “man.”

Paul must be using these phrases for a specific reason, otherwise, why use them?

This understanding of the word “form” is confirmed by Vines, which states:

The true meaning of morphe [nature] in the expression ‘form of God’ is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, ‘form of a servant.’ It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that ‘form’ must therefore have the same sense in both.” * [* From Gillford, “The Incarnation,” pp. 16,19,39.] (bold brackets added)

It’s clear that a bond-servant is a particular type of man. A bond-servant is a “man” who possesses specific characteristics which Jesus then embodied.

Similarly, God is Spirit, but not just any spirit. He is DIVINE spirit. Therefore, Paul is communicating that Jesus is a spirit who embodied the qualities of God. His statement is literally one of the clearest declarations of the divine nature of Jesus in all of Scripture.

There’s no doubt why Paul is using these terms and exactly what is being communicated – Jesus existed with the form, i.e. the nature of God, but he emptied himself, meaning he gave up his rights and his position as God in order to take on the form, i.e. the nature of a bond-servant, someone who was completely obedient to the Father, in order to accomplish the purpose of redeeming and reconciling mankind.

If there was any doubt that this is the correct understanding of verses 6 & 7, we only need to look at the verses that follow, which indicate that as a result of Jesus’ death on the cross, the Father exalts Jesus so that EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord.

Jesus will be worshiped by EVERYONE. Since only God can legitimately receive worship, Paul is clearly communicating that Jesus possesses the nature of God and will eventually be worshiped as such by the entire created order.

If one adopts the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding of this verse, you have the awkward situation where Jesus, who is NOT divine, is exalted to a position where he is clearly worshiped by all of creation.

How exactly does that work? How can Jesus receive worship if he is not God?

Clearly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not allow the biblical text to inform their theology. Instead, they have a consistent pattern of conforming the biblical text to their pre-determined theological conclusion, namely, their view that Jesus is NOT God.

To make the Scriptures conform to this theological outcome, they must add words to various texts, while changing the meaning of words in other texts, all the while ignoring context and plain logic.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Are you convinced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ explanation of this verse? Why or why not?

If Jesus is NOT divine, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses contend, how do you explain the fact that Jesus will be exalted and EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord? In other words, how can Jesus be worshiped if he is not God?

The author of the post says that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not allow the biblical text to inform their theology but instead they conform the biblical text to their theology. What do you think that means? In what ways do you see people, including Christians, doing the same thing? What is the danger of interpreting the Bible in this way?

Paul invites the reader to have the same attitude that Jesus had. What is that attitude? How can you demonstrate that same attitude in your life today? This week? 

 

Image created by Grok

Posted on

Evidence that Jesus is God – Part 2

John 10

22Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (John 10:22-39, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Lately I’ve had a number of online conversations with some Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the nature of Jesus. Most of the discussions have come about as a result of a Jehovah’s Witness responding to one of my many blog posts on the topic, including the following:

One recent discussion has centered around my blog post “Evidence that Jesus is God” which is based on Jesus’ interaction with the religious leaders in John 10:22-33.

I encourage you to read the entire post to get the full argument, but the summary of that post is as follows:

    1. Jesus claimed that he and the Father are one which I argued was a clear claim of divinity by Jesus.
    2. Jehovah’s Witnesses typically respond that Jesus was only claiming to be “one in purpose” with the Father – he was not claiming deity.
    3. But the context of the passage shows that the explanation offered by the Jehovah’s Witnesses is unlikely as the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him.
    4. When Jesus asks why they want to stone him, they respond, “for blasphemy – you being a mere man claim to be God.” It’s clear from the context that the Jewish religious leaders understood Jesus to be making a claim of deity. Why else would they accuse him of blasphemy?
    5. I point out that if Jesus was only “one in purpose” with the Father, if he was NOT claiming to be God, then why did Jesus not correct their misunderstanding as Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 14 when the locals mistook them for gods?
    6. I argued that the reason Jesus didn’t correct the religious leaders was because their understanding of the claim he was making was clearly correct.

In this recent online encounter, a committed Jehovah’s Witness responded to my post by quoting the fuller text of John 10:22-38, arguing that in the verses that followed (which I had not included in my original post) Jesus DID correct their misunderstanding by claiming to be a “little g” god instead of a “big G” God.

His argument is that Jesus explained to these Jewish leaders that he is God’s son in the same way that others in the Old Testament were called “gods.” This is conclusive proof, according to this Jehovah’s Witness, that Jesus has defined for us what he means when he calls himself the Son of God – he does NOT claim equality with the Father, but is simply claiming a status as a “little g” god, which has been attributed to many other “mere men” in the past.

What are we to make of this argument? Is he on to something that has been overlooked and ignored by the traditional church for the last 2000 years?

I think the answer is clearly NO, and I’ll explain why.

As you read through the gospels, it’s apparent that the Jewish religious leaders are opposed to Jesus. They don’t like him and in fact, they resort to seeking to kill him.

The deeper question is why don’t they like him? Why are they so opposed to him? Regardless of what you believe about Jesus’ nature, most agree that he was the greatest moral teacher to ever live. Jesus traveled around healing and helping people. Isn’t that a good thing? So why are these religious leaders so intent on killing him?

In Jesus’ encounters with the religious leaders there is one thing in common – he seeks to expose their hard-heartedness. He does this in various ways by unmasking their selfishness, their hypocrisy and their duplicitous nature.

Jesus’ harshest words are reserved for these very religious leaders, who not only opposed him but are often seen trying to entrap him into saying or doing something that could be used against him.

Though Jesus has healed the sick, raised the dead, exorcised the demon-possessed and performed numerous miracles, they still come to him demanding a sign. I wrote about their unreasonable demands and Jesus’ response in my blog post “When Someone DEMANDS Evidence!”

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

So what is Jesus doing in this passage? What’s he saying to these religious leaders?

Jesus is setting a logical trap for these religious leaders.

How exactly does he do this?

Let’s look at the full interaction.

Jesus is walking around minding his own business when he’s encountered by the religious leaders who once again ask,

“how long will you keep us in suspense? If you’re the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Jesus responds that he’s already told them plainly but they just don’t want to believe. He then appeals to the many miracles he had done in the Father’s name, evidence which he says speaks for itself.

The next two verses are important to the foundation Jesus is laying for the intellectual trap that he’s setting: Jesus says that the reason they don’t believe is because they are NOT his sheep. His sheep hear his voice and follow him, but they’re incapable of hearing his voice and following him because they are NOT his sheep.

Remember, he had a similar encounter with the religious leaders just two chapters earlier in John 8, where Jesus told them that their true father is the devil. I wrote about this critical exchange in my post “Who’s Your Daddy?”

