Matthew chapter 23

This chapter is a very stern rebuke of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. It also serves as a grim reminder of the responcibility of those in leadership within the church to avoid hypocrisy.

Before Jesus gets into the "Seven Woes" however, He outlines how those of the congregation and who are not in leadership should respond to the leaders of the church, seated in authority over them. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you." Jesus is very clear, we are to submit to those in authority over us. In the case of the Pharisees though, who taught the Law but did not live according to it, Jesus goes on to say, "But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." This statement sets up the behaviour of the hypocritical Pharisees as behaviours we should not emulate but still we are to sumbit to their authority and live according to what they teach, that is the Word of God, even though they themselves do not live according to their own teachings.

In Verses 5 - 12, Jesus speaks about the trap of living solely for the approval of men rather than the approval of God and how "whoever exalts himself [before men] will be humbled [by God], and whoever humbles himself [before men] will be exalted [by God]." Jesus lists three ways in which the Pharisees seek to be noticed for their 'piety'.

"Everything they [the Pharisees] do is done for men to see..."

1. They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;

Phylacteries or Tefillin consist of two kosher, leather boxes, one worn on the arm and known as "shel yad", and the other worn on the head and known as "shel rosh". Each box contained the scriptural passages: Exod. 13:1-10, Exod. 13:11-16; Deut. 6:4-9, Deut. 11:13-21, written by a specially trained scribe. The basis for wearing phylacteries was derived by the Rabbis from four biblical verses found within the passages chosen: Exod. 13:9, Exod. 13:16, Deut. 6:8, and Deut. 11:18.

The garments refered to are most likely the tallith, making the tassels the tzitzit, which is a prayer shawl, also commanded by God to be worn by the Jews/Israelites in Numbers 15:38.

Neither the phylacteries nor the tallith were restricted so only Pharisees or teachers could wear them. In fact the phylacteries are an essential part of morning prayer services, and are worn on a daily basis (except the Sabbath and festivals) by many Jews. Most Jewish men also wear the tallith during the morning, Shacharit prayers, during the Torah service, and on Yom Kippur.
(See Why touch the hem of His cloak? for the fulfilment of a Messianic prophesey in the tallith and tzitzit.)

By making their phylacteries wide and their tallith tassels long the Pharisees demonstrate an exterior presentation of scriptural knowledge and observance of prayer without any inner understanding or change.

2. They love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;

The Pharisees and Teachers of the Law enjoyed a high standing in the community and as such recieved the 'royal' treatment at banquets or in the synagogues. They loved the places of honor because they would be 'looked up at', as traditionally the places of honor at a banquet were served first, had the best food, the most comfortable seating, and in many cases were even raised on a higher level than the more 'common' tables of guests.Jesus is highlighting the 'Love' they have for this honor as the problem, not the honor itself. A great theological teacher or church leader should be treated with respect, but he should not 'love' the place of honor he recieves but rather love service he is doing for the body of Christ. Rather, any praise he recieves should be swiftly turned to God as it is by the Gifts of God that any man or woman is blessed with the ability to teach. This statement is challenging the motives of the Pharisees.

3. They love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

The Jewish Rabbis were also called father and master, by their several disciples / students. There were two important requirements of the Rabbi's disciples,
a. To believe implicitly what the Rabbi said was true, without asking any farther reason.
b. To obey implicitly what the Rabbi instructed, without seeking any further authority.

Jesus, therefore, by forbidding us either to give or receive the title of Rabbi, Master, or Father, forbids us either to receive any such reverence, or to pay any such to any man, but only to God. Jesus is not using 'father' here in a paternal sence.

In Verses 13-39 Jesus gives 9 rebukes which are in stark contrast to the 9 blessing of the Sermon on the Mount. Where the Sermon on the Mount gives the Be-atitudes and blessings associated with correct Christian living, here we see their opposite and the punnishments associated with hypocritical and woeful behaviour of one professing righteousness without the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus speaks harshly here, but this is not the language of personal irritation, but of divine warning and condemnation.

It is also very important to realise that, while we often think of the Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites the Pharisees' contemporaries thought of them as very devoted to the Bible, and considered the scribes experts in biblical law. In today's terms, Jesus was condeming many popular preachers and people who seemed to be living holy lives. However, where humans see only the exterior Jesus knows the heart of a man and they were practicing human religion rather than serving God with purified hearts.

1. You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

The Pharisees were not poor in spirit or humble so they tried to enter the Kingdom on their wn righteousness. Also they hindered others by such a hypocritical profession of faith. It is bad for someone to not enter into heaven themselves, but it is far worse to prevent another from going in (Matthew 18:6).

2. You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Zeal in evangelism does not prove that a person is right with God. They were courageous and energetic messengers, but with a false message.

3. Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?

Out of obedience to God's word, they would not swear by the name of God (Exodus 20:7). But they constructed an elaborate system of oaths, some of which were binding and some were not. A way of making a promise while keeping your fingers crossed.

4. You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Neither a camel nor a gnat are kosher and thus were not allowed to be consumed. Here Jesus is pionting out how the Pharisees observed the minor and exterior details such as tithing but ignored the more important matters of the law like justice, mercy and faithfulness.

5. You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

Rather than being satisfied with a superficial cleansing, and the appearance of righteousness before others, God looks for a true cleansing, so we can be clean before God and man.

6. On the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

God is never fooled by what we show on the outside. He sees what we actually are, not what we appear to be to other men.

7. You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'

They professed to venerate the dead, but they rejected the living. In doing so, they show that they really are the children of those who murdered the prophets in the days of old

8. You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Jesus compares the Pharisees to the Devil here, linking them to his heritage and not that of Abraham.

9. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'

Luke 19:41 tells us that Jesus wept as He looked over the city of Jerusalem, contemplated its coming judgment, and said these words. Jesus wanted to protect them from the terrible judgment that will follow their rejection of Him. Jesus is revealing here one of the conditions surrounding His Second Coming. When Jesus comes again, the Jewish people will welcome Him as the Messiah saying, "blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

Where did the Bible come from?

