Categories
Biblical Studies the misunderstood verses series

Is This Offering of a Widow a Model for Our Giving?

(Mark 12:41-44 cf. Luke 21:1-4)

THE MISUNDERSTOOD VERSES SERIES

This story is one of those that have been used to teach about giving more. We have heard that this widow should be our model in giving. However, this passage has its own interpretive restrictions and complexities that make it hard to preach giving from this portion of the Scripture. Some of the common intricate observations that we face when reading this passage are:

  1. The widow did not give most of what she had, but, she gave everything she had.
  2. She was a widow living 2000 years ago when Israel was under subjection to the Roman Empire. Romans imposed heavy taxations that were made worse by the Tax Collectors. She would not have had any support to live.
  3. Jesus did not say anything affirming about the way she gave but only made a simple observation that she gave the money.
  4. If we interpret that Jesus was happy about it, can we say, then, that this is what Jesus expects of widows to do today? Does Jesus want widows to give every single rupee to the church?

One of the most important things we need to remember here is that the widow did not give money to the church because the church did not exist until the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Neither it was going to be used to support Jesus’ mission or His disciples. She was giving to the synagogue and a corrupt religious system governed by Pharisees and Sadducees. I feel the need to explain briefly who these two groups were.

Sadducees used to run the Temple and were wealthy, aristocratic and often Hellenistic group of people. They believed solely in Torah as the Law while they denied the Oral Law unlike the Pharisees, had a strong faith in Temple and did not believe in the resurrection, life after death, and the existence of angels etc. They dominated the Sanhedrin, the religious ruling council, and were supported by the Romans.

Pharisees descended probably from Hasidim freedom fighters from the time of the Maccabean revolt in the Intertestamental Period (the time between the Old and the New Testament). As recorded by Josephus, they were middle-class merchants who numbered around 6000 in total at the time of Jesus Christ. They believed the entire Old Testament to be the Law and even created an Oral Law and accepted the oral interpretations of the Old Testament binding believing that the study of Torah was the highest act of worship. They also believed in bodily resurrection, life after death, personal angels etc. The Bible tells us some basic things about them. They were quite influential among the people (John 7:48); did not eat without ceremonially washing of their hands (Mark 7:3-4) and had a conflict with Jesus and His disciples over these matters; and extremely strict in obedience to Torah and the Oral Law in every detail (Matthew 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). However strict they were, they were neglectful about the real and the weighty matters of the Law including morality (Matthew 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3). They were called the brood of vipers along with the Sadducees (Matthew 3:7) and were always condemned by Jesus Christ for their pride and self-righteousness (Matthew 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11-12). In their interactions with Jesus, He often rebuked them (Matthew 12:39; 16:1-4). Finally, Matthew 23 records Jesus calling them hypocrites, the brood of vipers, sons of the murderers of the prophets and so on. Most importantly for us to know, they were the ones who supported and ruled the synagogues.

Jesus called these groups hypocrites, the brood of vipers, sons of the murderers of the prophets, whitewashed tombs and many other things (read Matthew 23). So we know that the widow’s money was not going into good hands which leaves no room for Jesus to be happy about it.

Moreover, it was Wednesday before the Friday Jesus was going to be crucified at the hands of this same religious system. The context makes it quite clear. Luke 20:46-47 says, “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the market-places and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They DEVOUR WIDOW’S HOUSES and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.” This same episode is continued in chapter 21 as well, because, it is the content of the Scripture that is inspired not the chapter divisions. These divisions were added by Stephen Langton in the 12th century into the Latin Vulgate. In 1551, Robert Estienne added verse divisions to his fourth edition of the Greek New Testament. And the first translation to employ this versification was the Geneva translation of 1557. Hence, this particularly concerned portion of Scripture should be read along with its preceding verses in chapter 20.

At this point it is best to see that Jesus is saddened by the act of this widow and probably angry because He witnesses the exact reality of the exploitation of a widow, just the thing He was talking about before sitting down (see, Luke 20:46-47).

Let’s be responsible for those in need. Because “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted from the world” (James 1:27).