Jesus is addressing the hardness of their heart. They see the miracles just like everyone else yet it has no effect. They come to Jesus and demand more evidence, more miracles, more proof. Jesus isn’t playing their game. He’s telling them that the miracles he has done speak for themselves and so he has no need to provide any more evidence.

In verse 28, Jesus continues speaking about his sheep, his true followers, saying that he gives them eternal life, they will never perish and that no one can snatch them out of his hand.

Who but God can grant eternal life and promise eternal protection for his followers?

Jesus is telling these religious leaders that he performs activities that are attributed only to God. This is an additional evidence for Jesus’ deity. Not only does Jesus make direct claims of deity, but he performs acts and possesses qualities that can only be attributed to God.

Jesus then says that the Father has given him the sheep and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand. So in two consecutive verses, Jesus has said that no one can snatch the followers out of his hand AND no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

In the very next verse (John 10:30) Jesus says,

I and the Father are one.

This is not simply “oneness of purpose” as Jehovah’s Witnesses argue. This is oneness of essence and activity. Jesus is appealing to a special relational unity.

It’s clear from the response that the Jewish religious leaders understood what Jesus was saying as they picked up stones to stone him. When Jesus asks why they’re picking up stones, they reply that it’s not because of his works,

but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.

Now this is where we get into the response from my recent online conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness.

He argues that what follows in the text is Jesus’ explanation of his true nature, that he is just a man who is a servant of God and so when he calls himself the son of God, it’s just like Psalm 82:6 (which Jesus himself references) when other men were called “gods”.

Unfortunately, my online Jehovah’s Witness friend completely misunderstands and misinterprets what is happening in this exchange.

Remember, Jesus’ encounters with the religious leaders often showed him exposing the hardness of their heart – their greed, their selfishness, their hypocrisy, their lust for power, their stubborn unwillingness to believe. This encounter is no different. Jesus has now set the trap that will reveal their true intentions.

How so?

They’ve already said that they believe that Jesus is a mere man who is claiming to be God. This was their basis for charging him with blasphemy. So Jesus appeals to Psalm 82:6 and essentially says, “well if I’m just a man, what reason do you have to accuse me of blasphemy? Wouldn’t I be just like these other ‘mere men’ who were servants of God?”

For emphasis, Jesus adds “this is in your Law!”

The argument made by my online Jehovah’s Witness opponent is that Jesus has just admitted to being a “mere man” who is a servant of God. Therefore, he is a “little g” god. This fits perfectly with the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which denies that Jesus is God but says that he’s “god-like”.

But Jesus has not stated that he’s a “little g” god. He has simply referenced a passage from Psalm 82:6 in order to set the trap.

Jesus continues with his response by saying that if the Scriptures, which cannot be broken, called these other people “gods” then

“what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?”

Instead of calling himself a “god”, Jesus has just established that he’s superior to the so-called “gods” of Psalm 82:6 by virtue of his unique and special relationship with the Father. Jesus then reasserts that he does what the Father does.

Jesus then tells these religious leaders essentially, “look, if you don’t believe what I say, at least believe the miracles that I’m doing. This should prove to you that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

This last statement is another declaration of the special unity that Jesus has with the Father. This is more than just “oneness of purpose” as if Jesus has simply adopted allegiance to a corporate mission statement.

Jesus has consistently communicated a unity with the Father that the religious leaders interpreted as a claim of deity. This is clear throughout the gospels as Jesus encounters the religious leaders. And it’s the exact reason why they sought to kill him and eventually did kill him.

Verse 39 makes this clear as it says,

Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

The point that was made in the initial post, “Evidence that Jesus is God” still stands. Jesus made a statement about himself that his opponents interpreted as a claim of deity. Jesus does not correct their misunderstanding. Yes, Jesus refers to Psalm 82:6, which references people as “gods” but he does so as a tactic to reveal to the religious leaders that their problem was not that Jesus wasn’t clear and it was not that he hadn’t provided enough evidence of who he was.

Their problem was that their will (heart) refused to believe what their minds knew to be true. This is hard-heartedness, which will cause us to defy logic and all rationality in our attempt to hold to a pre-suppositional belief.

The Jewish religious leaders are an illustration for humanity – we have been given all the evidence we need to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, God in the flesh, and yet if we refuse to believe, it’s because we don’t want to. That is the very definition of a hard heart.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

When is a time that you did not want to believe a truth that was clearly presented to you? What are examples in your own life where you’ve demonstrated a hardness of your heart?

If Jesus did admit to the religious leaders that he was not deity, but only a “god” in the sense demonstrated in Psalm 82:6, as Jehovah’s Witnesses contend, how do you explain the Jewish leaders’ continued desire to seize him and kill him for blasphemy?

What do you think Jesus means when he claims that he and the Father are one? 

What do you think Jesus means when he says “that the Father is in me, and I in the Father”?

What do you think is the benefit of engaging in this kind of discussion about the nature of Jesus? Do you think it really matters how we view him? Why or why not?

 

Photo by Tim Hüfner on Unsplash

Posted on

How Does Isaiah 44 Demonstrate that Jesus is God?

If you’re wondering why there is an image of a pretzel with a side of mustard for a blog post related to Isaiah 44, read to the end of the post to find out

Isaiah 44

24The LORD, your Redeemer and Creator, says: “I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. By myself I made the earth and everything in it. (Isaiah 44:24, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

The lion’s share of verses in Isaiah 44 deal with the foolishness of idols, which I wrote about in my blog post “A Discourse on the Foolishness of Idols”.

However, at the end of Isaiah 44, the prophecy shifts as God gives His people hope regarding the future restoration of the holy city of Jerusalem, which has been decimated due to the fact that many of its inhabitants have been exiled to Babylon. It’s this later passage that I want to focus on in this post, specifically, the first verse in that section.

You’re probably asking, “how exactly does Isaiah 44 demonstrate that Jesus is God, especially since Jesus isn’t mentioned at all in the passage?”

That’s a good question. To answer that question, we must first look at a New Testament passage from Colossians 1.

Speaking of Jesus, Paul, in Colossians 1:16-17, says:

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (NIV)

The clear teaching of these verses is unmistakeable. Jesus is the creator of ALL things. As such, He CANNOT himself be a created thing. In addition, He is BEFORE all things, which means He existed before all things. That means He is eternal. Lastly, He holds all things together, which means He is all-powerful.

By every possible measure, these two verses unequivocally teach that Jesus is God, for He possesses attributes that only God possesses (eternality, omnipotence) and He performs acts that only God could perform, namely creating ALL things.