Sola scriptura: That the Scripture alone is the inspired and authoritative Word of God is essentially the framework of the Protestant church. It is the scripture that is the living and perfect Word of God. After all "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1 1-4, 14

It is by the authority of the scripture that, the Catholic Church was challenged during the reformation and what the other four ‘Solas’ are built upon.

It is by the Scriptures that we know:

Sola gratia: That Salvation comes by grace alone and not through any merit on the part of the sinner. Thus salvation is the unearned gift of Grace.

Sola fide: That Justification comes through faith alone, not good works. Saving faith will always be accompanied by good works, but good works are a result of Faith, just as Salvation is the result of Grace. Our good works are God’s gift to us, not our gift to God.

Solus Christus: That Christ alone is the mediator between God and man. That Jesus is the only Way to the Truth and eternal Life given by Grace.

Soli Deo gloria: That all glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through His works — not only the atonement on the Cross by Jesus, but even granting the faith which allows men to be saved by that atonement.

As John Wesley stated in the 18th century, "The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church."

But how do we know what the Scriptures are?

Simple, they are in the Bible.

We did not always have the Bible however, and this poses the question, "Where did the Bible come from?"

(Canon refers to the list of books considered to be scripture)

The Old Testament was less difficult to establish than the New Testament, as the Jewish people had reverently studied, copied and preserved the Law by which they believed they would receive eternal Salvation. This does not mean however that the Old Testament canon was established first. Indeed it was not until the 16th century that the Old Testament canon was finalised by Luther and the other Protestant Reformers.

There was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon. However, by 250 A.D. there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha. However, the vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not not the Word of God, as the Hebrew Scriptures were. The Old Testament canon (excluding the Apocrypha) was almost established in 367 AD by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, with the exclusion of Esther and inclusion of Baruch, which is now considered part of the Apocrypha. The 46 books of the Old Testament Canon with the Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha (as defined by the Catholic Church) was set in 382 AD in the Council of Rome, affirmed in the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and reaffirmed in the third Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

This canon of Old Testament scripture (including the Apocrypha) was largely used by the church until the time of the Reformation. During the Reformation, Luther and others decided to omit the Apocrypha from scripture and use only the Hebrew canon of scriptures in stead.

The New Testament was also difficult to establish.

In the first and second centuries after Christ, many writings and letters were circulating among the Christians. Some of the churches were using books and letters in their services that were definitely suspect. Gradually the need to have a definite list of the inspired Scriptures became apparent. Heretical movements were rising, each one choosing its own selected Scriptures, including such documents as the Gospel of Thomas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas to name but a few.

Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books in 95 AD. Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books in 115 AD. Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books in 108 AD. By 185 AD, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books. Hippolytus (170-235 AD) recognized 22 books. The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in 170 AD. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. Around 200 AD the Muratorian fragment was written, listing the accepted scriptures. This list was very similar to the modern Bible but also included the Wisdom of Solomon (now part of the Apocrypha) and the Apocalypse of Peter.

In 363 AD, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches.

The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD, in 39th Festal Letter written to his churches in Egypt. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until The Council of Hippo in 393 AD and it was finally accepted by all at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD.

Even this council did not settle the matter, however. Certain books continued to be questioned, especially James and Revelation. Even as late as the 16th century, theologian and reformer Martin Luther questioned (but in the end did not reject) the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. Even today, German-language Luther Bibles are printed with these four books at the end of the canon, rather than their traditional order for other Christians

Most of the Councils exercised three basic tests to determine if a New Testament book or letter should be considered scriptural.
1. Who was the Author, an Apostle or close associate of an Apostle?
2. Was the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large?
3. Is this book consistent with others already considered scripture?

It was not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of 66 books belonging to both the Old and New Testaments as the one biblical canon, although this canon excluded Esther and replaced it with Baruch, which is part of the Apocryphal books.

The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was lengthy and flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired. He has delivered to His Church His Word, just as He delivered His Grace though Jesus. It was not the studious care of the Church Fathers who ‘discovered the scriptures’, but rather The Spirit of God guiding them into truth which ‘revealed’ to them the Scriptures.

See also:
On The Formation of the New Testament Canon
The Canon of Scripture
What is the Canon
The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament

Have Christians always believed Jesus is God?

This question has been stirred up since the success of The Da Vinci Code book and its adaptation into a movie.

The Da Vinci Code suggests that The Council of Nicea in 325AD was where the Christian leaders (Bishops) of the day 'voted' that Jesus should be considered divine.

However...

Some of the earliest Christian writings that have survived from antiquity were written around 170AD (155 years before the Nicene Council) by a bishop in Asia Minor. Melito of Sardis was a prominent figure of second-century Christianity known for his apologetic defense of Christ against the various claims of paganism, Judaism, and Christian heresies.

He was a man of brilliant mind and deep conviction, one who seems to have truly felt the horror of humanity's rejection of God. Tertullian speaks of Melito as a man of eloquent genius. Eusebius makes note of many of his writings, quoting three of these works at length.

Melito lists the first Christian canon of the Old Testament. Melito's Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. If the missing book is restored, this represents the same canon used by the Jews and most Protestants. Melito also excludes the deuterocanonical books (apocrypha) from his cannon which are used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Until somewhat recently, much of Melito's extensive work existed primarily in fragments or in quotations preserved by authors after him. In 1930 a discovery was made in a Coptic graveyard of a large number of papyri, and among these works was a Greek manuscript identified as a homily of Melito of Sardis. Known as "On Pascha" (On the Passover), it is a homily that recounts the history of Israel and the exodus from Egypt in light of the events of Jesus of Nazareth and the Cross of Christ.