Categories
Biblical Studies

The Use of Word “elohim” in the Old Testament

“with special emphasis on the book of Jonah”

The word elohim has a variety of usages in the Scripture and in the Christendom, it stands as one of the important keywords among the Trinitarians. The plurality is ascribed, among the Christians, to mean that the Triune Godhead is addressed in the first book, the first chapter and the first verse of the Bible. Though the book of Genesis does not manifest the thirst of interpreting the word ’elohim in Trinitarian perspective, this interpretation still stands as irrefutable since no alternative interpretation has had ever represented itself more faithful to the literal interpretation of the Scripture as a whole. This is particularly evident from the most accepted formula of interpretation, Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandam esse (Scripture is to be explained by Scripture).

’eloah word appears some 57 times in the Old Testament, which may be the singular of ’elohim making its appearances mostly in the book of Job – 41 times out of its 57 occurrences in the whole Old Testament. ’elohim is used some 2570 times, a plural form which is sometimes used for gods other than YHWH (for example, see Ex. 20:3), when it may also take the definite article (Ex. 18:11), plural adjectives and plural verbs (Ps. 97:7). Its plural form may mean that it had polytheistic (Or maybe at least somewhat less than fully monotheistic) overtones at one time. Yet its use in the Old Testament for Israel’s God, which comes always with the singular verbs, probably means that the plural has reference to intensification or absolutization or exclusivity (say, God of gods); it is less commonly considered a plural of majesty. While the Trinitarian perspectives are probably not in view, the Old Testament witnesses to a richness and complexity in the divine realm (Gen. 1:26; Is. 6:8) is such that later Trinitarian developments seem quite natural.

The view that the three Hebrew terms ’el, ’eloah, and ’elohim come from one root is much disputed. Some hold that the two are distinct, deriving ’el from the root ’wl (strong). Others see ’elohim derived from the root ’lh, together with ’eloah, that root meaning “for.” Still, there are others who have a dissimilar view that both ’el and ’elohim come from ’eloah. But still, the more probable view is that ’elohim comes from ’eloah as a unique development of the Hebrew Scriptures which also represents chiefly the plurality in the persons in the Trinity of the Godhead.

The OT uses three different words for ”God,” viz., ·el, eloah, and elohim. In general, these words are interchangeable, as is clear from the following examples: in Ps. 29:1 and 89:7 (Eng. v. 6), we find bene ‘elim, literally, ”sons of the gods” (RSV-”heavenly beings”), while in Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 we find bene ·elohim, with the same meaning.

’elohim IN THE BOOK OF JONAH

The word ’elohim is used in various different contexts differently. The book of the prophet Jonah is no exception rather stands as another instance of the diverse use of the word. Jay P. Green gives the list of the references from the book of Jonah wherein the word ’elohim is used in diverse ways. Here is the list:

  • 1:5, “…each cried to his own god…”
  • 1:6, “…get up and call on your god!…”
  • 1:9, “…I worship the LORD, the God of heaven…”
  • 2:1, “…Jonah prayed to the LORD his God…”
  • 2:6, “…O LORD my God…”
  • 3:3, “…Nineveh was a very important city (some translations affirm, a great city of God)…”
  • 3:5, “…Ninevites believed God…”
  • 3:8, “…Let everyone call urgently on God…”
  • 3:9, “…God may yet relent…”
  • 3:10, “When God saw…”
  • 4:6, “Then the LORD God provided…”
  • 4:7, “…next day God provided a worm…”
  • 4:8, “…God provided a scorching east wind…”
  • 4:9, “But God said to Jonah…”

The simple reading of the book of Jonah in the English language itself testifies for the different usages of the word ’elohim by attributing small letter “g” to god when it talks about the pagan gods and a capital letter “G” when it is ascribed to Yahweh. Moreover, one can easily observe that the title ’elohim is used along with the personal name of God of Israel, YHWH, with some exception in 1:6. The Pulpit Commentary explains, “the sailors’ prayer had not been answered, and they arouse Jonah, noting something special about him, perhaps his prophet’s dress, or observing that he was an Israelite, and therefore, a worshipper of YHWH, of whose power they had heard.” Some may disagree but H. D. M. Spence goes further to say that “they (sailors) use the word “God” with the article ha ’elohim, as if they had, in spite of their polytheism, a dim notion of Supreme Deity.” Whatever the case, even if their reference was not directed towards YHWH, still one can argue, and appropriately, that they had the idea that the God of Israelites is above their gods or in other words, One true God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fretheim, Terance E. “’elohim.” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Volume 1. Edited by William A. VanGremeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

Green, Jay P. The New Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984.