What’s interesting though is how this same passage is interpreted by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not use any of the standard Christian Bible translations that you’re probably familiar with. Instead, they have their own translation, The New World Translation (NWT), which renders Colossians 1:16-17 this way:

16  because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.  17  Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,  (NWT)

Do you notice the differences between these two translations?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation inserts the word “other” into the text four times despite the fact that the word “other” is nowhere in the original Greek text. So why is this word inserted four times into the text when it’s not in the original Greek text?

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

It’s obvious that the Jehovah’s Witnesses add the word “other” multiple times in order to dilute the clear meaning of the original Greek text, which is that Jesus is the creator of ALL things.

Not only do the Jehovah’s Witnesses unjustifiably add the word “other” to the text, but they do so deceptively.

It’s customary in Bible translations to put any added word in brackets if isn’t in the original Greek text. When the reader sees a word in brackets, it’s a cue that the word is not original to the text but has been added by the translators for some reason, usually for readability.

The online version of the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation. Note that Colossians 1:16-17 does not have brackets around the four occurrences of the word “other” despite the fact that the word “other” appears nowhere in the original Greek text.

It is highly unusual that a translator would add a word to the translation that isn’t in the original Greek and NOT put it in brackets, especially when the addition of the word completely changes the meaning of the text. One can only conclude that the Jehovah’s Witnesses omit the brackets in order to deceive the average person, who will naturally assume that the Jehovah’s Witnesses version of the text accurately reflects what the original Greek text says.

The obvious teaching from Colossians 1:16-17 is uncomfortable to Jehovah’s Witnesses who are so committed to their doctrine that Jesus is a created being that they MUST add the word “other” in order to make the passage fit their doctrinal bias.

Now I’m certain that after I post this online, I’ll encounter many Jehovah’s Witnesses who will attempt to educate me on why it’s ok and even necessary for their translators to add the word “other” to this passage.

Their argument is that the Greek word “panta” can be translated “all other” in some contexts in order to make the reading more “smooth”.  They will undoubtedly point to Luke 13:2 as an example where “panta” is translated as “all other Galileans” instead of just “all Galileans”.

While it’s true that panta can be translated as “all other” in some contexts, it’s not true that it can be translated “all other” whenever the word occurs. The general rule is that the addition of the word “other” is acceptable if it makes the verse more readable BUT DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE VERSE.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses violate this rule by adding the word “other” four times to Colossians 1:16-17 because that is the only way to make those two verses align with their teaching that Jesus is a created being.

So what does any of this have to do with Isaiah 44:24, which is supposed to be the subject of this devotional blog post?

I’m glad you asked.

Let’s assume for one moment that grammatically, the Jehovah’s Witnesses addition of the word “other” four times is linguistically allowed. It’s not, since the word appears nowhere in the original Greek text, but let’s just play along for the sake of argument.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses theological position is that Jehovah created Jesus and THEN Jesus created everything else (all other things).

But Isaiah 44:24 directly refutes this position, as Jehovah says:

I am the LORD, who made all things. I alone stretched out the heavens. By myself I made the earth and everything in it.

Did you catch that?

Jehovah says that he acted ALONE and created ALL THINGS by HIMSELF. He made the earth and EVERYTHING in it.

This directly refutes the Jehovah’s Witnesses doctrinal teaching that Jesus was first created and then created all “other” things.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching is therefore logically false. In order to accept their teaching, one must ignore certain scriptures altogether while directly altering other verses in an effort to bring them into alignment with their prescribed viewpoint.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus is created and then Jesus created all “other” things. This view is communicated only in the Jehovah’s Witnesses own translation (the NWT) which conveniently changes key verses in order to force them to agree with their heretical christological view.

Colossians 1:16-17 clearly teaches that all things were created by Jesus, which means he himself cannot be created. Adding the word “other” becomes problematic for Jehovah’s Witnesses as it means they must either deny the clear teaching of Isaiah 44:24 or try to explain it using some other kind of pretzel logic.

The problem for Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they have created so many doctrinal pretzels with their edited translation that their isn’t enough theological mustard available in the world to help us choke down what they’re serving.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

If Jesus created all “other” things, how is it possible that Jehovah alone created all things by himself?

How do you explain the fact that all major Bible translations omit the word “other” from Colossians 1:16-17 but the Jehovah’s Witnesses add the word four times?

If Jesus is indeed the creator of all things, and is indeed before all things, what does that imply about his nature?

If Jesus is a created being, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, how does Jesus secure salvation for humankind? In other words, how is it possible that a being who is not eternal and who is not infinitely holy can secure forgiveness and redemption for mankind?

 

Photo Created with Grok
Posted on

Does Revelation 3:14 Prove Jesus is a Created Being?

Revelation 3

14“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

(Revelation 3:14, NASB)

The Daily DAVEotional

I’ve written a number of blog posts on Revelation 3:14-22, including this post on why Jesus would rebuke the “lukewarm” Christian but not the “cold” Christian, and this post, which explains why it’s legitimate to use Revelation 3:20 in gospel conversations with non-believers.

So why yet ANOTHER post on this passage, and why highlight only one verse?

Some background

Last week, I happened to post on X a tweet referencing my blog post from Proverbs 8 where I explain that Proverbs 8 is NOT a passage that demonstrates that Jesus is a created being, as Jehovah’s Witnesses will claim. In fact, Proverbs 8 is not about Jesus at all.

My tweet got some replies, including a Jehovah’s Witness from Nigeria who decided to take the opportunity to set me straight on my theology.

We had quite the online back and forth exchange, with many verses being offered up as evidence for our respective views.

If you weren’t aware, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God. They teach that he is the first created being of Jehovah and as such, he is not to be worshipped.

They are the modern day torch-bearers of the ancient heretical doctrine known as Arianism. I first wrote about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their views on Jesus in my post “A Modern Day Version of an Ancient Heresy.”

In my online exchange with this Nigerian Jehovah’s Witness, he presented to me all the usual verses in an attempt to demonstrate that Jesus is not God, including Colossians 1:15, which I addressed in my blog post, “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn”, and John 10:30, which I addressed in my blog post “Evidence that Jesus is God” .

One verse that this online JW evangelist offered as evidence that Jesus is not God but is a created being, was Revelation 3:14, the verse that is highlighted in this devotional.

Jehovah’s Witnesses routinely cite Revelation 3:14 as conclusive proof that Jesus is created. After all, the verse literally says that Jesus is the BEGINNING of creation.

What this means, according to the Jehovah’s Witness, is that Jesus is the first created thing of Jehovah’s creation. He is the “beginning” of creation.

However, as is often the case when dialoguing with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the verse does not mean what they THINK it means.

How can that be?

Well, the Greek word in Revelation 3:14 that is translated as “beginning” is the Greek word “arche” (pronounced by sounding out the letters “R” and “K”). It is where we get our English word “architect.”

This word has a number of possible meanings, one of which is “beginning”.

