|
This is a non-WLC article. When using resources from outside authors, we only publish the content that is 100% in harmony with the Bible and WLC current biblical beliefs. So such articles can be treated as if coming directly from WLC. We have been greatly blessed by the ministry of many servants of Yahuwah. But we do not advise our members to explore other works by these authors. Such works, we have excluded from publications because they contain errors. Sadly, we have yet to find a ministry that is error-free. If you are shocked by some non-WLC published content [articles/episodes], keep in mind Proverbs 4:18. Our understanding of His truth is evolving, as more light is shed on our pathway. We cherish truth more than life, and seek it wherever it may be found. |
flickr.com/photos/tony709/6107292778 - Jordan River by Cycling Man
“It was at this time that Yahushua came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan River by John. And at once, as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit, like a dove, descending on him. And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; my favor rests on you’” (Mark 1:9-11, New Jerusalem Bible).
The account of the baptism (immersion) of Yahushua by John the Baptist in the Jordan River is reported by all the Synoptics [Matthew, Mark, Luke] with some variation but is omitted by the fourth gospel. Instead of Yahushua coming to John’s baptism for the forgiveness of sins, John says of him, “Behold, the Lamb of Yahuwah who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary says, “Mark has a straightforward account (1:9-11), theologically naïve and unembarrassed. But, after he had written it down, the story quickly became an embarrassment to the early church, because it was thought unsuitable that the sinless Yahushua should be baptized for sins. Matthew therefore omits the reference in Mark 1:4 to the forgiveness of sins and adds [Matthew 3:14-15]” (p. 637).
The dominance of infant baptism later increased Christianity’s embarrassment over this event and over the similar account of the baptism (immersion) of the eunuch from Ethiopia who worked as a treasurer under Queen Candace in Acts 8:36-39: “Further along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is some water; is there anything to prevent my being [immersed]?’ He ordered the chariot to stop, then Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and he [immersed] him. But after they had come out of the water again Philip was taken away by the Spirit of the Lord, and the eunuch never saw him again but went on his way rejoicing” (New Jerusalem Bible). Both episodes depicted: (1) an adult/believer’s baptism; (2) immersion; (3) a river or stream of living water as the element and place of baptism.
Ignoring its significance as a model for Christian baptism, Trinitarians have since the councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) brandished . . . the very opening of the gospel of Mark as a formidable proof and illustration of the doctrine of the Trinity.
|
Ignoring its significance as a model for Christian baptism, Trinitarians have since the councils of Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) brandished this important incident in the very opening of the gospel of Mark as a formidable proof and illustration of the doctrine of the Trinity. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary says, “In later Christian tradition the baptism is regarded as the first NT revelation of the Trinity, economically, because Father, Son, and Spirit are here together (Jerome)” (p. 638).
We see this illustrated also in the writings of Augustine, a contemporary of Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate. One of the greatest Christian writers, he writes in Sermon II:
“Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice, — the Son in the Man, — the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. For the notice of the Trinity is here conveyed to us plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation. For the Lord Christ Himself coming in the form of a servant to John, is doubtlessly the Son: for it cannot be said that it was the Father, or the Holy Spirit. ‘Yahushua,’ it is said, ‘comes’ (Matt. 3:13), that is, the Son of Yahuwah. And who has any doubt about the Dove? or who says, ‘What is the Dove?’ when the Gospel itself most plainly testifies, ‘The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove’ (Matt. 3:16). And in like manner as to that voice there can be no doubt that it is the Father’s, when He says, ‘Thou art My Son’ (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11). Thus then we have the Trinity distinguished.
