context – The Lowedown

September 16, 2026September 16, 2026

Einstein, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the “Fudge Factor”

Do you like fudge?

Who doesn’t?

Fudge is deliciously rich chocolatey goodness.

But fudge can also be bad, depending on the context, as Ralphie demonstrated in this classic scene from “A Christmas Story”.

Using “fudge” as a replacement for the F-word is obviously bad.

But there’s another situation in which fudge is considered bad, and that’s when someone provides misleading or incomplete information in order to direct an outcome or conclusion that they want.

In their book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek tell the story of Albert Einstein and the development of his general theory of relativity.

According to the authors, Einstein, in the early development of his theory, didn’t like where his calculations were leading. Einstein, like a lot of scientists at the time, had always assumed that the universe was eternal. If the universe is eternal, then there is no need for God as an explanation for its existence.

But as Einstein continued to work out the calculations of his theory, it was becoming more apparent that the universe, including all space, time, matter and energy, did indeed have a beginning.

Einstein was irritated by this development because he didn’t like the implication that followed, namely that if the universe was caused, there must be something, or someone, who caused it.

To address this irritation, Einstein introduced a universal constant into his equations that served to show that the universe was static and was NOT caused.

The problem with Einstein’s constant, which came to be known as a “fudge factor”, is that it was shown to be false, a mathematical error that appeared to be introduced purely for philosophical reasons.

Einstein’s theory of relativity, along with the corresponding Big Bang Theory are now as universally accepted scientific truths as gravity, and are the basis for the Cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The Cosmological argument is a logical proof that demonstrates that God must exist. The argument can be stated as follows:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

The theist argues that the cause of the universe is God, while the atheist, who for years could always appeal to the universe as an eternally existing uncaused reality, now has to come up with an explanation for the existence of the universe without appealing to God as the first cause.

So what motivates a person to “fudge” the data?

The simple answer is that people don’t like where the data is leading so “fudging” the data is an attempted method of controlling a narrative.

So “fudge” can be good or it can be bad, depending on the context.

It turns out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses LOVE fudge, and not the good kind, because the evidence shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses, like Einstein, introduce lots of “fudge factors” into their arguments and even into the Scriptures in order to preserve the narrative to which they are committed.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce “fudge” into their arguments?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce “fudge” in a variety of ways, including ignoring context, twisting and changing the meaning of words, and even inserting words that are not in the original text, all for the purpose of controlling the interpretation of the biblical passages that most challenge their doctrinal preferences.

Ignoring Context

The most obvious example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses ignoring context is their interpretation of John 10:30, in which Jesus declares to the Pharisees that “I and the Father are one.”

I analyze this passage in greater detail in my blog post “Evidence that Jesus is God” and give a rebuttal to typical Jehovah’s Witness responses in my follow-up post “Evidence that Jesus is God – Part 2” but the summary is that Jesus makes the aforementioned statement (“I and the Father are one”) and the response from the Pharisees is to pick up stones to stone Jesus.

Jesus asks them why they want to stone him and their response is that they’re stoning him for blasphemy, that “you, a mere man, have made yourself God.”

The context clearly shows that the Pharisees understood Jesus’ statement to be a declaration of deity.

So how do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain this passage?

Simple. They whip up some theological fudge and completely ignore the context and clear meaning of the passage by claiming that Jesus, in declaring himself to be one with the Father, was simply affirming that he was “one in purpose” with the Father.

When challenged with this interpretation by appealing to the context, which clearly shows that the Jehovah’s Witness explanation is NOT the understanding the Pharisees had, Jehovah’s Witnesses double down by pointing to John 17, in which Jesus prays that his followers will be “one” as he and the Father are one.

So Jehovah’s Witnesses ignore the immediate context of John 10, which clearly indicates the Pharisees understood Jesus to be making a claim of deity, and appeal instead to a passage seven chapters later, in which Jesus is praying for his followers to experience missional and relational unity, and they apply that understanding to the John 10 passage.

This is some pretty rich doctrinal fudge.

Later in John 10:38, Jesus doubles down by saying, “understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.“ After making this follow-up statement of relational unity and equality with God, the Pharisees “again tried to seize him.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses churn up some doctrinal fudge by ignoring immediate context, which clearly shows that Jesus was making a claim to deity, and applying a more distant and unrelated passage to promote the explanation that Jesus was simply asserting that he and the Father were in agreement on missional objectives.

It turns out that fudge is really helpful in providing alternative explanations for uncomfortable passages.

Changing the Meaning of Words

Another way the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce fudge into their doctrinal arguments is by changing or twisting the plain meaning of biblical words, which effectively alters the plain meaning of straightforward verses.