If you look up this word in a Greek lexicon, it says that the word means origin, source, beginning. It also can mean rule.

Biblical translators are in agreement that the meaning of this word is not that Jesus is the first to be created but that Jesus is the source of creation, the author of creation, the BEGINNER of creation or the ORIGIN of creation. Because Jesus is the author of creation, he is the RULER of creation.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

So why does it say that Jesus is the BEGINNING of creation? Why not use one of these other words?

Actually, the NASB, which uses the word “BEGINNING” has a footnote provided by the translators in which they offer up the words “source” and “origin” as alternatives. In other words, the footnote demonstrates that the authors understood that the word “beginning” was meant to be understood in the sense that Jesus is the origin or source of creation.

When you click on the “asterisk”, the note is revealed:

Additionally, most translations do NOT use the word “beginning” in their translation.

The NLT translates Revelation 3:14 as:

“Write this letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea. This is the message from the one who is the Amen—the faithful and true witness, the ruler* [Or the source.] of God’s creation:

Note the translator’s “asterisk” that indicates that the word could mean “ruler” or “source”.

The NIV translates it this way:

14“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible translates it as:

14“Write to the angel of the church in Laodicea:

“The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator [Or Ruler, or Source, or Beginning] of God’s creation says:

The brackets are inserted by the translators to indicate different words that would be equally acceptable as translations of the Greek word “arche”.

The NET Bible offers this translation:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following:

“This is the solemn pronouncement of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator54 of God’s creation:

Notice the number “54” just after the word “originator.” The NET Bible has extensive translation notes, which explain the decision process the translators used to arrive at their translation choices.

The summary of this note number 54 is that “beginning”, “ruler” or “originator” are all three linguistically possible. The editors explain that this term (Greek = arche) is well established in both the Septuagint (LXX) and intertestamental Jewish literature as meaning “ruler, authority.”

The truth is that  most translations do not use the word “beginning” for this verse and the translations that do use the word don’t use it to convey the meaning Jehovah’s Witnesses attribute to the verse.

In actuality, the word beginning is a fine word to use if you understand that Jesus literally is the first cause of creation. It is in that sense that he is the beginning. He is the source, the originator, the architect of creation. As such, he is ruler over creation.

One should also keep in mind that the author of Revelation is the apostle John, the same John who wrote the gospel of John and three shorter epistles near the end of the New Testament.

This same John identified Jesus as God in the opening verses of his gospel account, saying:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1, NASB)

To be fair, Jehovah’s Witnesses dispute the traditional Christian teaching of this verse, but I explain why their view is incorrect in my post “A Modern Day Version of an Ancient Heresy”.

This same John also wrote in his first epistle that

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5, NASB)

But in John 1, the author says this about Jesus:

In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4-5)

John also said of Jesus that

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:3, NASB)

This does not sound like John believed that Jesus was created. Instead, John taught that Jesus created ALL things. If Jesus was the first created thing of Jehovah then John 1:3 would be a false statement as Jesus would be “something” that came into being.

A primary rule of Bible study is that Scripture interprets Scripture. In other words, if there is a verse that is confusing, we interpret it in light of other passages that are clear.

In Revelation 3:14, how are we to understand the word “beginning”? That is the debate between Jehovah’s Witnesses and traditional Christianity.

It’s clear that the translators all understood the word “beginning” in the sense that Jesus is the “beginner” or “first cause” of creation. This understanding is supported by all of the other words that could be used as a translation for the Greek word “arche”, including source, origin and ruler.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses explanation for the word “beginner” violates all of the other possible meanings while the traditional Christian understanding of the word “beginning” is in alignment with the other possible word choices.

In addition, the Jehovah’s Witness explanation of this verse contradicts other passages that clearly promote the same traditional Christian view.

In the final analysis, Revelation 3:14 doesn’t teach that Jesus is the first created being of Jehovah. On the contrary, it provides yet another substantial proof that Jesus is divine!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

Given the fact that arche can mean “source”, “ruler” and “origin”, what logical explanation could explain how “beginning” means anything other than “first cause”? In other words, how do you explain the fact that the Jehovah’s Witness explanation of the Greek word “arche” does not match any of the other accepted definitions for the word?

Do you find the argument posed in this post against the Jehovah’s Witness’ interpretation of Revelation 3:14 convincing? Why or why not?

Some people argue that debating the nature of Jesus is fruitless and unnecessary. The argument is that as long as we believe that Jesus saves us, that’s all that matters. Everything else is just theological nit-picking. Do you agree with this sentiment? Why do you think it’s important to have a firm understanding of the nature of Jesus?

What has been your experience with Jehovah’s Witnesses? What verses or arguments have they made that you were not able to adequately respond to or refute?

 

Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash

Posted on

What is the Meaning of the Word “Baptize”?

1 Corinthians 10

1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

(1 Corinthians 10:1-5, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

I’ve recently posted several devotionals on the subject of baptism.

The motivation for these posts originated from an online conversation I had with a person who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You can read more of the details of this conversation from my blog post “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” but the headline is that this person, while making a case for the legitimacy of the Mormon church, claimed that baptism is necessary for salvation.

The Mormon church teaches that Jesus himself appeared to Joseph Smith in order to reinstate apostolic authority that had been lost when the original apostles died off.

Latter Day Saints claim that without living apostles, no baptism is legitimate. And since baptism is necessary for salvation (according to their theology), nobody can legitimately be saved without the Mormon church.

Our dialogue was mainly centered around the claim that baptism is necessary for salvation. It should be noted that there are a number of Christian denominations that also teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, most notably the Church of Christ.

I’ve argued that the fundamental reason some hold to the view of baptismal regeneration is because of a common interpretive error known as eisegesis, which means to read “into the text.”

What is eisegesis?

I can best explain eisegesis by giving an example.

Imagine you grew up in Texas and you’re a big fan of football. After all, in Texas, football is supreme. You played pop warner football as a kid and you also played on your high school football team. You watch your favorite football team every week and the biggest day of the year for you is the Super Bowl.

You then visit Europe where you meet some locals who invite you to join them later that afternoon for a game of “football”. You love “football” so you enthusiastically agree to participate. You even tell them that you will bring the ball.

Later that day, you show up with an American football. The other guys are looking at you strangely, until someone finally asks you, “where’s the ball?”

You toss them the football, but clearly something is wrong.

Finally, one of the guys informs you that in Europe, the word “football” refers to what is known in America as “soccer”.

This may seem like a silly example but it perfectly illustrates eisegesis.

In America, we have a certain understanding of the word “football.” But in Europe, and most of the world for that matter, that same word means and refers to something completely different.

When you’re in Europe, “football” is “soccer”. In Bible study terms, this is what we refer to as “context”. When seeking to understand the meaning of a passage, and particularly words like “baptize”, context matters.

