Search This Blog

Tuesday 31 December 2013

The Watchtower Society's commentary on the book of proverbs.

A reproduction of the watchtower society's article
 
PROVERBS, BOOK OF
 
 
A book consisting of a compilation of proverbs or wise sayings from a number of other collections. The book itself sets forth its objective: “For one to know wisdom and discipline, to discern the sayings of understanding, to receive the discipline that gives insight, righteousness and judgment and uprightness, to give to the inexperienced ones shrewdness, to a young man knowledge and thinking ability.” (Pr 1:2-4) “The purpose is that you may walk in the way of good people and that the paths of the righteous ones you may keep.”—2:20.
The introductions to three of the book’s sections attribute the proverbs contained in them to Solomon. (Pr 1:1; 10:1; 25:1) This agrees with the fact that Solomon “could speak three thousand proverbs.” (1Ki 4:32) There can be little question that many, if not all, of the proverbs in these sections were recorded during Solomon’s reign. With reference to himself, Solomon stated: “The congregator had become wise, he also taught the people knowledge continually, and he pondered and made a thorough search, that he might arrange many proverbs in order. The congregator sought to find the delightful words and the writing of correct words of truth.”—Ec 12:9, 10.
However, various arguments have been advanced against crediting most of the proverbs to Solomon. Certain proverbs (Pr 16:14; 19:12; 20:2; 25:3) have been cited as being derogatory to monarchs and therefore not from the time of Solomon. Upon closer examination, though, it is found that, instead of being derogatory, these proverbs exalt kings, showing that they should be accorded due fear because of their power. (Compare 24:21.) Those who claim that a polygamist like Solomon would not have spoken of husband-wife relationships in such a way as to imply monogamy (5:15-19; 18:22; 19:13, 14) lose sight of the fact that polygamy was not advocated but simply tolerated and regulated by the Law. And it may well be that the Jews generally practiced monogamy. Likewise such critics forget that Proverbs is inspired of God and is not simply the opinions of Solomon. Nevertheless, from his observations and his own experiences Solomon may very well have come to appreciate the wisdom of God’s original standard for marriage, monogamy.—Compare Ec 2:8; 7:27-29.
The proverbs not attributed to Solomon had their origin in the sayings of other wise men and one woman. (Pr 22:17; 30:1; 31:1; see AGUR; LEMUEL.) Just when all these proverbs were put into final form is not precisely known. The last time indicator appearing in the book itself is a reference to Hezekiah’s reign. (25:1) So there is a basis for believing that the proverbs were compiled in book form by the time of that ruler’s death in c. 717 B.C.E. The repetition of certain proverbs suggests that the book was compiled from various separate collections.—Compare 10:1 and 15:20; 10:2 and 11:4; 14:20 and 19:4; 16:2 and 21:2.
Style and Arrangement. The book of Proverbs is written in Hebrew poetic style, which consists of thought rhythm, employing parallelisms, the ideas of which are either similar (Pr 11:25; 16:18; 18:15) or contrasting. (10:7, 30; 12:25; 13:25; 15:8) Its first section (1:1–9:18) consists of short discourses addressed by a father to a son or sons. This serves as an introduction to the short, pithy sayings found in the remaining sections of the book. The last 22 verses of the book are written in acrostic, or alphabetic, style, a form of composition also employed by David for a number of his psalms.—Ps 9, 10, 25, 34, 37, 145.
Inspired of God. The writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures testify to the fact that the book of Proverbs is part of God’s inspired Word. The apostle Peter (1Pe 4:18; 2Pe 2:22; Pr 11:31 [LXX]; 26:11) and the disciple James (Jas 4:6; Pr 3:34, LXX) referred to it, as did the apostle Paul when writing to the Corinthians (2Co 8:21; Pr 3:4, LXX), the Romans (Ro 12:16, 20; Pr 3:7; 25:21, 22), and the Hebrews (Heb 12:5, 6; Pr 3:11, 12). Additionally, numerous parallel thoughts may be found in the Christian Greek Scriptures.—Compare Pr 3:7 with Ro 12:16; Pr 3:12 with Re 3:19; Pr 24:21 with 1Pe 2:17; Pr 25:6, 7 with Lu 14:7-11.
To Know Jehovah Is the Way of Life. The book of Proverbs speaks much about knowledge in conjunction with discernment, wisdom, understanding, and thinking ability. The knowledge that it strives to impart and encourage is, therefore, more than mere head knowledge, an array of facts or learning. Proverbs points out that any true knowledge has as its starting point an appreciation of one’s relationship to Jehovah. In fact, at chapter 1, verse 7, the theme of the book is set forth: “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge.”
Of course, the most important knowledge that one can acquire is about God himself. “The knowledge of the Most Holy One is what understanding is,” says Proverbs 9:10. This knowledge goes beyond the mere fact of God’s existence and his creatorship, even beyond the knowledge of many facts about his dealings. To “know” him denotes a deep appreciation of his fine qualities and his great name, and a close relationship with him.
Jesus Christ said to Jews who had knowledge about God: “No one fully knows the Son but the Father, neither does anyone fully know the Father but the Son and anyone to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.” (Mt 11:27) A knowledge of Jehovah’s qualities will deepen one’s proper fear of God, and it will bring the realization that Jehovah is deserving of all worship and service and that to know and obey him is the way of life. “The fear of Jehovah is a well of life, to turn away from the snares of death,” and, “The fear of Jehovah tends toward life.”—Pr 14:27; 19:23.