In "On Pascha", Melito writes of Jesus,

"This one is the Passover of our salvation. This is the one who patiently endured many things in many people: This is the one who was murdered in Abel, and bound as a sacrifice in Isaac, and exiled in Jacob, and sold in Joseph, and exposed in Moses, and sacrificed in the lamb, and hunted down in David, and dishonored in the prophets. This is the one who became human [since He was God first] in a virgin, who was hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from among the dead, and who raised mankind up out of the grave below to the heights of heaven. This is the lamb who was slain, and now stands.

This is the Christ [Messiah], who is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Clearly Christians knew Jesus was God from his days walking the earth surrounding Gallilee, and His divinity was not decided by a vote.

Justin the Martyr also addressed Jesus as divine in his writings using the analogy of Fire for the trinity and using the already existing understanding of Jesus as the Logos or "Word" of God made flesh. "In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth...No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (John 1:1-18)

The Vote at the Council of Nicea was simply to solidify the Church in the truth and to condemn the heresies circulating at the time. One such heresey which was Arianism which denyed there is One God, saying that Jesus was a divine being but nonetheless created by (and consequently inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. This heresey has continually resurfaced, notably with Michael Servetus (widely considered the first Unitarian Martyr) who was executed on October 27, 1553, for denying the Trinity, that Jesus had eternally existed with the Father and cliaming that Other human beings, touched by Christian grace, could overcome sin and themselves become progressively divine.

See also:
Is Jesus God?
God

Matthew chapter 22

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet is a very interesting one, and is full of action. There are several references which need to be identified and addressed from this parable.

Firstly and most obviously, the King represents God.

The King invites guests to attent His Son's wedding feast. Thes guests (the Jews) however, repeatedly refuse the invitation of the King until He sends His army to destroy them. Jerusalem was destroyed in the First Jewish-Roman War in 66-73 AD, but more seriously Jesus declared the Jews spiritually blinded for not recognising Him as the Messiah.

Then the King orders anyone found to be invited as a replacement for the guests who ignored His invitation. These secondary guests are the Gentiles, who recieved the gospel after Jesus was resurrected and once the Jews had rejected Him. These guests are both good and bad, signifying that they have no merit as to why they have been invited to the feast, they are there because of the invitation not because they deserve to be.

Now once the party is going a man is found without proper wedding garments, because of this he is bound and thrown into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. It is important too to note that it was custom for the King to provide robes for his guests to wear at a feast. Now these wedding garments represent the righteousness provided for Christians by the sacrifice of Jesus. (Isaiah 61:10) Now this man who was not clothed in wedding clothes had responded to the King's invitation but had not been prepared, he was one of the people Jesus spoke about when He said "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" Although this man had come to the banquet he was not properly attired, he had not responded to the invitation corretly, and was thown out into the darkness containing weeping and gnashing of teeth, a common phrase indicating Hell.

This parable ends with Jesus saying "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

The great commission for all Christians is to "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." (Mark 16:15) So many will be 'invited' by the preaching of the Gospel (indeed all of creation should be invited) into the outward communion of the Church of Christ; but few, comparatively, are 'chosen' to dwell with God In glory, because they are not clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Righteousness which is only provided only for His children. Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

This method of inviting many and only selecting a few can be seen in the practices of the Roman custom of raising their militia. All citizens were mustered, but only those who were found in healthy and capable fighting condition were chosen to serve. Since we are saved by His Grace alone, then it sould not come as a surprise that simply 'responding' to the gospel is not enough to secure salvation. Jesus must also clothe us in the righteousness only His sacrifice can provide.

In Verses 15-22, some Pharisees and Herodians ask Jesus about paying Taxes to Caesar. According to many interpreters the Herodians were courtiers or soldiers of Herod Antipas (The son of Herod the Great) but more probably the Herodians were a public political party, who were and had been sincerely friendly to Herod the Great (The Herod who tried to kill Jesus as a baby) and to his dynasty.

The Jews were required to pay annually a large sum of money to the Roman government as an acknowledgment of their subjection. About twenty years before this, Judas (not the famous one) of Galilee had stirred up the people to resist this tribute, and the mass of the Jews was bitterly opposed to it. So the Pharisees thought they had Jesus trapped, if He said the tax should be payed then the Jews would lessen their support of Him, if He said the tax should not be paid then there were political representatives of Rome there to arrest Him. Jesus asks for a denarius, the little silver coin had the head of the emperor stamped upon it.

Jesus answes them by saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." Each nation uses its own currency. If the Jews had not been under Roman rule, they would not have been using Roman money; but the coin which they brought to Jesus was simple evidence that Roman sovereignty was established in their land, and that tribute to it was therefore just; for whoever uses Caesar's coin must also pay Caesar's tribute. This part of the answer satisfied the Herodians; and the last part "and to God what is God's" satisfied the people. Jesus in effect said that the payment of Caesar's tax was not inconsistent with honouring God above all else. God was no longer, as He had been in the Old Testament, the civil ruler of his people. Thus the payment of tribute to a country's ruler is in no sense incompatible with his service, but is actually a Christian duty (Romans 13:1-7). Anyway, religious tributes had been paid in shekels or old Jewish coin, but the tribute to Rome was paid in Roman coin of which the denarius was a sample.

The obvious hypocrisy when the Saducees ask about is that Marriage at the Resurrection they don't believe in the resurrection, but they ask the question as if they do. They have manufactured a dilemma they felt that not even God could sort out if He wanted to. When Jesus points out the flaw in their reasoning, it becomes very clear to us that we must be very careful when people build theology based on man's reasoning rather than on the words of God. Jesus quotes from Exodus 3:6, which was written after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had physically died. The crux of this argument is that God refers to them in the present tense, not the past tense. In God's eyes these men are alive because He already sees them as resurrected. Furthermore, if these men were gone forever, then they would have no God since they would no longer exist. If death were the end then we would have little use for God's laws, and He would have little use for us. But God intended for us to live forever with Him, and He has the power to make this happen.