The problem for most people when it comes to baptism is that in our modern culture, almost everyone, when they hear or see the word “baptize” will think about the church ordinance of baptism. Chances are you have either been baptized yourself or you’ve seen someone else get baptized.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

There is almost no scenario where you would think of something other than water baptism whenever you hear or see that word.

But in the New Testament times, the word baptize was not always used the same way we think of it today.

This passage from 1 Corinthians 10 is a perfect example of the diverse and broad usage and meaning of the word.

Paul is writing this passage as a warning to the Corinthians against worshiping idols and he’s using the ancient Israelites as his main illustration.

God miraculously delivered the Israelites from the Egyptians and then, when Pharaoh pursued the Israelites with his army, God, once again supernaturally intervened to rescue His people from Pharaoh’s hand.

Paul is describing these historical events to his readers when he makes this key statement in verse 2:

They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

There’s that word – “baptized”.

But what does it mean in this context?

Certainly, Paul is not saying that the Israelites were immersed in water as we experience the ordinance of baptism today. What does it mean that they were all “baptized into Moses”? What exactly is Paul saying?

In verse 1, Paul explains that “our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.”

Paul is referencing two things from the exodus encounter. When he says that they “were all under the cloud” he’s referring to the fact that the Israelites were guided by God who led them by day via a visible cloud that moved ahead of them.

When he says that “they all passed through the sea”, he’s referring to the supernatural event where God parted the Red Sea and brought the Israelites to safety on dry ground as they passed through the sea.

So what does Paul mean when he says that “they were all baptized into Moses”? Clearly this “baptism” has nothing to do with being immersed in water for some kind of efficacious benefit.

What Paul is saying is that the Israelites were “identified” with Moses and his leadership when they were “under the cloud” and when they “passed through the sea.” These two exodus events unalterably linked the people to Moses as their leader.

This is important because our tendency when we read passages like this is to import our modern understanding of words and terms into the text instead of seeking to understand what those words and terms meant to the original audience.

We hear the word “football” and immediately think “Dallas Cowboys” when what we’re really talking about is European soccer.

If the word “baptize” has a different meaning in this passage than our traditional understanding, then it must be acknowledged that in other passages where we see the word, our understanding of its meaning should not be limited to our narrow modern perception.

Baptism, in this passage, clearly doesn’t refer to the physical act of immersing someone in water. It’s obvious that Paul’s use of the word here is to indicate that the Israelites were intricately linked with Moses as their leader through the exodus events.

Hence, baptism equals identification.

For more on this topic of baptism, please read the following blog posts:

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What comes to your mind when you hear or see the word “football”? What comes to your mind when you see or hear the word “baptize”?

What examples can you think of where a word has a different meaning today than it did in a previous era or to a different audience?

What are some other examples you’ve seen in which people import their modern understanding of a topic or issue onto a biblical text?

If the word “baptize” means “identification”, how does that change or affirm your understanding of the ordinance of baptism within the church?

 

Photo by Özgür Avşar on Unsplash

Posted on

Is Baptism a Part of the Gospel Message?

1 Corinthians 1

10I appeal to you, brothers,] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas’”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:10-17, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

What is required for salvation?

That’s a basic question that every religious system should be able to answer.

Traditional Christianity says that salvation comes to those who place their faith in Jesus, who died on a cross to pay the penalty that we deserve for our sins.

However, there are some within the Christian tradition who hold to the view that baptism is an essential step in the salvation process. So in addition to believing in Jesus, one must also be physically baptized, with water, in order to be fully saved.

Is this true? Does one need to be baptized in order to be saved?

I think this passage in 1 Corinthians gives us some insight to address this question.

The context of this passage is that Paul is addressing some problems in the Corinthian church that were creating divisions.

The source of these divisions is that people in the church were aligning themselves with different leaders. I wrote about this passage and the divisions that we can experience in my blog post  “Name Dropping in the Early Church”, as well as my post, “Political Divisions within the Church”.

What’s interesting about this passage, though, is that Paul, while addressing the divisions that were occurring in the church, tangentially speaks to the issue of baptism.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

The source of the divisions is that people in the church were aligning themselves with various leaders. These leaders were becoming the central figure for each faction instead of Jesus being the central figure for the whole church. So in essence, you had the Paul faction, the Apollos faction, the Cephas faction and so on.

Paul’s argument is that Jesus isn’t divided. Therefore, his church shouldn’t be divided into factions of people who are identifying with certain popular figures. Instead, the church should be united with everyone identifying with and following Jesus.

To make his case, Paul asks a number of rhetorical questions:

Was Paul crucified for you? (Obviously, the answer is NO)

Were you baptized into the name of Paul? (Again, the answer is obviously NO)

Paul then makes an interesting statement. He says that he is thankful that he didn’t baptize many of the Corinthians. He is glad about that because then they could not claim to have been baptized into Paul’s name. Paul did not want believers making him more important than Jesus.

This begs the question: if baptism is essential for salvation, why would Paul be thankful and glad that he didn’t baptize many people? Wouldn’t he be sad that he hadn’t been able to save many people?

Paul completes his thought with the following statement:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel

it’s easy to gloss over this statement but what’s important is the fact that Paul is claiming that his goal, his mandate, was to preach the gospel.

A question I have often asked people when engaging in this discussion:

If a person responds to the gospel, will they be saved?

I think most Christians would agree that the gospel message contains everything that is necessary for a person to become saved if they respond positively to the message.

In fact, Paul, n Romans 1:16-17 says,

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.

According to Paul, the gospel “is the power of God unto salvation.”

Now if the gospel message saves people and Paul says that he was sent by Christ to preach the gospel and NOT baptize people, then clearly, baptism is NOT a part of the salvation message, which means it is NOT necessary for a person to be saved.

This does not mean that baptism is not important or that there isn’t some significance to it. There is. It’s just not necessary to be saved.

To learn more about what baptism is and its significance to the Christian, please read the following related posts:

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What do you think are the essential elements of the gospel message? 

If baptism is necessary for salvation why does Paul say that Jesus did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel?

If baptism is NOT necessary for salvation, what is the purpose? Why is it practiced?

In verse 13, Paul asks the question, “were you baptized into the name of Paul?” What do you think that means? What does it mean to be baptized “into the name” of another person? How does this understanding of the word “baptize” shed light on the issue of whether baptism is necessary for salvation or not?

 

Photo by Alex Shute on Unsplash

Posted on

Does Acts 2:38 Teach That You Must Be Baptized to Be Saved?

