Trinity Chart with Identifying Particularities: the Father unbegotten, the Son as begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeding

I am very cautious, as were a substantial number of my Baptist forefathers and also many teachers in Protestant orthodoxy, about analogies in this world for the Trinity:

[I]n the inward work of the Trinity is the Father said to spirate or process the Spirit in the active sense—spiratio activa—and, in view of the filioque, to do so with the Son, as indicated by John 15:26 and to a lesser extent by Galatians 4:6. Thus, active spiration is not a sole property or operation of the Father, but belongs also to the Son. Like the role of the Son in the begetting or generation of the second person, the Spirit’s role in his own emanation or spiration is, by definition, passive: he does not spirate himself, but is spirated by the Father and the Son. The Reformed orthodox note this traditionary point but typically do not elaborate it either dogmatically or exegetically apart from their discussions of the filioque, nor will they dwell on the question of a difference between the active generation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit. Since the inward divine actions or emanations have no analogy in the created order, they cannot be adequately conceived by human beings: all that can be inferred is that they neither divide the divine essence into parts or multiply it into different beings—rather these actions result in the multiplicity of persons in the undivided essence. . . . [I]llustrations . . .  cannot be considered any more than very limited aids to understanding: here the epistemological side of the Reformed non capax comes to the fore. (Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy;  Volume 4: The Triunity of God [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003], 262, 154.)

Comparing the three Persons of the Godhead to three parts in an egg, or to water as solid, liquid, and gas, or to a person who is a father, a child, and a brother, and other similar analogies lend themselves to modalism, not to Trinitarianism.  Other analogies can lend themselves to tritheism, such as comparing the Trinity to three people who are all equally human.  The fact is that there is nothing in the created world that is one and three in the sense that the uncreated and eternal God is one and three, so all analogies fall short.  God's threeness is below the level of distinct being, at which level God is only one, and above the level of distinction of attributes, for God is Father, Son, and Spirit in a way that is different from His being holy, righteous, omnipotent, and so on.

When teaching on the subject relatively recently, I wanted to find a chart like the one pictured below:

I could find ones with the "is" and "is not" portions--very good, but not what I wanted.  I could not find one that also reflected the eternal identifying particularities of the three Persons, namely, that the Father is neither begotten nor proceeding, that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.  I thus had someone kindly take the time to create the chart above.  I hope it finds its way into Google pictures so that people who want a chart on the Trinitarian Persons can have one that accurately represents Biblical truth.  The chart is also found in the second evangelistic Bible study at FaithSaves, "Who is God?" and likewise appears in the YouTube video of "Who is God?"

Please feel free to use the chart above when you are teaching on the glorious Triune God.

You can learn more about the Trinity from the college class online here or on YouTube here.

-TDR

Gender-Neutral Language in Bible Translation is Unscriptural

 Many modern Bible versions employ what they call "gender neutral" language.  So, for example, the Authorized, King James Version of John 1:9 reads:

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

by way of contrast, the New International Version reads:

John 1:9  The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

There is no textual variant here.  The Greek text reads:

ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

ēn to phōs to alēthinon, ho phōtizei panta anthrōpon erchomenon eis ton kosmon.

The KJV translates the Greek word anthropos as "man"--which is what the word means, recognizing that "man" is the generic term for the entire human race, even as Adam, not Eve, represented mankind (Romans 5:12-19).

For another example, consider John 12:32.  The King James Version reads:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In contrast, the NKJV, New King James Version, reads:

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

There is no textual variant here either.  The Greek text reads:

κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.

kagō ean hypsōthō ek tēs gēs, pantas helkysō pros emauton.

The masculine form of pantas is properly rendered "all men."  The NKJV alters the text to the more feminist "all peoples" to prevent "man/men" from being the generic word for mankind (oops, excuse me, "humankind"; using "mankind" might have been a microaggression and evidence of systemic racism and sexism).  Note also that here, as in vast numbers of other places, the NKJV is not simply updating archaic and hard-to-understand language in the KJV; "all men" is not hard to understand in the least.