Harris, Z. Grammar of the Phoenician Language. Jewish Publication Society, 1936.

Ringgren, Helmer. “’elohim.” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume 1. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.

Scott, Jack B. “אלה.” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Volume 1. Edited by R. Laird Harris. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

Spence, H. D. M. The Pulpit Commentary. Volume 14. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950.

Theologisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Volume 1. Munich, 1971.

Categories
False Christianity

ਝੂਠੇ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਕਾਂ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਸਾਡੇ ਕੋਲੋਂ ਕੀ ਚਾਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ?

“ਦੋਸ਼ ਨਾ ਲਗਾਓ” ਨਵੀਂ ਮਸੀਹੀਅਤ ਦਾ ਮੰਤਰ ਬਣ ਚੁਕਾ ਹੈ ਹਾਲਾਂਕਿ ਬਹੁਤ ਘੱਟ ਲੋਕ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਇਸ ਆਇਤ ਦਾ ਅਸਲੀ ਮਤਲਬ ਵੀ ਸਮਝਦੇ ਹੋਣਗੇ। ਇਹੀ ਕਾਰਨ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਅੱਜ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਯਿਸੂ ਮਸੀਹ ਦੇ ਮੇਜ ਉੱਤੋਂ ਕੁਝ ਨਾਸਮਝ ਲੋਕ ਤੇਲ, ਪਾਣੀ, ਸਾਬੁਣ, ਰੁਮਾਲ, ਪੈੱਨ, ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਕਈ ਤਰਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਮਾਨ ਵੇਚ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਮਸੀਹੀ ਲੋਕ ਇਹੀ ਸੋਚ ਕੇ ਚੁਪ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਅਸੀਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਦਾ ਨਿਆਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰ ਸਕਦੇ। ਪਰ ਕੀ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਜੇਕਰ ਗਲਤ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਫੈਲਾਉਣ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਚੁਪ ਰਹਿ ਕਿ ਅਸੀਂ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੀ ਮਰਜ਼ੀ ਦੇ ਖਿਲਾਫ਼ ਕੰਮ ਕਰਦੇ ਪਾਏ ਗਏ? ਕੀ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਜੇਕਰ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੀ ਮਰਜੀ ਹੋਵੇ ਕਿ ਅਸੀਂ ਗਲਤ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਬਰਦਾਸ਼ਤ ਨਾ ਕਰੀਏ? ਕੁਝ ਤਾਂ ਗਲਤ ਹੈ ਜਿਸਨੇ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਭੁੱਲਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਜ਼ਬੂਰ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਕਿ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਜਿਹੜਾ ਕਿ ਆਪ ਮੁੱਖ ਚਰਵਾਹਾ ਹੈ ਓਹ ਆਪਣੀਆਂ ਭੇਡਾਂ ਦੇ ਚਰਵਾਹਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਜਿੰਮੇਵਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਠਹਿਰਾਵੇਗਾ ਜੇਕਰ ਓਹ ਉਸਦੀਆ ਭੇਡਾਂ ਦੀ ਰਖਵਾਲੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਨਗੇ। ਬਾਇਬਲ ਇਹ ਸਾਫ਼-ਸਾਫ਼ ਦੱਸਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਅਸੀਂ ਜਿੰਮੇਵਾਰ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਉਸਦੀਆ ਭੇਡਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਹੀ ਚਾਰਾ – ਬਿਨਾ ਮਿਲਾਵਟ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ- ਪ੍ਰਦਾਨ ਕਰੀਏ।

      ਹੁਣ ਚਲਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਵੱਡੇ ਅਤੇ ਮੁਖ ਸਵਾਲਾਂ ਵੱਲ: ਕਲੀਸਿਯਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਕਿਸ ਢੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਝੂਠੇ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਕਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਗੱਲ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ? ਆਓ ਦੇਖਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਬਾਇਬਲ ਇਸ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਕੀ ਚਾਨਣਾ ਪਾਉਂਦੀ ਹੈ।

ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਯਿਸੂ ਮਸੀਹ ਨੇ ਬਰਦਾਸ਼ਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਬਜਾਏ ਢੁੱਕਵਾਂ ਜਵਾਬ ਦਿੱਤਾ