Acts 2

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

(Acts 2:37-41, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Over the last month or so, I’ve made a number of posts regarding baptism. The reason for this is that early in June of 2026, I had an online interaction with a Mormon who, in his attempt to argue for the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, had made the claim that baptism was necessary for salvation. He posted a number of verse references as evidence for his position and I have been responding to the verses he mentioned as they turn up in my daily Bible reading.

Note: there are a number of mainline Christian denominations that also hold this view that baptism is essential for salvation, the most notable being the Church of Christ.

A few days ago, I read Acts 2, which includes what I would consider to be the cornerstone verse that is used by those who consider baptism to be essential for salvation (a doctrine known as “baptismal regeneration”).

The context for this passage is as follows:

In Acts 1, Jesus tells his disciples not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait, because in a few days they would all be baptized with the Holy Spirit. I expound on this passage more in my post “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?”

In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descends upon the Jerusalem believers and the church is officially born.

The event causes a stir and a lot of locals are wondering what is happening as they can see the evidence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of these disciples. This provides an opportunity for Peter to preach the first gospel sermon to the many onlookers.

Our passage above picks up right at the conclusion of Peter’s sermon, which prompts a response from the audience, to which Peter gives the aforementioned Acts 2:38 directive.

On the surface,  Acts 2:38 appears to indeed teach that baptism is necessary in order to be granted forgiveness for sins. However, it’s important to understand that this verse was originally written in Greek. The Greek word “for” in this verse is “eis“, which can have two different meanings.

The first meaning this word can have is “in order that”. The verse would then be understood to mean that we should each repent and be baptized “in order that” we could experience forgiveness.

The second and equally valid meaning for the word “eis” is “because of“. This changes the entire meaning of the verse. The verse then teaches that each of us should repent and be baptized “because” we have forgiveness of sins.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Those who believe that baptism is essential for salvation (including the Mormon church) arbitrarily select the first meaning for the word “for“. There is nothing in the original Greek grammar or syntax that indicates that is the correct meaning. Therefore, the second meaning is equally valid. In fact, there are many examples in the New Testament that demonstrate the second meaning of the word “eis“.

For example, in Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist says

I baptize you with water for repentance.

Does this mean that he is baptizing them so that they will repent, or because they had repented? It is obvious that the second meaning is the correct interpretation.

Another example from Matthew 12:41 says:

they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.

Does this mean that they repented so that Jonah would preach, or because Jonah had preached? The answer is obviously because Jonah had preached.

How about a modern example?

We’ve all seen posters that say “Wanted for Murder!” Do these posters indicate that they are looking for the individual so that he (or she) will commit murder? Or is it better to say that they are looking for the individual on the poster because he (or she) has committed murder? Obviously, the second meaning is the understood interpretation.

In the examples we’ve seen, the interpretation seems pretty obvious and straightforward, but in Acts 2:38, the meaning of the word “for” is not as obvious. How then do we determine the real meaning? Which definition should we give it? Is it “so that” or “because”?

Rather than arbitrarily picking the meaning, as those who subscribe to baptismal regeneration do, good Bible study technique tells us that the meaning of a passage is always determined by the context. If the immediate context doesn’t help in determining the meaning of the verse, then the broader context should be used to make the determination.

In other words, if the meaning of the passage is unclear or in doubt, we should interpret its meaning in the light of passages that are clear and not in doubt.

With that in mind let’s analyze Acts 2:38. There is nothing in the immediate context of the verse that tells us which meaning we should ascribe to the word “for“. However, if we look at the broader context, we do get some help.

In Acts 3:19, Peter gives another invitation to salvation. In this invitation he says,

“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord”.

In this sermon, Peter makes no mention of baptism. Forgiveness of sins is dependent only on turning to God. If Peter does not require baptism for salvation in Acts 3:19, then he must not require it in Acts 2:38 either. Otherwise, we would have a contradiction of Scripture, which would be a clear indication of interpretive error.

In Acts 10, Peter is sharing with some Gentiles how a person is saved. In this sermon Peter says:

“that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

In Acts 13, Paul is preaching about Christ. He says in verses 38-39,

Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Also, in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer directly asks Paul,

Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

Paul and Silas replied,

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.

All of these verses demonstrate that baptism is not a requirement for salvation. If baptism were indeed required for salvation, as those who hold to baptismal regeneration attest, wouldn’t we expect it to be mentioned in each of these examples?

Therefore, this indicates that the better interpretation of Acts 2:38 is “Repent and be baptized because you have forgiveness of sins.”

A List of Relevant Posts Regarding Baptism

 

As I’ve demonstrated in many of my other blog posts on this topic (see links to posts above), this interpretation not only fits our understanding of the meaning of baptism, but it fits perfectly with other passages that speak to how a person is saved and when and how a person receives the Holy Spirit.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

The word “for” is a preposition that can indicate causality (in order that) or result (because of). What are some examples you can think of where the word “for” is used in each way?

If the word “for” can have either meaning, why do you think some groups like the Mormons and the Church of Christ insist on their interpretation? What might be some possible motivations?

If you believe that this verse does indeed teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, how do you explain the omission of baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation in all of the other documented gospel sermons in the New Testament?

If baptism ISN’T necessary for salvation as the author of this blog suggests, then what is its purpose? Why do we see it practiced in the New Testament?

 

Photo by BBC Creative on Unsplash

Posted on

Did Jesus Teach that You Need to be Baptized to be Saved?

John 3

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.

4“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” (John 3:1-21, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

A few weeks ago, I had an online encounter with a Mormon who, in his quest to explain the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, made the claim that the Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

One of the passages he referenced to back up his claim was this passage from John 3, where Jesus has a conversation with Nicodemus, a Pharisee who came to Jesus secretly at night.

I previously wrote on this same passage (John 3:1-8) in my blog post “The Born-Again Redundancy” but that post, while it expounded some on the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus, never addressed the issue of baptism.

There’s a good reason why my previous post did not talk about the issue of baptism and that’s because neither the word nor the concept is found anywhere in the passage.

But since this passage was offered up as a proof text for the view that baptism by immersion with water (what I’ll from here on out refer to as “water baptism” or “baptismal regeneration”) is essential for salvation, it seems necessary and appropriate to comment on what Jesus is actually teaching in this passage.

If the words “baptism” and “baptize” are nowhere to be found within this passage, why would someone use this passage as “evidence” that Jesus taught baptism was necessary for salvation?

In short, I believe this passage is used as evidence by those who hold to the necessity of baptism for salvation simply because Jesus mentions water.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

As I conversed with this Mormon acquaintance online, he noted that Jesus himself said that in order to enter the Kingdom of God, one must be born of water and the Spirit. He argued that when Jesus mentioned being “born of water” he was referencing the ordinance of baptism.

This conclusion is actually a perfect example of the theological error known as eisegesis, which means “to read into the text.”

What exactly does that mean?