For another example, note Matthew 25:40 in the King James Bible:

Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Compare the same verse in the New International Version:

Matt. 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Here again there is no textual variant.  The Greek reads:

αὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε.

ai apokritheis ho basileus erei autois, Amēn legō hymin, eph’ hoson epoiēsate heni toutōn tōn adelphōn mou tōn elachistōn, emoi epoiēsate.

The plural adelphon, "brethren," is from the Greek word  adelphos, "brother." The "and sisters" is simply not contained in the text, but has been added in by the NIV translators to make their version more feminist.

When the New Testament writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, translated the Old Testament, did they follow the practice of modern feminism and transform the inspired Hebrew Old Testament into something more "gender neutral"?  Or did the New Testament specifically use "man" as the generic term for all people--does it specifically make the male the representative of generic humanity?

Consider Romans 11:4:

Rom. 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ.

 alla ti legei autō ho chrēmatismos? Katelipon emautō heptakischilious andras, hoitines ouk ekampsan gony tē Baal.

Romans 11:4 is referencing 1 Kings 19:18:

1Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

Notice that the word "men" is not specifically contained in 1 Kings 19:18, but it is in Romans 11:4.  Furthermore, Romans 11:4 does not use the Greek word anthropos, which is commonly a generic word for "mankind" or the entire human race, but the word andros (lexical form aner)--"men" as "males."  So when the New Testament, under inspiration, makes reference to the Old Testament, it is so far from removing masculine terms and making the Scripture more gender neutral that it specifically states "all men" in translating a less-specific original language reference.  

The Lord Jesus Christ does the same thing as the Apostle Paul.  Consider Matthew 12:41:

Matt. 12:41 The men [andros, "males," from aner] of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The Lord Jesus is referring to Jonah 3:7-8:

And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man [Hebrew 'adam, properly rendered "man" but frequently a generic word for the entire human race, not for "males" in particular] nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man [Hebrew 'adam again, frequently a generic term] and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

When Christ refers to the Old Testament, He takes a more generic Hebrew word for "mankind" or "humankind" and employs the word aner, the word specifically for a "male ... in contrast to woman" (BDAG).  Christ, speaking in Greek, does not make the Hebrew Old Testament "gender neutral."  He does exactly the opposite.  Luke 11:32 indicates this fact as well.

So, what does the Bible teach? When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it translates and paraphrases the Hebrew in such a way that the text is less  gender neutral, not more gender neutral.

In light of the inspired and infallible practice of translation modeled by the sovereign, all-wise God, we should:

1.) Reject modern Bible versions influenced by feminism and gender-neutral language, from the New International Version to the New King James Version, and cleave to the Authorized, King James Bible.

2.) Reject gender-neutral replacements for classical terms for humanity. We should retain expressions such as "all men" and "mankind" if we are engaged in the holy practice of Bible translation ourselves.

3.) We should continue to use "man," "mankind," and such like terms in our own speech when reference is made to the entire human race.  We should follow the practice of Christ and His Apostles instead of bowing to anti-Scriptural feminism in our language.

4.) Recognize that feminists know exactly what they are doing when they seek to make the English language, and even more importantly, God's infallible Word, less patriarchal.  They oppose patriarchy, while the resurrected Lord and Son of Man, Jesus Christ, their Creator, taught patriarchy Himself and led His prophets and Apostles to support it through what He dictated to them through the Holy Spirit from God the Father.  Let us consciously agree with the Father, the Son of God, the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, and the infallible Word of God, and support male headship in our common language and in our English Bible version.

Learn more about Bible texts and versions by clicking here.

-TDR

God's Name Jehovah: What Does It Mean?