  • ਮੱਤੀ 23 ਵਿੱਚ ਸ਼ਰਾ ਦਾ ਗਲਤ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ ਕਰਨ ਕਰਕੇ ਫ਼ਰੀਸੀਆਂ ਲਈ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਯਿਸੂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਵਰਤੇ ਗਏ ਕੁਝ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਹਨ: 6 ਵਾਰ ਕਪਟੀ, ਅੰਨੇ ਆਗੂ, ਅੰਨੇ ਮੂਰਖ, ਅੰਨੇ, ਕਲੀ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਹੋਈਆਂ ਕਬਰਾਂ, ਨਬੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਖ਼ੂਨੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਪੁੱਤਰ, ਸੱਪ ਅਤੇ ਨਾਗਾਂ ਦੇ ਬੱਚੇ ਆਦਿ।
  • ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਗਲਤ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ ਨੂੰ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਝਿੜਕਿਆ (ਮੱਤੀ 23:16-22)
  • ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਦਿਖਾਵੇ ਦੀ ਭਗਤੀ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਨਿੰਦਿਆ ਕੀਤੀ (ਮੱਤੀ 23:25-26)
  • ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਕਿ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਨਰਕ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ (ਮੱਤੀ 23:33)
  • ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਕਿ ਫਰੀਸੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਸੱਚੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ (ਮੱਤੀ 23:8-12)
  • ਥੂਆਤੀਰੇ ਦੇ ਪਾਸਬਾਨ ਨੂੰ ਈਜਬਲ ਨਾਮਕ ਝੂਠੀ ਨਬੀਆ ਨੂੰ ਝੱਲਣ ਲਈ ਝਿੜਕਿਆ (ਪਰਕਾਸ਼ ਦੀ ਪੋਥੀ 2:20)
  • ਚੇਲਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਫਰੀਸੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਦੂਕੀਆਂ ਦੀ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਣ ਲਈ ਕਿਹਾ (ਮੱਤੀ 16:6-12)
  • ਝੂਠੇ ਨਬੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਾੜਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਬਘਿਆੜ ਕਿਹਾ ਅਤੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਹੁਸ਼ਿਆਰ ਰਹਿਣ ਲਈ ਕਿਹਾ (ਮੱਤੀ 7:15)
  • ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਅਬਰਾਹਾਮ ਦੀ ਸੰਤਾਨ ਕਹਿਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਯਹੂਦੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਆਪਣੇ ਪਿਉ ਸ਼ੈਤਾਨ ਤੋਂ ਹੋ (ਯੂਹੰਨਾ 8:44)

ਚੇਲਿਆਂ ਨੇ ਗਲਤ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਨੂੰ ਬਰਦਾਸ਼ਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਬਜਾਏ ਢੁੱਕਵਾਂ ਜਵਾਬ ਦਿੱਤਾ

ਸਿਰਫ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਯਿਸੂ ਮਸੀਹ ਨੇ ਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਗੋਂ ਓਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਚੇਲਿਆਂ ਨੇ ਵੀ ਗਲਤ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਦੇ ਜ਼ਹਿਰ ਨੂੰ ਕਲੀਸਿਯਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਫੈਲਣ ਤੋਂ ਰੋਕਣਾ ਜਰੂਰੀ ਸਮਝਿਆ। ਆਉ ਕੁਝ ਆਇਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੇਖਦੇ ਹਾਂ

  • ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਤਾੜ ਰੱਖਣ (to mark them out) ਅਤੇ ਲਾਂਭੇ ਰਹਿਣ (to avoid) ਲਈ ਕਿਹਾ (ਰੋਮੀਆਂ 16:17)
  • ਏਹੋ ਜਿਹੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਝੂਠੇ ਰਸੂਲ, ਛਲੀਏ, ਅਤੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਮਸੀਹ ਦੇ ਰਸੂਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਟਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਿਹਾ (2 ਕੁਰਿੰਥੀਆਂ 11:13)
  • ਝੂਠੇ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਖੁਸ਼ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ, ਖਰੀ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰ ਨਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ, ਸੱਚਾਈ ਤੋਂ ਦੂਰ ਅਤੇ ਖਿਆਲੀ ਕਹਾਣੀਆਂ ਸੁਣਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਿਹਾ (2 ਤਿਮੋਥਿਉਸ 4:3-4)
  • ਝੂਠੇ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ “ਬਾਹਲੇ ਢੀਠ”, “ਬਕਵਾਦੀ”, ਅਤੇ “ਛਲੀਏ” ਕਿਹਾ (ਤੀਤੁਸ 1:10)
  • ਇਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਝੂਠੇ ਨਫੇ ਦੇ ਨਮਿੱਤ ਘਰਾਂ  ਨੂੰ ਉਲਟ ਸੁੱਟਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਕਿਹਾ (ਤੀਤੁਸ 1:11)
  • ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਨਵੀਂ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਜੋ ਰਸੂਲਾਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਿਖਾਈ ਗਈ, ਓਸਨੂੰ ਬਕਵਾਸ ਕਿਹਾ (1 ਤਿਮੋਥਿਉਸ 1:6)
  • ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨ ਸੱਚਿਆਈ ਦੇ ਮਾਰਗ ਦੀ ਬਦਨਾਮੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਹੈ (2 ਪਤਰਸ 2:2)
  • ਕਿਹਾ ਕਿ ਲੋਭ ਦੇ ਮਾਰੇ ਓਹ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਖੱਟੀ ਦਾ ਸਾਧਨ ਬਣਾ ਲੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ (2 ਪਤਰਸ 2:3)
  • ਇਹ ਝੂਠੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਪਸ਼ੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਨਿਆਈਂ ਬੁਧਹੀਨ ਹਨ; ਸ਼ਿਕਾਰ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਅਤੇ ਨਸ਼ਟ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਣ ਲਈ ਉਤਪਤ ਕੀਤੇ ਗਏ ਹਨ; ਜਿੰਨਾ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਮਝਦੇ ਓਹਨਾਂ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਦਾ ਕੁਫਰ ਬਕਦੇ ਹਨ (2 ਪਤਰਸ 2:12)
  • ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੇ ਇੱਜੜ ਨੂੰ ਨੁਕਸਾਨ ਪਹੁਚਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਇਹ ਬਘਿਆੜ ਕਲੀਸਿਯਾ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਵੀ ਖੜੇ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ (ਰਸੂਲ 20:29-30)
  • ਓਹ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਤੋਂ ਹਨ, ਸੰਸਾਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਇੰਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੁਣਦਾ ਵੀ ਹੈ (1 ਯੂਹੰਨਾ 4:5)
  • ਲਾਲਚ ਵਿੱਚ ਮਾਹਿਰ ਉਹ ਅਸਥਿਰ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਮੋਹ ਲੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ (2 ਪਤਰਸ 2:14)
  • ਓਹ ਸੁੱਕੇ ਖੂਹ, ਹਨੇਰੀ ਦੇ ਉਡਾਏ ਹੋਏ ਬੱਦਲ ਹਨ (2 ਪਤਰਸ 2:17)
  • ਓਹ ਵੱਡੀਆਂ-ਵੱਡੀਆਂ ਫੋਕੀਆਂ ਗੱਪਾਂ ਮਾਰ ਕੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭੁਚਲਾ ਲੈਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਉਹ ਸ਼ਰੀਰ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਾਮਨਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸੰਤੁਸ਼ਟ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ (2 ਪਤਰਸ 2:18)
  • ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਉਹ ਆਜ਼ਾਦੀ ਦੇ ਵਾਅਦੇ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਪਰ ਉਹ ਖੁਦ ਵੀ ਵਿਨਾਸ਼ ਦੇ ਗੁਲਾਮ ਹਨ (2 ਪਤਰਸ 2:19)
  • ਮਸੀਹ ਦੀ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਤੋਂ ਮੁੜਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦਾ ਵਚਨ ਕੁੱਤੇ ਅਤੇ ਸੂਰ ਵਰਗੇ ਜਾਨਵਰਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਮਿਲਾਉਂਦਾ ਹੈ (2 ਪਤਰਸ 2:22)
  • ਉਹ ਸਾਡੇ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਮਸੀਹ ਦੀ ਦੇਹ ਅਤੇ ਦੁਲਹਨ ਹਾਂ (1 ਯੂਹੰਨਾ 2:19)

ਸਾਡਾ ਉੱਤਰ ਕਿ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ?