Again seeking to test Jesus and trap Him within His own words one of the Pharisees asks which is The Greatest Commandment. In effect he is asking "What is the core of our religion and law?" Jesus again answers with scripture, this time Deuteronomy 6:5 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Interestingly the word 'mind' here is different to the word translated as 'strength' in Deuteronomy. Mark 12:30 records Jesus quoting Deuteronomy correctly though. However in Luke 10:27 the word 'mind' is used. So two out of the three Gospels which have this conversation recorded use the word 'mind' so it is probably safe to assume it is the word Jesus used and 'strength' probably comes from Mark's familiarity with the scripture causing a misrepresentation of what Jesus said. We are not simply to love God, but are to love Him with all our Heart, Soul and Mind. As well as being a poetic way to say "Love God with all you are" the three terms represent three different aspects of our makeup. The Heart represents our emotions and passions, but our emotions can be blind and ficle. The Soul represents our eternal and innermost being, our spirit or essence and part of ouselves we do not control. The Mind represents our intellect and our will, the part of us which we can exert controll over. Our Minds can be influenced by our Hearts but are not controlled by them.

We are to love God with all our Soul, in spirit and in truth for all eternity.
We are to love God with all our Heart, to be emotionally driven to be close to God and enjoy and be thankful for His presence.
We are to love God with all our Mind, even at times when we may not feel like loving God or may not 'like' Him, we are to decide to love and serve Him and grow in the wisdom of His Word.

Finally Jesus asked the Pharisees "Whose Son is the Christ?" to test them. They correctly answer "The son of David" as this is a title reseved for the Messiah and Jesus was a decendant of David according to both Joseph's and Mary's lineage. (see Why is it important that Mary is Jesus mother?)The Pharisees were incorrect though as they were expecting the Messiah to be an Earthly King and be Great because he was of the line of David. Jesus however points out that the opposite is true. The line of David is in fact great because the Messiah would come from it, the Messiah is God made Flesh, Jesus. However, Jesus is not great because He is of the line of David.

The Da Vinci Code

Through Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code, you discover a lot of shocking facts about history and Christianity . . . Or do you?

The title Dan Brown used says it all. No-one in the art world calls him 'da Vinci'. That means "of Vinci" - he was Leonardo, who came from Vinci, an Italian town near Florence.

The Code: The pentagram (five pointed star) originated as a symbol for Venus as this is the path mapped by Venus through the night sky over the year.

The Truth: A five pointed star can only be seen in the movements of Venus if you carefully select which dates to look, and only observe on those dates. Otherwise it traces an irregular an zig-zagging pattern which does not resemble any shape let alone a star.

The Code: There is a secret society known as Priory of Sion that has a long and illustrious history dating back to the First Crusade starting with the creation of the Knights Templar as its military and financial front. The order is led by a Grand Master, at one time Leonardo Da Vinci.

The Truth: The Priory of Sion has been proven to be a hoax created by Pierre Plantard in 1956. Most of the evidence presented in support of claims pertaining to its historical existence, let alone significance, has not been considered authentic or persuasive by established historians, academics, and universities and are considered fraudulent.

The Code: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, whom he named leader of the church before his death.

The Truth: This claim has no support even from the Gnostic Gospels mentioned in Brown's book, let alone from historical data.

The Code: During 300 years of Witch Hunts, the church burned an the stake five million women.

The Truth: The 'Witch Hunts' occured over 400 years (1400-1800) and more like 30,000-50,000 men and women were executed by many different methods rather than just burning at the stake. If the 5 million women figure were true, more than 45 women per day would need to have been burned at the stake, killing more than 40% of Europen women during the period.

The Code: As a "Priory" leader and pagan goddess-worshiper, Leonardo Da Vinci coded secret knowledge about Jesus and Mary into his paintings.

The Truth: Da Vinci had no known ties to any secret Societies. Any obscure images in his paintings likely reflect his personal creativity.

The Code: The 'V' symbol known as the 'chalice' is an ancient symbol for the sacred feminine or goddess.

The Truth: A 'V' symbol has never been used in any time to represent the goddess or femninity.

The Code: The name "Mona Lisa" comes from the combination of two Egyptian god's names, Isis and Amon. Isis, whose ancient pictogram was once called L'ISA (Mona Lisa) is an anogram of the sacred union of male and female.

The Truth: Leonardo never titled any of his works. As far back as the 1525 inventory of the estate of the painter Salai, Leonardo's pupil, the painting is reffered to simply as "A Portrait of a Lady". The correct Italian spelling of Mona is Monna, a shortened version of madonna or Madame so this painting is simply titled Madame Lisa.

The Code: Roman Emperor Constantine called the council of Nicea, there he influenced the attending bishops to declare Christ as divine.

The Truth: While Constantine did in fact host the council of Nicea there is no evidence that he actually contributed to it at all. In fact there is documentary evidence that COnstantine was in favour of the Arian heresey, the belief that Jesus Christ was NOT divine, which was voted against almost unanomously by the 300+ attending bishops. Constantine did not invent the divinity of Jesus.

The Code: Holy Blood, Holy Grail is quoted as a meticulously researched histrical document.

The Truth: Holy Blood, Holy Grail was not written by historians. Its co-authors were Michael Baigent, an author and conspiracy theorist; Richard Leigh, a novelist and short story writer; and Henry Lincoln, a writer who also co-wrote several Doctor Who serials in the 1960s. This book of psuedo-history was based on Pierre Plantard's Priory of Sion hoax. It is generally presumed the authors knew these claims to be, at best, unprovable. In fact, Richard Leigh has stated on television that they only set out to offer a plausible hypothesis, but "never believed it to be true."