When we read and study the Bible, our goal should be to understand what the author meant when he wrote what he wrote. We do our best to place ourselves in the context of the person living at the time the text was written and seek to understand what it would have meant to a person living within that culture at that specific time. This is known as exegesis, or “drawing out of the text.”

When we understand what the author’s original intent was, we can then understand how the original hearer of the text would have understood what they were reading and hearing. That is the original message we want to capture, understand and apply to our own situation.

But eisegesis functions in the exact opposite way. Instead of seeking to understand what the text meant to the original audience, the person imports their preferred meaning into the text and then declares that to be the teaching.

So in our case, it looks like this:

Jesus had a conversation with Nicodemus about how one enters the kingdom of God and Jesus said that a person must be born of water and the Spirit.

Even though Jesus says nothing about baptism and it’s unclear at first glance what it means to be born of water and what it means to be born of the Spirit, the person who holds to baptismal regeneration has already concluded that the passage is talking about baptism.

Since the conclusion is already determined, reasons justifying that conclusion are then produced. In this case, the passage has the term water in it and baptism requires water so it is argued that this passage must be speaking about baptism.

This line of reasoning utterly fails.

Not only does Jesus not say baptism is necessary for salvation, he doesn’t even mention baptism in this interchange.

So then what is Jesus saying?

I explain this more fully in my blog post “The Born-Again Redundancy” but Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that just as a person is born physically which leads to physical life, so a person must be born spiritually in order to experience spiritual life, or life in the kingdom of God.

Jesus himself explains what is meant by the phrase “being born of water and the Spirit” when he says just a few verses later that “flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”

It’s clear that being born of water refers to physical birth while being born of the Spirit refers to a spiritual birth. According to Jesus, both are necessary for salvation. In reality, everyone who has ever existed has already experienced physical birth just by being born.

So then, what is necessary to enter the kingdom of God is to experience a spiritual birth. This is the entire point Jesus is making to Nicodemus – to enter the kingdom of God, you must experience a spiritual birth.

The natural question then is “how does one experience a spiritual birth?”

Notice that as Jesus continues his discourse with Nicodemus, he does not mention baptism as a condition for salvation (spiritual birth). In fact, baptism is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.

What Jesus DOES mention as necessary for salvation, multiple times in fact, is BELIEF.

Specifically, in verse 15, Jesus says “that everyone who believes in him [Jesus] may have eternal life.”

Again, in verse 16, one of the most famously quoted verses in the entire Bible, Jesus says “that whoever believes in him [Jesus] shall not perish but have eternal life.”

So what is the verdict?

Concerning the charge that Jesus taught that baptism was/is necessary for salvation, the charge is false. Jesus did not teach that in this passage. Instead, he taught that a spiritual birth is necessary in order to know God and experience life in his kingdom. Jesus, as well as the other New Testament authors, taught that this spiritual birth comes as a result of BELIEF in the person and the work of Jesus on the cross.

To examine this issue further, see the following related posts:

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What are some examples you have seen of eisegesis – when a person imports their doctrine or theological preference upon a text that doesn’t appear to be teaching that doctrine or idea at all?

If you believe that Jesus, in this passage, is talking about the importance of baptism to Nicodemus, what reasons do you have to support that interpretation?

Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God, a person must be “born again”. What do you think it means to be “born again?” How do you understand that phrase?

It’s clear that Nicodemus falsely understood Jesus’ term “born again” to be referring to a 2nd physical birth. Jesus corrects him and explains that he’s talking about a spiritual reality that must take place. Based on this passage, what does Jesus teach about how a person experiences this spiritual birth?

Have you personally experienced a spiritual birth? If not, what keeps you from taking that step?

If you want to learn more about experiencing a “spiritual birth” and experiencing eternal life and life in the kingdom of God, read my blog post “Four Points to Understand How to Experience Eternal Life.”

 

Photo by Daniel & Hannah Snipes: https://www.pexels.com/photo/outdoor-baptism-ceremony-in-south-carolina-30477080/

Posted on

What is Baptism?

Romans 6

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

This is the question I posed in a recent post of the same title.

My prompt for delving into this topic was a recent online conversation I had with a Mormon, who, in making his case for the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, had made the claim that the Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Mormons teach that a great apostasy occurred shortly after the apostles died and the authoritative line for administering baptisms was lost….for nearly 1800 years! (I’ve addressed this theological error in my post “Did Paul Predict an Apostasy in Which the Church Would be Completely Lost?”). But fortunately, according to Mormonism, Jesus supposedly restored the priestly line and authority for baptisms through Joseph Smith and the Mormon church.

I argued in my post “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” that those who hold to this view, that baptism is necessary for salvation, often have an inaccurate understanding of what baptism is.

Many have an understanding of baptism that is informed only by their own religious experience. Hence, they think that any time the word appears in the Bible, it must be referring to the act of immersing someone in water for some efficacious religious purpose, i.e. cleansing of their sins and completing the salvation process.

But the meaning of the word “baptism” is broader than our own religious experience dictates and is often used in the Bible in ways that have nothing to do with any kind of immersive water experience.

So what is baptism exactly?

This passage in Romans is one of the clearest in terms of helping us understand exactly what baptism is and how it was understood by the apostles.

Specifically, there are two parallel statements that give clarification regarding what baptism is.

Verse 3 says, “don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

But verse 5 says, “If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”

Clearly, these two parallel verses demonstrate that to be “baptized into Christ and his death” is to be “united with Christ and His death.”

Hence, baptism is union with Christ.

This fits exactly with the broader biblical meaning of the word “baptize” which is identification. 

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Paul is saying that when one identifies with Christ, they are identified with His death. This is exactly what the gospel teaches. When a person receives Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they experience a change in identity. Instead of being a person who is alienated and separated from God, the new believer enters into a union with Christ that is characterized by a new family relationship – they are now a child of God – an adopted son or daughter.

This new identity takes place at the moment a person believes in Jesus. They receive forgiveness precisely because they are united with Jesus in His death. Simply put, when a person receives Jesus, they are indicating that they want Jesus’ death to pay for their sins instead of having to pay the penalty for their sins on their own, which leads to judgment and eternal death.

Jesus’ death now counts for the believer. His death pays for all their sins and as a result, they experience complete and total forgiveness.

Those who hold to baptismal regeneration (the belief that baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation) might argue that this new identity doesn’t happen until a person is baptized with water by immersion.

But this contradicts what Scripture teaches, which is that a person is justified by faith alone and that believers receive the Holy Spirit (the sign that we are now members of God’s family) at the moment of belief, not at the moment of being baptized.