I thought that the classical statement below on the significance of the name Jehovah in the very helpful 17^th century systematic theology The Christian’s Reasonable Service by Wilhemus á Brakel, theologian of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie or Further/Second Reformation, which was comparable to English Puritanism,  was worth reprinting and thinking about.  I have reproduced it from one of the appendixes of my essay on the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points:

[I]t has pleased the Lord to give Himself a name by which He wishes to be called—a name which would indicate His essence, the manner of His existence, and the plurality of divine Persons. The name which is indicative of His essence is יְהוָֹה or Jehovah, it being abbreviated as יָהּ or Jah. The name which is indicative of the trinity of Persons is אֱלֹהִים or Elohim. Often there is a coalescence of these two words resulting in יֱהוִה or Jehovi. The consonants of this word constitute the name Jehovah, whereas the vowel marks produce the name Elohim. Very frequently these two names are placed side by side in the following manner: Jehovah Elohim, to reveal that God is one in essence and three in His Persons. 

The Jews do not pronounce the name Jehovah. This practice of not using the name Jehovah initially was perhaps an expression of reverence, but later became superstitious in nature. In its place they use the name אֲדֹנָי or Adonai, a name by which the Lord is frequently called in His Word. Its meaning is “Lord.” When this word is used in reference to men, it is written with the letter patach, which is the short “a” vowel. When it is used in reference to the Lord, however, the letter kametz is used, which is the long “a” vowel. As a result all the vowels of the name Jehovah are present. To accomplish this the vowel “e” is changed into a chatef-patach which is the shortest “a” vowel, referred to as the guttural letter aleph. Our translators, to give expression to the name Jehovah, use the name Lord, which is similar to the Greek word kurios, the latter being a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. In Rev 1:4 and 16:5 the apostle John translates the name Jehovah as follows: “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” This one word has reference primarily to being or essence, while having the chronological connotation of past, present, and future. In this way this name refers to an eternal being, and therefore the translation of the name Jehovah in the French Bible is l’Eternel, that is, the Eternal One.

 

The name Jehovah is not to be found at all in the New Testament, which certainly would have been the case if it had been a prerequisite to preserve the name Jehovah in all languages. . . . Even though the transliteration of Hebrew words would conflict with the common elegance of the Greek language, it is nevertheless not impossible. Since they can pronounce the names Jesus, Hosanna, Levi, Abraham, and Hallelujah, they are obviously capable of pronouncing the name Jehovah. . . . Jehovah is not a common name, such as “angel” or “man”—names which can be assigned to many by virtue of being of equal status. On the contrary, it is a proper Name which uniquely belongs to God and thus to no one else, as is true of the name of every creature, each of which has his own name. (Wilhemus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992] 84-85)

May you be edified as you meditate upon Jehovah and His wonderful Name.

-TDR 

The Tetragrammaton and the Incarnation--A Hebrew Connection?

George Sayles Bishop, contributor to The Fundamentals (George S. Bishop, Chapter IV: The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves, in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005], 80-96), defender of the inspiration and preservation of Scripture and opponent of higher criticism and secular lower criticism, and someone I cite in my papers on the history of the debate over the Hebrew vowel points and on the inspiration of the vowels, commented as follows on the Hebrew language and the Tetragrammaton in particular as connected to the incarnation of the Son of God:

[T]he Bible differs on its surface from every other book.

It speaks of a Trinity in the very roots of its verbs, ever one of which is, in the Hebrew, composed of 3 letters—tri-lateral.

It teaches man’s apostasy and restoration in the singular reversal of its text.  The Hebrew is written and read from right to left:  from God’s right hand where He doth work, is man’s departure.  Then the Greek takes him up, a prodigal son at his remotest distance from God and brings him back from left to right—from death to life again.

Incarnation is in the Tetragrammaton [JHVH/YHWH]: that is the Hebrew letters of the word Jehovah, יְהוָֹה, written vertically from up to down give us the outlines of the human figure—God made flesh.  This is the difference between Elohim, God in creation; and God in covenant anticipating incarnation.

Again: the Bible puts man’s true relations in the very conjugation of the Hebrew verb.  In all occidental languages the verb is conjugated from the first person to the third—“I,” “Thou,” “He.”  The Hebrew, in reversal of the human thought, is conjugated from the third down and back to the first:  beginning with God, then my neighbor, then myself last—“He,” “Thou,” “I.”  This is the Divine order:  self-obliterating and beautiful. (George S. Bishop, The Doctrines of Grace [Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Books, 1977], 8)

What do you think—is his comment just speculation, or is there something to it?  God is the Author of language, after all, and it is reasonable to think that He would take the highest degree of care in His own name in the language, Hebrew, in which He originally revealed Himself.  On the other hand, does He ever encourage us to draw conclusions like this in the plain statements He makes about how we are to learn of Him in His revelation?  Do you agree with Bishop?  Why or why not?