A clear example of how they do this is with the word “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 and 18. Again, I have outlined in detail the meaning of this passage in my blog post “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?” and my follow-up post “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn? (Part 2)”.

The headline is that the word “firstborn”, which appears in well over 100 verses in the Scriptures, can mean “first in chronological birth order” but only when it is used in speaking of parent-child relationships. For example, when the text says, “Reuben was Jacob’s firstborn”, it clearly means that Reuben was the first in chronological order of all of Jacob’s offspring.

However, when the word “firstborn” is not used in relation to a parent-child relationship, it never carries the meaning “first in line”. Instead, it always carries the meaning of “pre-eminence” or “highest rank”.

So when Paul speaks of Jesus as “firstborn of creation” or “firstborn from the dead” it’s obvious that he’s not speaking of a parent-child relationship. Jehovah’s Witnesses bake up some doctrinal fudge by claiming that the word “firstborn” in both of these cases means something like “first in line.”

It should be noted that in this passage, Jehovah’s Witnesses also add the fudge of ignoring context, since it’s clear that Paul is seeking to establish Jesus’ superiority over all things when he explains “that in everything he [Jesus] might have the supremacy.”

Even though the word “firstborn”, when used in the way Paul uses it in Colossians, always has the meaning of “pre-eminence”, and even though the context demonstrates that Paul is making a case for Jesus’ supremacy in all things, Jehovah’s Witnesses still opt for the alternate interpretation that “firstborn” here actually means that Jesus was “first-created” by Jehovah. They insist that Paul’s intention was to communicate that Jesus was Jehovah’s first created being, despite the fact that there is a specific Greek word that literally means “first-created” and Paul does not use that word.

There’s another clear example of how the Jehovah’s Witnesses twist the meaning of words in order to change the meaning of a passage to more accurately reflect their theological preference.

In Hebrews chapter 1, the author is making the case that Jesus is superior to angels.

In verse 3, the writer says directly that “Jesus is the exact representation of His [God’s] nature.”

If this were not evidence enough that Jesus possesses a divine nature, just a few verses later in verse 6, God explicitly says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

We know that only God is to be worshiped and here the angels are commanded to worship Jesus. What other conclusion is there but that Jesus is God, possessing a divine nature and exactly representing the nature of God?

The conclusion seems airtight, yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses apply a fresh batch of doctrinal fudge to explain this verse.

The Greek word for “worship” is “proskuneo” which literally means “to worship”. And yet, the Jehovah’s Witnesses change the meaning of “proskuneo” from “worship” to “do obeisance”.

It’s interesting to note that the 1961 version of the New World Translation rendered Hebrews 1:6 exactly as other bible translations do – in which God says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” However, starting with the 1971 version of the New World Translation, and with all versions moving forward, the translation of this verse was changed to “let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

The Greek word is still the same word (proskuneo) but the translation was changed.

What is the reason for the change?

Jehovah’s Witnesses cite the context as the reason for the change. Yet here is another clear example of the context being ignored and the plain meaning of the words being altered in order to promote an interpretation that aligns with the Jehovah’s Witnesses preferred doctrinal preference.

The context clearly demonstrates that Jesus is to be worshiped because he is God, for the text says that Jesus:

- is the radiance of the Father’s glory
- is the exact representation of the Father’s nature
- is the appointed heir of all things
- made the universe
- sustains all things by the power of his word
- sits at the right hand of Majesty

All of these statements point to and argue for the deity and supremacy of Jesus and yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses apply the “fudge factor” by ignoring context and changing or twisting the meaning of words to suit their prior theological interpretation.

Adding Words to the Text

There’s a third way Jehovah’s Witnesses add some doctrinal fudge to their theological arguments and that is by adding words to the biblical text that are not there originally.

The most obvious example of this is in their handling of John 1:1, in which the apostle John says,

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I explain and analyze this text in greater detail in my blog post, “A Modern Day Version of an Ancient Heresy”.

John, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, begins his gospel with words that clearly demonstrate that Jesus is divine.

The context makes this clear as John asserts that “Jesus was with God in the beginning”, indicating that Jesus existed BEFORE everything was created. That means Jesus is eternal.

John also states that Jesus made everything and is the source of life.

These are all qualities that point to divinity, supporting the first verse in which John states that Jesus was WITH God and Jesus IS God.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses handle this passage that seems to clearly demonstrate the divine nature of Jesus?

They apply the “fudge factor”.

In contrast to every other translation of the Bible and Greek scholars everywhere, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their New World translation, add the indefinite article “a’ into the text, even though it is not there in the original Greek, thus completely changing the meaning of the verse.

John 1:1 in the New World Translation reads,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Notice the fudge factor insertion of the word “a” which has the effect of making Jesus a lesser “god” instead of equal with God.

Why exactly would they insert this word? What is the justification?