There are over 100 historical, architectural and descriptions of art in the Da Vinci Code which are incorrect or fabricated. If Dan Brown cannot even get his 'histoical' facts correct then we should not believe what he says about the church, or Jesus either. There is no consiquence of believeing a wrong date or incorect account of European History. There is Eternal consequences if you do not know Jesus.

Why does this matter, it's only a novel after all?

The problem is not the Da Vinci Code itself. The problem arises when people who either are unable or unmotivated to do any research cling to the Da Vinci Code as a historical and reliable document. People will believe anything if it discredits the Church, even a poorly researched fiction based on a fraudulent account of history.

If you are looking for a reasonable, page-turning novel, or a no-brainer movie pick up or go to the Da Vinci Code.

If you are wanting to learn about history pick up a text book or at least something from the non-fiction section.

If you want to learn about Jesus, click here or pick up a Bible.

Dan Brown's the Da Vinci Code does not contain history, but the Bible does contain HIS-story.

___________________________________

Reading or watching the film adaptation of the Da Vinci Code may cause you to ask some of the following questions. Please follow the links if you are curious.

What is the Nag Hammadi library?
Who were the early church fathers?
Is the deity of Christ Biblical?
Who was Mary Magdalene?
Was Jesus married?
What are the lost books of the Bible?
What are the Gnostic gospels?
What does the Bible say about the holy grail?
What occurred at the Council of Nicea?
Did Constantine decide what books belonged in the Bible?
What is Opus Dei?
What is the Priory of Sion?
What is the Desposyni / Rex Deus?
What is Holy Blood, Holy Grail?
What was the Merovingian dynasty?
Who were the Knights Templar?
Did Constantine change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?
What is the sacred feminine?
What is the gospel of Mary (Magdalene)?
What is the gospel of Philip?

Matthew chapter 21 (part 2)

Jesus enters the Temple courts and begins teaching. There a group of chief priests elders came to him to question His authority. "By what authority are you doing these things?...And who gave you this authority?" Here they are questioning Jeusus about His right to be teaching in the Temple, about driving the corrupt market from the Temple the day before, and even about Him being able to perform miracles. They quetsioned His right to teach, a right these Saducees had, because Jesus was not a Priest, Scribe or Levite. He also had no 'proper' authority over their domain, the Temple. He had no earthly authority, rather Jesus' authority is a heavenly one, He was not merely the son of a carpenter from Bethlehem, but the Son of the Most High, and indeed Jesus is the Messiah, God Himself revealed to the world.

Jesus responds to this question by asking them to speak about John the Baptist. "John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?" Nither of their two alternatives are desirable for the Saducees as if John was acting upon the Lord's will then he would have been correct about Jesus when he said "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." (Matthew 3:11), and they could not deny John's authority from the Lord as they feared the people would rebel against them as the people all knew John to be a prophet of God.

With the Parable of the Two Sons, Jesus makes a statement about the spiritual state of the teachers of the law who work in His name but do not know Him. The two sons represent the priests, elders and scribes on the one hand, and the dregs of society, "the sinners," on the other. Both classes were bidden to work in the Lord's vineyard. The sinners had refused, but repented at the preaching of John. The others professed to obey, but did not. The design of the parable is to show that the tax-collectors and prostitutes, whom the Saducees so much despised, were morally superior and more righteous than them. "For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him." The Greek word here translated "repent," is not the one which is used in all commands as, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," "Repent and be baptized," "Repent and be converted," etc. The term used here does not suggest a "change of your minds" or "hearts", rather, a regret or sorrow. It is the regret, or sorrow, for sin that leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). The Saducees and Pharisees did not regret their challenge and denyal of Jesus as the Messiah, when they saw sinners repenting, so that they could come into belief and eternal life.

The Parable of the Tenants inspires an intersting but not unique reaction from the chief priests and Pharisees. "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet." We should be thankful for the Pharisees as whenever they react so strongly to Jesus' teaching it is a definite signal that he has said something profound and important.

In this parable the vineyard represents Israel, and that it was hedged had a winepress already built and a watchtower for shelter and protection represent all the special care and protection God had provided for the Israelites. However, the 'tennants' (Pharisees and Saducees) reject the 'servants' (prophets) sent by the 'landowner' (God). Instead of listening and obeying them they kill them. Finally God sent His Son, but He too was rejected and killed. Jesus then asks "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
To which the Pharisees reply "He will bring those wretches to a wretched end...and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time." Their answer is not only their own decree of judgment upon themselves, but an unconscious prediction. The nation was nearly destroyed in the Roman war; 1,100,000 perished in the siege of Jerusalem; the Jewish polity was destroyed, and "another people," the Church of Christ, mostly Gentile aliens before, received the inheritance and the kingdom.

Jesus confirms that He is the "The stone the builders rejected" from Psalm 118:22-23, then says that the Kingdom will be taken from teh Jews and given to a people who will bear fruit. This new people are not a particular race or tribe, but are the Body of Christ, called from every nation, tribe and tongue. He then describes the two outcomes for those who oppose Him. "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." Their falling upon the Stone (Christ) was the ruin of their nation. When the Stone fell upon them, in the judgment He had predicted because they rejected him, they were crushed in the awful desolation that occurred about thirty-seven years later.

This, then, is how you should pray

If you have ever wondered how to pray and want to know how to practially apply the Lords Prayer to your prayer life. I suggest you visit Joe and read How Do We Do That?

Jesus said:
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
This, then, is how you should pray:
'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Matthew chapter 21 (part 1)

The Triumphal Entry has Jesus fulfilling yet another Messianic prophey. Zechariah 9:9 foretold that the people would "Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your King comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Now "Zion" is an archaic term that originally referred to a specific mountain near Jerusalem (Mount Zion), on which stood a Jebusite fortress of the same name that was conquered by David (2 Samuel 5:6-7). "Zion" came to be applied to the section of Jerusalem where the fortress stood, and later became synonymous with Jerusalem. "Zion" is also refers to Solomon's Temple, as the Temple was the House of God before Jesus entered the World and His Spirit entered the hearts of believers. Today, "Zion" is often used metaphorically, to symbolize Jerusalem and the Promised Land to come, in which God dwells among his chosen people.