  • ਸਹੀ ਸਿਖਿਆ ਦਾ ਵਿਰੋਧ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਬੇਨਕਾਬ/ਕਾਇਲ ਕਰਨਾਂ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਥੇ ਯੂਨਾਨੀ ਸ਼ਬਦ ελενχειν (elenchein) ਦਾ ਇਸਤੇਮਾਲ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ ਜਿਸਦਾ ਮਤਲਬ ਕਾਇਲ ਕਰਨਾ, ਖੰਡਣ ਕਰਨਾ, ਜਾ ਬੇਨਕਾਬ ਕਰਨਾ ਹੈ (ਤੀਤੁਸ 1:9)
  • ਇਹਨਾ ਨੂੰ ਕਲੀਸੀਯਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਬੋਲਣ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੇਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ (ਤੀਤੁਸ 1:11)
  • ਕਲੀਸਿਯਾ ਦੇ ਆਗੂਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਇਹੋ ਜਿਹੀ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਹੁਕਮ ਕਰਨ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਤਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਸਿਖਿਆ ਨਾ ਦੇਣ (1 ਤਿਮੋਥਿਉਸ 1:3)
  • ਕਿਸੇ ਦਾ ਕਿੰਨਾਂ ਵੱਡਾ ਨਾਮ ਹੈ ਕੋਈ ਫਰਕ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈਂਦਾ, ਓਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਗਲਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਨਜ਼ਰ-ਅੰਦਾਜ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ (ਗਲਤੀਆਂ 2:11)

ਯਾਦ ਰੱਖੋ, ਅਸੀਂ ਜੋ ਵੀ ਵਿਸ਼ਵਾਸ਼ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਾਂ ਉਹ ਪਵਿੱਤਰ ਬਾਇਬਲ ਦੇ ਵਰਕਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ਨ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੇ ਪੁੱਤਰ ਸਾਡੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਯਿਸੂ ਮਸੀਹ ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੇ ਵਚਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੰਪੂਰਨਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਸਾਡੇ ਕੋਲ ਹੈ। ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਗੱਲ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੇ ਵਚਨ ਨਾਲ ਮੇਲ ਨਹੀਂ ਖਾਂਦੀ ਓਹ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਪਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਆਪਣੀ ਹੀ ਗੱਲ ਗੱਲ ਦੇ ਉਲਟ ਕੰਮ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦੇ।

ਇੱਕ ਪਾਸੇ ਕੋਈ ਵੱਡੇ ਨਾਮ ਵਾਲਾ ਇਨਸਾਨ ਕਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਹਰ ਸ਼ਰੀਰਿਕ ਜਰੂਰਤ ਪੂਰੀ ਕਰਨਗੇ ਅਤੇ ਦੂਜੇ ਪਾਸੇ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦਾ ਵਚਨ ਦੱਸਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸ਼ਰੀਰਿਕ ਮਨਸ਼ਾ ਮੌਤ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਨਾਲ ਵੈਰ ਹੈ (ਰੋਮੀਆਂ 8:7)। ਇੱਕ ਪਾਸੇ ਕੁਝ ਨਬੀ (prophets) ਅਤੇ ਰਸੂਲ/ਪ੍ਰੇਰਿਤ (apostles) ਕਹਿ ਜਾਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਕੋਲ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਵਾਂ ਹੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ਨ ਹੈ ਜਿਹੜਾ ਅੱਜ ਤੱਕ ਕਿਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਨੂੰ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਦੂਜੇ ਪਾਸੇ ਪਵਿੱਤਰ ਬਾਇਬਲ ਕਹਿੰਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਜੇਕਰ ਸਵਰਗ ਦੂਤ ਵੀ ਕੋਈ ਨਵੀਂ ਖਬਰ ਸੁਣਾਵੇ ਉਸ ਖੁਸ਼ ਖਬਰੀ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਜਿਹੜੀ ਅਸੀਂ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਸੁਣਾਈ ਸੀ ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਸਰਾਪਿਤ ਹੈ (ਗਲਤੀਆਂ 1:8)। ਇੱਕ ਪਾਸੇ ਇਹ ਝੂਠੇ ਨਬੀ ਅਤੇ ਰਸੂਲ ਆਪਣੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਵਚਨ ਦਾ ਗਲਤ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ ਕਰਕੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੇ ਚੁਣੇ ਹੋਏ ਦੇ ਵਿਰੁੱਧ ਕਦੀ ਵੀ ਕੋਈ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਨਹੀਂ ਬੋਲਨਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ, ਕਦੀ ਵੀ ਦੋਸ਼ ਨਾ ਲਗਾਓ, ਅਤੇ ਦੂਜੇ ਪਾਸੇ ਬਾਇਬਲ ਕਹਿੰਦੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਹਰ ਵਿਸ਼ਵਾਸ਼ੀ ਨੂੰ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਸਭ ਕੁਝ ਧਿਆਨ ਨਾਲ ਪਰਖਣ (1 ਥਸਲੁਨੀਕੀਆਂ 5:21-22) ਅਤੇ ਹਰ ਆਤਮੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਵਿਸ਼ਵਾਸ਼ ਨਾ ਕਰਨ ਪਰ ਸਭ ਆਤ੍ਮਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਰਖਣ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦੇ ਵੱਲੋ ਹੈ ਜਾ ਨਹੀਂ (1 ਯੂਹੰਨਾ 4:1)।