There is no contextual reason to do it for we’ve already seen that the context supports the original translation, which is that Jesus is divine in his nature.

Nor is there any grammatical reason to add the word. It’s not there in the original Greek and no non-Jehovah’s Witness translators have translated the verse in this way. In fact, the Jehovah’s Witness’ translation has been universally panned by the biblical translation community.

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses fudging the data by adding words to the text.

In Colossians 1:16-17, the New World Translation adds the word “other” four times even though the word is not there in the original Greek (see my blog post “How Does Isaiah 44 Demonstrate that Jesus is God?”, which goes into greater detail on the Jehovah’s Witnesses mishandling of this verse).

Here is the NIV translation of Colossians 1:16-17, which matches just about every bible translation you will find:

For 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.

The plain meaning of these verses indicate that Jesus is the creator of all things, he existed before all things and he holds all things together. Clearly, these two verses demonstrate Jesus’ power and his eternal nature, both qualities that provide strong evidence that Jesus is God.

Now look at how the Jehovah’s Witnesses translate this same verse in their New World Translation:

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 (Colossians 1:16-17, New World Translation)

I’ve highlighted the four instances of the word “other” that have been inserted into the text by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in order diminish the divine nature of Jesus.

What is the justification for adding the word “other”?

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the word “other” is added in order to make the text more readable. They cite other verses, such as Luke 13:2 where the word “other” is inserted to distinguish all the “other” Galileans from the subset of Galileans that Jesus had just mentioned.

This explanation is not sufficient as the insertion of “other” in Luke 13:2 does not change the meaning of the verse, while the insertion of “other” in Colossians 1:16-17 completely changes the meaning of the passage, making Jesus a created being instead of the eternally self-existent author of creation.

In short, Jehovah’s Witnesses, like Einstein with his theory of relativity, don’t like the implications of the passage, as it contradicts their preferred theological understanding. To rectifiy the situation, they insert a “fudge factor” to altar the equation, which yields a result that fits their ideological choice.

Jehovah’s Witnesses consistently engage in the theological Bible study error known as eisegesis, which means “to read into the text.”

What that means is that instead of allowing the Scriptures to inform their theological view, the Jehovah’s Witnesses conform the text to match their theological view. This is dishonest. It’s “fudging” the data to create the conclusion they want.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have decided that Jesus is a created being, a lesser god, if you will, than almighty Jehovah. They establish this conclusion first and then every verse that seems to challenge their concusion must be interpreted in a way that affirms this prior doctrinal choice.

As has been shown, this is extremely difficult to do with the Scriptures because of the plethora of passages that point to Jesus’ divinity and support the traditional Christian doctrine that Jesus, in his very nature, is God.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses approach this difficulty in the same way Einstein did with his general theory of relativity, by inserting “fudge factors” into the text and into their explanations.

They insert these “fudge factors” in three different ways: by ignoring the immediate context that substantiates the traditional meaning and interpretation of debated texts, by changing and twisting the meaning of words beyond their normal and accepted use in order to force their interpretations onto the passage, and by inserting words into the text that are not there in the original Greek. The net effect of these “fudge factors” is to alter the plain and obvious meaning of passages that clearly refute their doctrinal view.

One would think that Einstein’s discovery that the universe had a beginning would have been a fatal blow to atheism, but it wasn’t. In fact, atheism as an ideology is more popular now than it was 100 years ago when Einstein was first formulating his theory.

Whenever someone is faced with evidence that challenges their official narrative, it creates ideological tension. How one deals with that ideological tension is very telling.

In the case of atheism, they simply dismiss or ignore any and all evidence that refutes their view. This is known as confirmation bias and it’s been around forever. Saul, later known as Paul, provides a clear example of confirmation bias, which I explain in my blog post “Saul’s Conversion and Confirmation Bias”.

In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they reinterpret the evidence that challenges their narrative by introducing “fudge factors” that conform the evidence to their narrative. This is what is known as “cognitive dissonance”, a phenomenon in which information is not ignored or dismissed but is reinterpreted in such a way that the original narrative is maintained (see my blog post “Job’s Case of Cognitive Dissonance” for a biblical example).

The Jehovah’s Witnesses do this through their generous use of “fudge factors” – ignoring context, changing the meaning of words and adding words to change the intended meaning.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are just like atheists in this respect: they are so committed to their ideology that they will resort to “fudging” the data as a way to explain and maintain their view.

Fudge as a dessert may taste good, but when used in misleading and dishonest ways, it can end up leaving a bad taste in your mouth. Just ask Ralphie, he’ll tell you.

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

July 13, 2026

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.

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

April 27, 2024May 22, 2024

Does Jesus Really Give us the Strength to do ANYTHING?