The crowds were crying out "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" They were recognising Jesus as the Messiah by calling Him the Son of David and by quoting Psalm 118:26. Hosanna itself is a wonderful term to have been used as it originally meant "Help, Lord" or "Save, I pray" recognising that Jesus had the power and authority to save. Indeed Jesus alone can save mankind from sin, "Hosanna Jesus, praise the Most High!"

Next is a scene where Jesus gets real angry. When Jesus enters the Temple at Jerusalem he finds it full of people who were buying and selling goods, who had turned the House of the Lord into a marketplace and worse. He drove these men and women out crying "It is written, My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers!" The Temple should have been a place of prayer and worship, as was written in Isaiah 56:7. Instead Jesus likens this abuse of the Temple (using it as a place of business) to worshiping false gods calling it a "den of robbers!" just as Jeremiah did when the people were reveling in their sin but still claiming protection from the Lord.

Verses 18-22 have a very interesting event. "Early in the morning, as [Jesus] was on his way back to the city, He was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, He went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then He said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered." The main lesson from this passage is about faith when Jesus answers the disciples questions by saying, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." Notice that we are to speak TO the mountain, to speak TO our problems and not about them when confronting them with prayer.

But there is another lesson here, which is found more clearly in Mark 11:13. "Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs."

Firstly lets look at how the world views this passage.

The following is an excerpt from Think by Simon Blackburn, a British academic philosopher also known for his efforts to popularise philosophy.

"It is true that Jesus did not curse the fig tree for not bearing, say, apples, or plumbs. It was figs he was after. And a fig tree does sometimes bear figs. But it still seems unfair on the fig tree. It is as if Jesus is saying 'You sometimes bear figs so you could be bearing figs now.' To which it seems a completely adequate defence the fig tree to point out that it bears figs in the summer, but it is now winter, or at any rate 'the time for figs was not yet.' It takes a certain set of circumstancesfor a fig tree to bear figs: even the best tree does not do so out of season, any more than it bears plums.

The fig tree might not be aware of this. Perhaps if it was a thoughtful fig tree it would have felt bad because it was itself unaware of the precise causes necessaryfor it to bear figs: perhaps it only remembers it sometimes does so, and then feels bad about not doing it on this occasion. But that is just ignorance. If the fig tree feels bad about not bearing figs in winter, then that is irrational: the time was not right, that is all."

Now this is a reasonable conclusion about Jesus cursing the tree. It was unfair, this is also a good model of Grace as Grace is the free and unmerited favor of God. If Grace were merited or a reward then it would not be grace at all but more akin to wages. All our lives earn is the wages of sin, which is death. His Grace is what purchases our life. Notice also that simply because something is unfair does not relate to that same thing being unjust. Lets examine it a little more carefully though.

The common fig bears a first crop, called the breba crop, in the spring on last season's growth. The second crop is borne in the fall on the new growth and is known as the main crop. This breba crop comes in even before the new growth and leaves of the new season. Mark 11:13 tells us that the fig tree was 'in leaf' so it is safe to assume that either this preseason breba fruit or the in season figs were present on the tree. Mark also tells us however, that it was not the season for figs so it must have been the breba crop Jesus was looking for.

Lets see if we can find refrence to the breba or early figs in scripture to see if there is any significance. Song of Solomon 2:13 uses "The fig tree forms its early fruit" as a metaphor for beauty, Jeremiah 24 uses the early figs to refer to people upon whom God shows favour, Hosea 9:10 again refers to the Fathers of Israel (presumedly Abraham, Isac, etc.) as the "early fruit on a fig tree", and Micah 7:1 shows misery that in Israel there are "none of the early figs that I crave" alluding to there being no righteous people. This "early fruit" or "early figs" are borne before the season which is what makes them 'early' otherwise they would simply be 'on time figs'.

Now two thigs can arise, in addition to our lesson about faith.

Firstly, as we have seen, this cursing of the fig tree demonstrated Jesus' right to condem those who are not saved even though it is not their 'fault', they simply were not saved by His Grace and without Grace none can be saved.

Secondly though we see that the early fruit of the fig tree, the breba crop, often refers to God's chose and righteous people in scripture. Here God's chosen people were the Jews. When Jesus, the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for, came they did not recognise Him as such. Because they did not recognise Him as their messiah Jesus judged and cursed Israel, which resulted in the destruction of the Temple in 70AD during the Great Jewish Revolt. It was not the Jewish people's fault that they did not recognise Jesus, if they had then they would not have crucified Him and thus His atonement for sin on the Cross would never have happened, but still He judged them for this mistake.

Luke 19:41-44 is one of the saddest parts of scipture, the Jews who had waited so long for their Messiah did not recognise Him when He came. "As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."

Matthew chapter 20

Matthew 20 continues the dialogue of Jesus from chapter 19 which ended with Jesus saying "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first."

This principle of "many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first" was prompted by the Rich Young Man who had a high earthly status but would not sacrifice that wealth and status in order to follow Jesus. So he who would be first by the standards of the world, will not even enter the Kingdom of God.

In continuing this theme Jesus tells a Kingdom parable about the Workers in the Vineyard. This parable tells of "a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard." Over the course of the day he hires more workers at different times BUT once the day was through "the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first." Each worker was paid he same amount regardles of when he arrived or how much work he did. Naturally the men who worked he longest complained saying "These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day." To which the Landowner replied "Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"

This parable is an excellent demonstration of how Christians can sometimes feel 'ripped-off' by Jesus because Grace does not make sence to our human minds. A murderer or serial rapist who repents only moments before death may be forgiven and have eternal life in Heaven just as a man who gave his entire life to living according to God's word and preaching the Gospel of Jesus to the world.