     ਜਰੂਰੀ ਨਹੀ ਕਿ ਹਰ ਚਮਤਕਾਰ ਅਤੇ ਭਵਿੱਖਵਾਣੀ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਹੀ ਹੋਵੇ। ਰਸੂਲਾਂ ਦੇ ਕਰਤਵ 16 ਅਧਿਆਏ ਵਿਚਲੀ ਲੜਕੀ ਪੌਲੁਸ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਕੀਆਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਦੱਸ ਸਕਦੀ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਸਭ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਮੁਕਤੀ ਦਾ ਰਾਹ ਦੱਸਦੇ ਹਨ ਪਰ ਉਹਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਪ੍ਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦਾ ਆਤਮਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਸੀ। ਸੱਚ ਅਤੇ ਝੂਠ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਪਰਮੇਸ਼ਵਰ ਦਾ ਵਚਨ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।

Categories
Creeds and Confessions

The Athanasian Creed


Historical Background

The Athanasian Creed confirms the Trinitarian belief stressing the co-eternality and co-equality of all three persons of the Trinity while it also is centered over the complex belief of divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ affirming both the beliefs very fundamentally.

The Athanasian Creed is entitled originally in Latin as Quicumque vult (salvus esse…) (meaning “whoever will (be saved…)”) after the beginning phrase of the creed. It was called the Athanasian Creed because for centuries people attributed its authorship to Athanasius, a great champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy in the fourth century, while Arianism was inflicting the church with heresy and the Nicene Creed was formulated (although Athanasius did not write the Nicene Creed, he was among the chief opponents of the heretic movement). it only became clear after the Reformation that Athanasius was not the author of the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius died in 373 AD and the famously ascribed epithet on his tombstone reads, “Athanasius contra mundum,” that is, “Athanasius against the world.” Although it is hard to deny his influence in forming the Creed, it is quite clear that he did not write the Athanasius Creed as well.

The Creed was probably written between 435 AD and 500 AD most likely by theologians in the Lerinum monastery because of its striking similarities with decrees of synods held in Toledo (Spain) after 400 AD, teachings of Augustine in his De Trinitate, and passages in the writings of Vincentius of Lerinum.

the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed together are called the ecumenical creeds.

Why It’s Important and What Possibly it Could Teach Us?

What is the Trinity? How are we supposed to see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in Scripture? Are they distinct persons or just different manifestations? How does the Son relate to the Father or the Spirit relates to the Son? The Athanasian Creed, of course, answers all those questions but in short, it also does the following things making a clear way for its need today as well:

  • It assures our interpretation of the Scriptural passages with historical credibility that our Trinitarian belief, reading of the Scripture, and preaching is not an afterthought product of some recent men. 
  • It helps us keep away from becoming proud as we discover deep truths about the Triunity of God and grow in our knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord by letting us acknowledge that the Spirit had enlightened those before us with great revelations and we do not have a special standing among the children of God.
  • It helps us know some of the most important questions of life, like, What God is like and what is His being?
  • It reminds us of the transcendence of our God who is beyond our human comprehension and yet has revealed Himself to us in the Holy Scriptures.
  • It reminds us that our faith delivered to us in the Scriptures once for all is worth contending for when its truth is challenged.
  • It also offers us a systematised statement of faith on specific matters in a way that is far easy to memorise the very core doctrines of the Bible on which our faith stands.