Philippians 4

¹⁰How grateful I am, and how I praise the Lord that you are concerned about me again. I know you have always been concerned for me, but for a while you didn’t have the chance to help me. ¹¹Not that I was ever in need, for I have learned how to get along happily whether I have much or little. ¹²I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. ¹³For I can do everything with the help of Christ who gives me the strength I need. ¹⁴But even so, you have done well to share with me in my present difficulty. (Phillippians 4:10-14, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

When my sons were in high school, they ran Cross Country and Track. I was at the school for all their meets taking photos for the team and as a result, I made a number of observations about the high schoolers of today compared to when I was in high school.

One thing that hasn’t changed since I was in high school is the letterman’s jacket. Donned with a myriad of patches and inscriptions, many of the athletes I observed proudly wore their jackets, even in scorching temperatures, as a testament to their many accomplishments.

Some jackets had the name of the athlete stitched on the back. Occasionally, I would see a jacket that had a Bible verse reference stitched on the jacket somewhere. One of the most popular verses I saw referenced was Philippians 4:13, in which Paul says:

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. (World English Bible)

For many athletes, Philippians 4:13 has become somewhat of a personalized mantra, a slogan repeated and memorized to help realize their athletic performance goals.

Is it true? Does Jesus really give us the strength to accomplish ANYTHING we might put our minds to? If I want to run faster, become stronger or perform better, can I invoke this biblical axiom to help me achieve my desired potential?

Unfortunately, this is not what Paul was talking about when he penned these words.

A few months ago, Christian apologist and author Clay Jones tweeted the following screenshot on X, creating some discussion and debate around the meaning and understanding of this very verse:

According to this post on X from Dustin Benge, Paul’s words have nothing to do with sports or fulfilling personal dreams. Instead, Paul was speaking about endurance in the midst of suffering.

This post created quite a bit of discussion amongst people who were confused about how and when we might invoke these words that Paul penned for our own circumstances.

Is it out of bounds to talk about how Christ gives one strength for a sporting event? Or is one only allowed to refer to the strength of Christ if and when we are sitting in a prison, as Paul was? Since most of us probably won’t ever find ourselves in the exact situation Paul was in, it seems a bit narrow to say that one can only refer to or appeal to the strength of Christ for that specific situation.

So what is Paul saying? What is the meaning of this verse and how does it apply to us today?

I think the point of the original tweeter (@DustinBenge) and the re-tweeter (@ClayBJones) is that this verse is often taken out of context and appropriated by people for their own selfish goals and ambitions. To understand and know how I might apply this verse for myself, I must understand the context in which Paul was speaking. Once I know the context and the general spiritual principle, I can then apply that general principle to my own situations where appropriate.

So what is the context and what is the principle?

We’ve already noted that Paul was in prison. The broader context of the letter to the Philippians is that Paul was expressing joy and thankfulness to the Philippian church for a financial gift that they had sent.

In this passage, Paul says that he knows the secret of living in every situation. Paul is talking about his need. He learned to deal with situations where he had nothing to eat as well as situations where he had plenty.

Paul had learned from experience that no matter what situation he faced, particularly regarding his physical circumstances, Christ was the one who was ultimately sustaining him. Essentially, Paul is talking about contentment and experiencing joy despite the circumstances.

The question for us then, is how does this verse apply to us? In what situations might we appropriate these words without taking the verse out of context?

First of all, it should be obvious that this verse is not an axiom that one might invoke to achieve some personal goal or achievement.

Instead, these words are an acknowledgement that ultimately, Jesus is the one who sustains us, physically as well as spiritually. Hence, any situation we might find ourselves in where we are struggling or perhaps doubting, we can acknowledge Jesus as our source of strength and life.

No, Jesus does not strengthen us with super-human abilities or capacities to accomplish any selfish endeavor one might imagine. But Jesus does provide strength to enable us to deal with our struggles, whether they’re physical, emotional or spiritual. Jesus sustains us when we are lonely, anxious, weary, fearful, insecure, hungry, thirsty, angry, etc. Jesus also provides strength to enable us to resist temptation and walk in humility.

And yes, those feelings of inadequacy, helplessness and all the others mentioned can occur while competing in a sporting event, or engaging in some other personal endeavor. Hence, Jesus sustains us and can provide strength in endeavors of all kinds.

Reflection

What has been your understanding of Paul’s words that “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”?

In what situations have you found yourself appealing to this verse? What kinds of situations might you feel compelled to acknowledge your need for Christ to strengthen you.

Do you agree with the original tweeter (Dustin Benge in the screenshot) who states that this verse has NOTHING to do with sports, personal dreams, being a champion, overcoming obstacles or building self-esteem? Why or why not?

What do you think it looks like for Christ to give you strength?

Photo by Dave Lowe