How is this fair?

Grace simply is not fair. If it was, then it would not be Grace. When we are concerned about the 'fairness' of God forgiving someone who we believe does not deserve it we should remember Romans 3:22-24 and that "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." This is exactly the issue one of my friends has with Christianity and Jesus, that Christians can be hypocritical and jerks and be forgiven while 'good' people who are not Christians will go to hell. The 'foolishness' of the Gospel in addition to that Jesus died for our sin, is not that He died for some and not others but rather that He should have died for even one.

Jesus again predicts His death in detail, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!" Jesus is God revealed in the Flesh and as such He knew/knows avarything, past present and future. He knew the suffering that was ahead and yet He still submitted to the Father and His purpose of Salvation for His children. He submitted to the most vile of executions and all for the sins He never would commit, and could not even stand to be near. The Suffering Servant paid the price of my Iniquity, my God, my Lord, my Saviour who died for me, for no gain of His own, but solely for my gain. That I might know Him.

In verses 20-34 we have two seeming unrelated events. Firstly a woman asks for her sons to be seated in Glory at the right and left Hands of Jesus in His coming Kingdom, and then two blind men cry out for healing. This passage explicitly contrasts this prayer for costless glory with a desperate prayer of true need. Both groups recognized Jesus as the coming King, but the first group sought Jesus for personal advancement, the latter out of genuine need. Jesus did not grant the positions of power "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father" but He did have "compassion on [the blind men] and touched their eyes. Immediately they received their sight and followed him." So the places of glory and honour in Heaven have already been prepared by the Father and as such again suggests not being earned and are positions of Grace and not Reward.

This passage also has Jesus asking "Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?" This refers to Jesus death and suffering and that to be a follower of Him we will suffer also. This principle became a standard teaching of early Christians (Rom 8:17; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 2:12). As R. A. Cole notes, "This price they will in any case pay, for this is not the price of Christian greatness but the price of following Christ at all." Now this death does not have to be a physical one, but we surly die to ourselves and our natures when we become followers of Jesus. When He begins to live in, and through us.

Jesus also repeats His longing for servant hearts in His followers, hearts that might reflect His servanthood. "Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Notice that serving simply to reap the rewards later and be numbered Great in His Kindom is not serving others at all but rather serving our own desires. We must be servants simply to be more like Christ, not to have any gain later from it, that is not a servants heart but a selfish one.

What is the Doctrine of the Trinity?

The following is an article from the Ministries of John Piper.

See also my past post The Trinity: False polytheism or Correct doctorine?

Can you explain the doctrine of the Trinity and its biblical support?

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons--the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths:
(1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.
(2) Each Person is fully God.
(3) There is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.
The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Phil. 1:2), the Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays?

The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.

In the baptism of Jesus, we see the Father speaking from heaven and the Spirit descending from heaven in the form of a dove as Jesus comes out of the water (Mark 1:10-11). In John 1:1 it is affirmed that Jesus is God and, at the same time, that He was "with God"--thereby indicating that Jesus is a distinct Person from God the Father (cf. also 1:18). And in John 16:13-15 we see that although there is a close unity between them all, the Holy Spirit is also distinct from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.

The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally--the Father regards Himself as "I," while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as "You." Likewise the Son regards Himself as "I," but the Father and the Holy Spirit as "You."

Often it is objected that "If Jesus is God, then he must have prayed to himself while he was on earth." But the answer to this objection lies in simply applying what we have already seen. While Jesus and the Father are both God, they are different Persons. Thus, Jesus prayed to God the Father without praying to Himself. In fact, it is precisely the continuing dialog between the Father and the Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 5:19; 11:41-42; 17:1-2) which furnishes the best evidence that they are distinct Persons with distinct centers of consciousness.

Sometimes the Personhood of the Father and Son is appreciated, but the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is neglected. Sometimes the Spirit is treated more like a "force" than a person. But the Holy Spirit is not an it, but a He (see John 14:26; 16:7-15; Acts 8:16). The fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force (like gravity), is also shown by the fact that He speaks (Hebrews 3:7), reasons (Acts 15:28), thinks and understands (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), wills (1 Corinthians 12:11), feels (Ephesians 4:30), and gives personal fellowship (2 Corinthians 13:14). These are all qualities of personhood. In addition to these texts, the others we mentioned above make clear that the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Personhood of the Son and the Father. They are three real persons, not three roles God plays.

Another serious error people have made is to think that the Father became the Son, who then became the Holy Spirit. Contrary to this, the passages we have seen imply that God always was and always will be three Persons. There was never a time when one of the Persons of the Godhead did not exist. They are all eternal.

While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities.

Each Person is fully God. If God is three Persons, does this mean that each Person is "one-third" of God? Does the Trinity mean that God is divided into three parts?

The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). We should not think of God as like a "pie" cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, "the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God."[1] The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons without being divided into "parts."

Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, "When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone." [2]

There is only one God. If each Person of the Trinity is distinct and yet fully God, then should we conclude that there is more than one God? Obviously we cannot, for Scripture is clear that there is only one God: "There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct Persons.

If there is one passage which most clearly brings all of this together, it is Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." First, notice that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished as distinct Persons. We baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Second, notice that each Person must be deity because they are all placed on the same level. In fact, would Jesus have us baptize in the name of a mere creature? Surely not. Therefore each of the Persons into whose name we are to be baptized must be deity. Third, notice that although the three divine Persons are distinct, we are baptized into their name (singular), not names (plural). The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one name. This can only be if they share one essence.

Is the Trinity Contradictory?
This leads us to investigate more closely a very helpful definition of the Trinity which I mentioned earlier: God is one in essence, but three in Person. This formulation can show us why there are not three Gods, and why the Trinity is not a contradiction.