-TDR

Updated Evangelistic Bible Study #1

The evangelistic Bible study series online at faithsaves.net are being updated.  Study #1, which covers the inspiration, preservation, and canonicity of Scripture, has been updated with pictures and other things that make it much nicer looking.  I would encourage you to start using the updated ones if your church uses these evangelistic Bible studies.

In addition to improvements in the appearance of the Bible study, some facts have been updated.  For example, the chart below:

which was in the older version of the study is no longer accurate.  The Bible still has far, far better manuscript evidence for it than any other ancient document has in its favor, but the specific numbers in the table are no longer accurate as more copies of various ancient texts, as well as more Biblical manuscripts, have been discovered.  The updated version of the study contains updated information.

You can download an MS Word file of Bible study #1 here to personalize with your church's information, while seekers can be directed here to get PDFs of it and to have access to other helpful gospel resources.

-TDR

Evangelistic Bible Study #4, "How Do I Receive the Gospel?" is now live!

 In previous weeks I had mentioned that videos teaching the evangelistic Bible studies that I have written were being made available.  We had made #1, "What is the Bible?" live.  That study covers the inspiration, preservation, and canonicity of the Bible.  We had made #2, "Who is God?" live, covering who the true God is, including His crucial Tri-unity.  We had made #3, "What Does God Want From Me?" live.  Study #3 covers the law of God and His objective standard of perfect holiness which He will use to judge mankind in the last day.  #5, "How Do I Receive the Gospel?" was also made live--that study covered repentance and faith, the human response to the gospel.  However, we were having issues with study #4, so that one was not yet available.  However, I am pleased to report that Bible study #4, "How Can God Save Sinners?" is now live.  You can watch it at FaithSaves, watch it on YouTube, or watch it through the embedded video below:

Please "like" the video on YouTube and feel free to post a comment if you believe it is valuable, as doing those things help the video gain circulation.

The physical copies of the Bible studies are available online if you can do them with someone in person or over Skype, Zoom, etc. in this era of COVID.  I would encourage you to share the videos as well with people who are not willing to do a one-on-one study with you but like to watch things over the Internet.

May the Lord use these studies for His glory and the advancement of His gospel!

Studies #6 and #7, on eternal security and assurance (#6) and the church (#7) are not yet available, but we are working on them.  Please feel free to pray for us as it takes a lot of work to have these done well.  The actually evangelistic studies, however, are all complete--#6 and #7 are follow-up Bible studies.

-TDR

The King James Bible: Too Hard to Understand?

"The King James Version is too hard for people to understand!  It is written in Old English.  Therefore, we need to use a modern Bible version that is easier to understand."

Is this true?

Before dealing with the most important question--what Scripture says on the subject--a few brief words on a secondary but related question.

The King James Version: Is it Old English?

First, the King James Version is not in Old English.  Old English is the language of Beowulf.  If you want to hear Old English, watch this:

Is the King James Bible easier to understand than that?

Maybe the King James is Middle English if it isn't Old English.  Here is someone reading from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, which was written in Middle English:

Here you can probably make out something here and there, but it is clear that the King James Version is not in Old English, nor is it in Middle English.  It is much easier to read than the Canterbury Tales.  (Side note: I enjoyed my college class on Chaucer's classic at U. C. Berkeley.)  The King James Bible is in early modern English.  English has changed less between 1611 and today than it did from the days of Chaucer in the 1400s to the KJV.