The Athanasian Creed Text

  1. Whoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic* faith;
  2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt, he will perish everlastingly.
  3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
  4. Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance.
  5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.
  6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
  7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.
  8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
  9. The Father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite.
  10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
  11. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one eternal.
  12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite.
  13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;
  14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
  15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
  16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
  17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
  18. And yet they are not three Lords, but one lord.
  19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord;
  20. so are we forbidden by the catholic religion* to say: there are three Gods or three Lords.
  21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
  22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
  23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
  24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
  25. And in this Trinity, none is before, nor after another, none is greater, or less than another.
  26. But the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal.
  27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
  28. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
  29. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
  31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
  32. perfect God and perfect man, subsisting of a reasonable soul and human flesh.
  33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
  34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
  35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
  36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
  37. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
  38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
  39. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
  40. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
  41. At His coming, all men shall rise again with their bodies;
  42. And shall give account of their own works.
  43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
  44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.


Additional Notes

*The word “catholic” throughout the Creed means simply “universal” church established by Christ Himself.



References:

* Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present, by John H. Leith

* Handbook of Reformed Confessions: Classroom Edition, PTS, Dehradun

Categories
Creeds and Confessions

The Nicene Creed

Historical Background

This Creed is also referred to as Constantinopolitan or Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. It is widely accepted as authoritative by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and other major Protestant churches all over the globe.

Theology of Arius raised a dispute concerning the very core of Christianity, Jesus Christ. It was pretty much believed that Jesus Christ was God and man at the same time. But it was Arian Theology that made the church clarify what they mean when they say Jesus Christ is God. Arius taught that Jesus Christ or the Word was a creature, that He was made by God, that He had a beginning, and that He was subject to change. Arius followed in the ways of Athanasius to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Athanasius also maintained that the Son does not have the full and accurate knowledge of the Father. The point it all came down to was that in Jesus man is not really confront by God. The attack on the identity of Christ is not something new but is an old heresy.

The Synod of Nicaea was convened in 325 AD and it rejected the doctrine of Arianism along with other Christological distortions. The expressions found in the Creed are directly stated against the false views of Jesus Christ. The Synod stated that the Son was “of the same substance with the Father.” The Greek term (homo-ousios) used to express the equality of Son with the Father was objected to by some that this term did not occur in Scripture, but as Arianism became influential and the fight against it became more intense and serious, this expression became a generally accepted one.

But for other matters, the Nicene Creed features the tradition of the creed of Jerusalem rather than a Roman tradition, as featured by the Apostles’ Creed. The passage on the Holy Spirit, the church, and baptism and so on was added at the Synod of Constantinople in 381 AD; hence it is more accurately the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Nicene Creed became the generally accepted among the Western and the Eastern churches.

Another heresy it combats relates to the procession of the Holy Spirit, a faulty view that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Son. It was stated in the Creed that He proceeds from the father with a later promoted addition “…and (from) the Son (Latin: ‘filioque’; the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”), especially by Augustine. 800 AD onwards, the Creed was recited with this later addition in the Western church and in 11th century, also in Rome. The Eastern Church was sharply against the view of the Nicene Creed and shortly afterwards the great schism between the Western and the Eastern Church took place.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God,

the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth,

and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the only-begotten Son of God,

begotten of the Father before all worlds;

God of God, Light of Light,

very God of very God;

begotten, not made.

Being of one substance with the Father,

by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation,

came down from heaven,

and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary,

and was made man;

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;

He suffered and was buried;

and the third day He rose again,

according to the Scriptures;

and ascended into heaven,

and sits on the right hand of the Father;

and He shall come again, with glory,

to judge the living and the dead;

whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit,

and Lord and Giver of life;

who proceeds from the Father and the Son;

who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;

who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;

and I look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

References

* Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present, by John H. Leith

* Handbook of Reformed Confessions: Classroom Edition, PTS, Dehradun

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started