Furthermore, if the broader understanding of baptism is one of identification, then it makes sense that the purpose of water baptism is not to complete some salvation formula but is simply a way of identifying to the world in a physical way (being immersed in water) to a spiritual reality that has already taken place. The spiritual reality is that the person, based on their belief and trust in Jesus, now identifies with Jesus and Jesus’ death and is now a member of God’s family.

So what is baptism?

Baptism is a union with Jesus that takes place when we put our faith in Him and His death. At the very moment we do that, we become united with Jesus AND we become united with His death. Being united with His death means that His death now pays for my sins, which means I can experience forgiveness and I can escape the punishment I deserve for the sins I’ve committed.

This union with Christ means that I have a new identity – I’m a child of God!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What was your experience with baptism growing up? Were you baptized? If so, what meaning was attributed to this religious ceremony by your religious tradition?

What do you think it means to be united with Christ?

If you think baptism is a religious ceremony that completes the salvation process, what do you think was the reason and purpose for Jesus being baptized? (See my post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”)

If baptism was necessary for salvation, how do you explain Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, who was never baptized, but was promised by Jesus that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day?

 

Photo by Logan Gutierrez on Unsplash

Posted on

Should People Take the Mormon “Challenge”?

Galatians 1

6I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who in his love and mercy called you to share the eternal life he gives through Christ. You are already following a different way 7that pretends to be the Good News but is not the Good News at all. You are being fooled by those who twist and change the truth concerning Christ.

8Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.

10Obviously, I’m not trying to be a people pleaser! No, I am trying to please God. If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s servant. (Galatians 1:6-10, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

If you haven’t noticed, Mormonism has been a huge topic on social media the last few days. The main topic of discussion and debate has been centered around the question of whether or not Mormons are Christians.

For context, the Department of Defense recently posted a memo regarding new abbreviated codes to identify the many different religious backgrounds that might be represented among the troops.

According to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the previous list of religious options was out of control, with over 200 different options. The goal was to simplify the number of codes and options, making it easier for chaplains to do their job of ministering to the troops.

The problem was that the new list had a number of different Christian denominations listed, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian” but the Mormon Church was not listed as Christian. Instead, it was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint.”

This set off a firestorm among many Mormon influencers and regular Mormon Joes who were offended that the U.S. government apparently didn’t consider Mormons to be Christian.

Chief among those speaking out online were Utah Senator Mike Lee (@basedMikeLee on X), who took every opportunity to post his thoughts and objections to this “egregious error” inflicted on Latter Day Saints.

This incident sparked a lot of online conversations about whether or not Mormons are Christians.

Mormons, of course, believe they ARE Christians, while evangelicals have argued that Mormons are NOT Christians because, despite the fact that Jesus Christ is in their name, they do not hold to the traditional Christian doctrinal views on Jesus, God, the Church, salvation, or the Scriptures.

The online discussion afforded many Mormons, including Senator Lee, the opportunity to inform and proselytize others regarding the Mormon faith.

In one of his posts, Senator Lee offered up what I’m calling the “Mormon challenge”:

This is the Mormon “trump” card so to speak. “Just read the Book of Mormon in it’s entirety”, they say, “and ask God humbly and with sincerity if it’s true.” This challenge is often offered as a gauntlet that is laid down for those who portend to be truth-seekers.

“What do you have to lose”, Mormons ask. The sentiment is, “Don’t be a chicken!”

Millions of Mormons attest that Mormonism is indeed true based on this challenge.

Should Christians accept this challenge?

The answer is a resounding NO.

There are two reasons why Christians should not take this challenge and neither of them have to do with being scared of the outcome.

The first reason you should not take this challenge is because it’s not falsifiable. The challenge is actually like the old “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition, which means that the challenge is designed to “prove” Mormonism is true regardless of the results of your humble and sincere prayer.

Think about it: if you pray and you say that you felt nothing or you didn’t get any firm and obvious confirmation from your prayer, the Mormon can just say that you were obviously not sincere enough, or humble enough or something similar.

Yet if you say that you DID feel something, that emotional response, regardless of how small or incomprehensible, is offered as proof that Mormonism is true.

In other words, the challenge simply appeals to an emotional response as evidence of veracity.

This leads to the second reason one should NOT take this challenge, which is that it’s unbiblical.

Nowhere in Scripture are people encouraged to evaluate truth claims by appealing to an emotional response.

Instead, we are exhorted to test a message against the clear revelation that has already been given by God.

Acts 17 is a good example of this. I have written about this passage in another blog post, “Fact-Checking and Misinformation in the New Testament” in which the Bereans were commended for testing Paul’s message against the Scriptures.

A second clear example of testing a message is in the Galatians passage listed above, in which Paul tells his audience that any “gospel” message that is not in alignment or in agreement with the gospel message he had already preached to them was to be rejected. Paul tells the Galatians that the person giving this false message is to be cursed.

We know exactly what the message was that Paul originally preached to the Galatians because he writes his letter to the Galatians to reinforce the original message and to correct their subsequent misunderstanding brought about by false teachers. The gospel message Paul preached was a message of justification by faith in Christ alone, apart from any works.

Since we already know that the Mormon message is different than Paul’s message on many different levels doctrinally, there is no need to “pray on it.” In fact, reading the Book of Mormon and praying on it could be considered disobedience to Paul’s admonition to outright reject so-called gospel messages that are different from what he taught the Galatians.

The debate about whether Mormons are Christian or not, while interesting, is in many ways irrelevant. The truth is that anyone can identify themselves as a Christian. Yet, it’s not as important what you call yourself as what you believe.

Mormons say they are Christians because they follow Jesus Christ. But so do Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Liberal Christians and even Progressive Christians. Even Muslims will tell you that they respect and revere Jesus as a prophet.

All these groups, along with Latter Day Saints, have wildly different theological views on God, Jesus, salvation and the nature of the church, and yet, they all consider themselves “Christian”.

Are they Christian? The only way we can really know is to evaluate their beliefs in relation to what the Bible teaches.

With that in mind, I propose an alternate challenge to those who consider themselves Mormons…a challenge that is actually biblical. The challenge is to read the Bible cover to cover. Then compare the teachings of Mormonism with the teachings of the Bible, and specifically, compare the Mormon message with the gospel message taught by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament.

Then tell me – does Mormonism line up with the already revealed and accepted teachings of Jesus and the apostles?

So Mike Lee (and other Mormons)….will you accept the challenge?

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What is your definition of a Christian? According to the Bible and the gospel, how does one become a Christian?

What was the essence of the salvation message taught by Jesus and His disciples? What is the essence of the Mormon message regarding how a person is saved?

What is the traditional Christian teaching on the nature of Jesus? How do Mormons view the nature of Jesus? Are these two views the same? How do they differ?

Do you think it matters what a person believes about Jesus in order to be saved? Or is it simply enough to say you believe in Jesus? 

 

photo by Dave Lowe