In order for something to be contradictory, it must violate the law of noncontradiction. This law states that A cannot be both A (what it is) and non-A (what it is not) at the same time and in the same relationship. In other words, you have contradicted yourself if you affirm and deny the same statement. For example, if I say that the moon is made entirely of cheese but then also say that the moon is not made entirely of cheese, I have contradicted myself.

Other statements may at first seem contradictory but are really not. Theologian R. C. Sproul cites as an example Dickens' famous line, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Obviously this is a contradiction if Dickens means that it was the best of times in the same way that it was the worst of times. But he avoids contradiction with this statement because he means that in one sense it was the best of times, but in another sense it was the worst of times.

Carrying this concept over to the Trinity, it is not a contradiction for God to be both three and one because He is not three and one in the same way. He is three in a different way than He is one. Thus, we are not speaking with a forked tongue-we are not saying that God is one and then denying that He is one by saying that He is three. This is very important: God is one and three at the same time, but not in the same way.

How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in person. Essence and person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same way that He is one.So a closer look at the fact that God is one in essence but three in person has helped to show why the Trinity is not a contradiction. But how does it show us why there is only one God instead of three? It is very simple: All three Persons are one God because, as we saw above, they are all the same essence. Essence means the same thing as "being." Thus, since God is only one essence, He is only one being--not three. This should make it clear why it is so important to understand that all three Persons are the same essence. For if we deny this, we have denied God's unity and affirmed that there is more than one being of God (i.e. that there is more than one God).

What we have seen so far provides a good basic understanding of the Trinity. But it is possible to go deeper. If we can understand more precisely what is meant by essence and person, how these two terms differ, and how they relate, we will then have a more complete understanding of the Trinity.

Essence and Person
Essence. What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God's essence is His being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too physical, essence can be understood as the "stuff" that you "consist of." Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as "consisting of" anything other than divinity. The "substance" of God is God, not a bunch of "ingredients" that taken together yield deity.

Person. In regards to the Trinity, we use the term "Person" differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an "independent individual" in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as "I" and others as "You." So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a "You," even though He regards Himself as "I." Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that "Person" means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an "I" and the other two as a "You." These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but "a form of personal existence other than a difference in being." [3]

How do they relate?
The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God's one, undivided being is an "unfolding" into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: "The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and--using a common illustration-as the open palm differs from a closed fist." [4]

Because each of these "forms of existence" are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as "I" and the others as "You." Nonetheless, these three Persons all "consist of" the same "stuff" (that is, the same "what," or essence). As some have explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one "what" but three "whos."

The divine essence is thus not something that exists "above" or separate from the three Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem explains:
But if each person is fully God and has all of God's being, then we also should not think that the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God . . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others. On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being of God...the only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of `being' but a difference of `relationships.' This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human `person' is a different being as well. Somehow God's being is so much greater than ours that within his one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons. [5]

Trinitarian Illustrations?
There are many illustrations which have been offered to help us understand the Trinity. While there are some illustrations which are helpful, we should recognize that no illustration is perfect. Unfortunately, there are many illustrations which are not simply imperfect, but in error. One illustration to beware of is the one which says "I am one person, but I am a student, son, and brother. This explains how God can be both one and three." The problem with this is that it reflects a heresy called modalism. God is not one person who plays three different roles, as this illustration suggests. He is one Being in three Persons (centers of consciousness), not merely three roles. This analogy ignores the personal distinctions within God and mitigates them to mere roles.

Application
Why is it important to understand what it means to worship a triune God? The Trinity is first of all important because God is important. To understand more fully what God is like is a way of honoring God. Further, we should allow the fact that God is triune to deepen our worship. We exist to worship God. And God seeks people to worship Him in "spirit and truth" (John 4:24). Therefore we must always endeavor to deepen our worship of God--in truth as well as in our hearts.

The Trinity also has a very significant application to prayer. The general pattern of prayer in the Bible is to pray to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Our fellowship with God should be enhanced by consciously knowing that we are relating to a tri-personal God!

Awareness of the distinct role that each Person of the Trinity has in our salvation can especially serve to give us greater comfort and appreciation for God in our prayers, as well as helping us to be specific in directing our prayers. Nonetheless, while recognizing the distinct roles that each Person has, we should never think of their roles as so separate that the other Persons are not involved. Rather, everything that one Person is involved in, the other two are also involved in, one way or another.

Summary

To summarize:

1. The Trinity is not belief in three gods. There is only one God.

2. This one God exists as three Persons.

3. The three Persons are not each a part of God, but are each fully God and equally God. Within God's one undivided being there is an unfolding into three interpersonal relationships such that there are three Persons. The distinctions within the Godhead are not distinctions of His essence and neither are they something added on to His essence, but they are the unfolding of God's one, undivided being into three interpersonal relationships such that there are three real Persons.

4. God is not one person who took three consecutive roles. That is the heresy of modalism. The Father did not become the Son and then the Holy Spirit. Instead, there have always been and always will be three distinct persons in the Godhead.

5. The Trinity is not a contradiction because God is not three in the same way that He is one. God is one in essence, three in Person.

Notes

1.Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (InterVarsity Press and Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), p. 255, emphasis added.
2. Ibid, 252.
3. Ibid, p. 255. While we believe this is a helpful definition, it should be recognized that Grudem himself is offering this as more of an explanation than definition of person.
4. Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, (Great Britain: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991 edition), p. 303.
5. Grudem, pp. 253-254.

Further Resources

Augustine, On the Trinity
Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, pp. 255-334
Edward Bickersteth, The Trinity.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 14
Donald Macleod, Shared Life: The Trinity and the Fellowship of God's People
R.C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit
R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, pp. 35-36
J.I. Packer, Knowing God, pp. 57-63.
John Piper, The Pleasures of God, chapter 1
James White, The Forgotten Trinity

©Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org.
Email: mail@desiringGod.org.
Toll Free: 888 346 4700.