“2. And if we consider the places, I say with confidence (though in fear I say it), that the Trinity is in a manner separable. When Yahushua came to the river, He came from one place to another; and the Dove descended from heaven to earth, from one place to another; and the very Voice of the Father sounded neither from the earth, nor from the water, but from heaven; these three are as it were separated in places, in offices, and in works. But one may say to me, ‘Show the Trinity to be inseparable rather. Remember that you who are speaking are a Catholic, and to Catholics are you speaking.’ For thus does our faith teach, that is, the true, the right Catholic faith, gathered not by the opinion of private judgment, but by the witness of the Scriptures, not subject to the fluctuations of heretical rashness, but grounded on Apostolic truth: this we know, this we believe. This though we see it not with our eyes, nor as yet with the heart, so long as we are being purified by faith, yet by this faith we most lightly and most strenuously maintain — that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a Trinity inseparable; One God, not three Gods. But yet so One God, as that the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. This ineffable Divinity, abiding ever in itself, making all things new, creating, creating anew, sending, recalling, judging, delivering, this Trinity, I say, we know to be at once ineffable and inseparable.”
Echoed in the words of Augustine is the Athanasian Creed, a creed which teaches a doctrine about Yahuwah far removed from the simplicity of the Shema (Deut. 6:4), which Yahushua declared to be the greatest of the commandments given to Israel (Mark 12:29). “Hear, O Israel: Yahuwah is our Elohim – Yahuwah is one.”
|
Here we see Augustine viewing Yahushua as Yahuwah, though the gospel of Mark has made no such declaration and in fact never makes such a declaration. And we see also the confusing doctrine of the Trinity presumed to be illustrated here: “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a Trinity inseparable; One God, not three Gods. But yet so One God, as that the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.” Echoed in the words of Augustine is the Athanasian Creed, a creed which teaches a doctrine about Yahuwah far removed from the simplicity of the Shema (Deut. 6:4), which Yahushua declared to be the greatest of the commandments given to Israel (Mark 12:29). “Hear, O Israel: Yahuwah is our Elohim – Yahuwah is one.”
Many centuries later, we find Adam Clarke, the great Protestant commentator, continuing this exegetical tradition. Though his words are found at the account of the baptism of Yahushua in Matthew 3:16-17 rather than Mark 1:9-11, the same thoughts are applicable to Mark 1:9-11:
“This passage affords no mean proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. That three distinct persons are here, represented, there can be no dispute. 1. The person of Yahushua Christ, baptized by John in Jordan. 2. The person of the Holy Ghost in a bodily shape (somatiko eidei, Luke 3:22) like a dove. 3. The person of the Father; a voice came out of heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, proceeding from a different place to that in which the persons of the Son and Holy Spirit were manifested; and merely, I think, more forcibly to mark this Divine personality.”
But does this passage actually afford “no mean proof of the doctrine of the Trinity”? Where does it say that Yahushua is Yahuwah? Where does it say that he is the second Person of the Godhead? Where does it say that the Spirit of Yahuwah, well known in Judaism, is to be viewed as a person separate from Yahuwah and different from the Jewish conception prevailing at that time and since? Why should the Gentile Christian conception of the Spirit of holiness be different from the Jewish conception?
In the popular Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, we see Albert Barnes falling into the same rut:
“The baptism of Yahushua has usually been considered a striking manifestation of the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine that there are Three Persons in the Divine Nature.
“(1.) There is the person of Yahushua Christ, the Son of Yahuwah, baptized in the Jordan, elsewhere declared to be equal with Yahuwah, John 10:30.
“(2.) The Holy Spirit, descending in a bodily form upon the Savior. The Holy Spirit is also equal with the Father, or is also Yahuwah, Acts 5:3; 4.
“(3.) The Father, addressing the Son, and declaring that he was well pleased with him. It is impossible to explain this transaction consistently in any other way than by supposing that there are three equal Persons in the Divine Nature or Essence, and that each of these sustains important parts in the work of redeeming men.”
Where does it say that the Spirit of Yahuwah, well known in Judaism, is to be viewed as a person separate from Yahuwah and different from the Jewish conception prevailing at that time and since? Why should the Gentile Christian conception of the Spirit of holiness be different from the Jewish conception?
|
Look at the numerous errors he makes!