So the King James Bible is not in Old English, nor in Middle English, but in modern English--early modern English.  That does not mean, however, that it is necessarily easy to understand.  Perhaps it really is "too hard," and we should overlook the fact that the New King James Version is soft on sodomy, removes "hell" from 22 verses in the Bible, replacing it with easier words to understand, and ones that are in common use, like "Sheol" and "Hades" (2 Samuel 22:6; Psalm 18:5; Matthew 11:23, etc.), is not actually translated from the same underlying language text, and contains other problems.  Maybe since the King James Bible is "too hard" to understand we need to just deal with these sorts of problems in the NKJV.

"Too hard": What is it?

Biblically, what does it mean that language is "too hard" to understand?  In the New Testament, the Greek of the book of Hebrews is much harder to read than the Greek of the Gospel of John.  The Gospel of Luke and Acts are harder to read than 1 John.  Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek.  Why did the Holy Ghost dictate such long sentences?  Wouldn't they be too hard to understand?

The vast majority of people in the first century were simple rural people; farmers, shepherds, and the like, not highly educated urbanites. Literacy was sketchy in many places.  What was Paul doing when he wrote Hebrews under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  What was Luke thinking?  Didn't they know that their Greek would be too hard to understand?

What about the Old Testament?  Significant portions of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible.  Why did the Holy Spirit write hard Hebrew and hard Greek in some parts of the Bible?  Shouldn't it all have been easy to understand?

Is there more literacy in the English speaking world now than there was in the first century world of the New Testament, or in the world where God gave the Hebrew Old Testament?  When was learning to read--or improving one's reading level--easier?  Surely now.

The question, then, should be:  "Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel"?  The King James seeks to replicate the syntax of the original language texts as much as possible.  That is why every verse from Genesis 1:3 to Genesis 1:26 begins with the word "And"--we may not write that way in non-translation English, but the KJV accurately represents what the Hebrew given by the Holy Spirit says here.  We can't simplify the syntax of the King James Bible without moving it further away from the original language text.  If we have to leave the syntax alone, does the King James Version have more archaic words than the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament? There are over 680 hapax legomena or words that occur only one time in the Greek New Testament and close to 1,500 hapax legomena in the Hebrew Old Testament. While not all of those hapaxes would have been rare or archaic words to first century readers, many of them would have been.  By way of contrast, there are nowhere near that many archaic words in the King James Version.

Evaluated by the standard of Scripture itself--by the standard of the Greek and Hebrew text God gave to His people--the English of the Authorized, King James Version is indubitably not "too hard."  People who claim that it is too difficult to read should be enthusiastically promoting the Defined King James Bible, which leaves the actual King James Version text unchanged but defines the few archaic words at the bottom of its pages for readers, or works such as David Cloud's Way of Life Encylopedia of the Bible and Christianity, where all the rare KJV words are defined, instead of encouraging readers to reject the  KJB's fantastic translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus for corrupt modern Bible versions.

So is the King James Bible too hard to understand?  If we employ the only objective standard--Scripture itself--the answer is "no." 

Learn more about Bibliology here.

                                                                                                                  -TDR

Saving Faith: What it is not and what it is: Bible Study 5C-D in "How Do I Receive the Gospel?"

 In previous weeks I have posted Bible studies #1-3 and 5A-B in the series of evangelistic Bible studies.  This week I have posted the final part of study #5, namely, what saving faith is not and what it is.  I believe that a lost person who goes through these studies honesty should be illuminated by the Holy Ghost as to his spiritual condition. In our day when anyone who can walk down an isle and shake the hand of someone at the front is assumed to be genuinely converted, a careful presentation of what falls short of saving faith and what it involves is, I trust, something the Lord can use for His glory and which can help the lost, and which can also assist the saints in carefully helping the unconverted with the spiritual needs of their souls.

The videos at FaithSaves have also been made mobile-friendy, so you can view them here on your phone or other mobile device now as easily as they can be watched on a desktop.

Please watch the embedded video below or watch the video on YouTube, and please feel free to share your comments here and there and to "like" the video if you believe it is valuable.

Bible Study #5C: Saving Faith, what it is not and what it is, 

in"How do I Receive the Gospel?" Bible Study #5:

All seven studies can be downloaded as a Word document for use in your Baptist church here.

-TDR