(1) John 10:30, which he reads into this scene, is not a declaration by Yahushua that he is equal to Yahuwah. John Calvin recognized this way back during the Reformation. In his commentary on this verse, he wrote: “The ancients generally greatly perverted this passage when they would prove from it that Christ is identically of the same nature (or consubstantial with the Father), for Christ speaks not concerning any unity of substance, but of the mutual agreement between the Father and himself, to wit, affirming that whatsoever he does would be sanctioned by the Father.”
(2) Acts 5:3, 4 does not teach that the Spirit of Yahuwah is equal with the Father or also Yahuwah. In the very same chapter at Acts 5:32, a neuter pronoun is used in the Greek text for the Spirit: “We are witnesses to this fact, and so is the holy Spirit which (hon) Yahuwah has bestowed on those who obey him.” Many translations wrongly translate hon (which) as “whom” here due to their Trinitarian bias (see, for example, the New Jerusalem Bible, Revised Standard V ersion, New American Standard Version, New International Version, and so on). The New American Bible, a Catholic translation, translates this correctly.
(3) This scene can be explained without recourse to the doctrine of the Trinity formulated several centuries later at Nicea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD). It is not necessary to suppose, as Barnes does, that “there are three equal Persons in the Divine Nature or Essence, and that each of these sustains important parts in the work of redeeming men.”
It is a well-known fact among New Testament scholars that the gospel of Mark has the simplest view of Yahushua of all the four gospels. This gospel does not have the ideas contained in the prologue of the fourth gospel, and it does not have the birth stories of Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. It does not even have any resurrection appearances! The verses that contain these, Mark 16:9- 20, are spurious and not by the original author, as the notes in all major Christian Bibles now indicate (see New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and so on).
The gospel of Mark does not teach that Yahushua is Yahuwah, not at the account of the baptism of Yahushua nor anywhere else. . . . The gospel of John gives the purpose of his writing: “These [signs] are recorded so that you may believe that the Messiah, the Son of Yahuwah, is Yahushua” (John 20:31).
|
The gospel of Mark does not teach that Yahushua is Yahuwah, not at the account of the baptism of Yahushua nor anywhere else. The saying of the scribes at Mark 2:7 (“Who can forgive sins but Yahuwah alone?”), though often construed as a proof-text of the Deity of Yahushua, is not really so when read in the light of the parallel account in Matthew 9:1- 8. The account of the stilling of the storm (Mark 4:35- 41) — “Who but Yahuwah could act thus?” “Here was Yahuwah fully manifest” (Adam Clarke) — the two accounts of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (Mark 7:30- 45; 8:1-10) — “a full proof of the divinity of Christ” (Adam Clarke) — and the walking on the sea story (Mark 6:45-52) — “Yahushua showed forth his Godhead” (Adam Clarke) — are nowhere in the New Testament documents advanced as proof that Yahushua was Yahuwah. The gospel of John gives the purpose of his writing: “These [signs] are recorded so that you may believe that the Messiah, the Son of Yahuwah, is Yahushua” (John 20:31).
And Peter in his Pentecostal sermon in the Acts of the Apostles indicates that the signs and wonders of Yahushua show that “Yahushua the Nazarene was a man commended to you by Yahuwah by the miracles and portents and signs that Yahuwah worked through him when he was among you, as you know” (Acts 2:22). In the house of Cornelius, he stated that the miracles were a sign that Yahuwah was with him: “You know what happened all over Judea, how Yahushua of Nazareth began in Galilee, after John had been preaching baptism. Yahuwah...anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and because Yahuwah was with him, Yahushua went about doing good and curing all who had fallen into the power of the devil” (Acts 10:37-38). This is Peter’s comment on the baptism of Yahushua (“Yahuwah...anointed him with the Holy Spirit...Yahuwah was with him”); it does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity or say that Yahushua was shown to be Yahuwah.