Jehovah the Creator. Jehovah, in matchless wisdom, is the Creator of all things and the Decreer of the laws governing these things; so he deserves the worship of all creatures. (Pr 3:19, 20) He made the hearing ear and the seeing eye, both literally and in a moral sense. Accordingly, one must look to Him in order to see and hear with true understanding. And a person must realize his accountability to the One who sees and hears all.—20:12.
Righteousness. The book exalts Jehovah as the center of all things and the One in whom all righteous principles find their origin. For example: “The just indicator and scales belong to Jehovah; all the stone weights of the bag are his work.” (Pr 16:11) His will as the Lawgiver is that honesty and justice rule in all transactions. (11:1; 20:10) By fearing him, one learns to love what He loves and to hate what He hates and thereby make one’s way of life straight, for “the fear of Jehovah means the hating of bad.” (8:13) Proverbs reveals that Jehovah especially hates lofty eyes, a false tongue, hands shedding innocent blood, a heart fabricating hurtful schemes, feet in a hurry to run to badness, a false and lying witness, and one causing contentions among brothers. (6:16-19; 12:22; 16:5) One who truly hates these things is well on the way to life.
Additionally, the book of Proverbs illuminates the way of the righteous by showing what Jehovah approves. “The ones blameless in their way are a pleasure to him,” as also are the prayers of such ones. (Pr 11:20; 15:8, 29) “One that is good gets approval from Jehovah.” (12:2) “The one pursuing righteousness he loves.”—15:9.
Judgment and direction. One knowing Jehovah realizes through knowledge and experience that, as Proverbs 21:30 says, “there is no wisdom, nor any discernment, nor any counsel in opposition to Jehovah.” Therefore, though he may hear other plans or have them in his own heart, the sensible person will direct his way of life in harmony with the counsel of Jehovah, knowing that contrary counsel, no matter how seemingly wise or plausible, cannot stand against the word of Jehovah.—Pr 19:21; compare Jos 23:14; Mt 5:18.
Inspired King Solomon said: “Trust in Jehovah with all your heart . . . In all your ways take notice of him, and he himself will make your paths straight.” (Pr 3:5, 6) A man’s heart chooses the way he desires to go, but even when he chooses the correct way, to succeed he must look to Jehovah to direct his steps.—16:3, 9; 20:24; Jer 10:23.
Having chosen the path of life, the individual should recognize Jehovah’s keen interest in him. Proverbs reminds us that Jehovah’s eyes “are in every place, keeping watch upon the bad ones and the good ones.” (Pr 15:3) “For the ways of man are in front of the eyes of Jehovah, and he is contemplating all his tracks.” (5:21) Not only what he appears to be outwardly but also his heart is examined by Jehovah. (17:3) “Jehovah is making an estimate of hearts” (21:2), and He weighs the true value of the thinking, motivation, and inmost desires of the person.
The judgments of Jehovah are shown to be altogether, in every respect, right and for the good of those who seek uprightness. In due time God will clear the wicked out of the land, their death being the price of freedom for the righteous ones. Accordingly, the proverb states: “The wicked is a ransom for the righteous one; and the one dealing treacherously takes the place of the upright ones.” (Pr 21:18) Among such wicked ones are the proud, who are detestable to Jehovah. They “will not be free from punishment.” (16:5) “The house of the self-exalted ones Jehovah will tear down.” (15:25) He will “rob of soul” those robbing the lowly.—22:22, 23.
By observing these dealings of Jehovah the right-minded man makes his paths straight. (Compare Pr 4:26.) He sees that allowing partiality through bribery (17:23) or influence of personality (18:5) causes one to pervert judgment. ‘Pronouncing the wicked righteous and the righteous wicked’ would make him detestable in Jehovah’s eyes. (17:15) He also learns not to be prejudiced but to hear fully both sides of a matter before judging it.—18:13.
Security with happiness. To the one who guards practical wisdom and thinking ability that he receives from Jehovah, the book of Proverbs says: “Jehovah himself will prove to be, in effect, your confidence, and he will certainly keep your foot against capture.” (Pr 3:21, 26; 10:29; 14:26) If one fears Jehovah, “in that case there will exist a future.” (23:17, 18) Moreover, not only is there a future hope but there is also happiness and security for the present time. (3:25, 26) “When Jehovah takes pleasure in the ways of a man he causes even his enemies themselves to be at peace with him.” (16:7) God will not let the righteous one go hungry. (10:3) If a person honors God with the valuable things he possesses, his “stores of supply will be filled with plenty.” (3:9, 10) He adds days to such a man’s life.—10:27.
One ‘taking refuge’ in Jehovah’s name (understanding and acknowledging that name for all that it represents) will find it to be like a strong tower, a place to which, in ancient times, people fled for safety from the enemy.—Pr 18:10; 29:25.
Humility before Jehovah brings “riches and glory and life.” (Pr 22:4) Mercy and truth are what he desires; these are more valuable than sacrifice. Those who turn from bad, who fear Jehovah, and who serve him in this manner will not receive his adverse judgment. (Pr 16:6; compare 1Sa 15:22.) By knowing Jehovah’s ways, one can follow “the entire course of what is good.”—Pr 2:9.
Aimed at the Heart. To achieve its purpose, the book of Proverbs aims at the heart. More than 75 times it refers to the heart as receiving knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and discernment; as being responsible for words and actions; or as being affected by circumstances and conditions. The heart is to be applied to discernment (Pr 2:2); the heart is to observe right commandments (3:1); these are to be written “upon the tablet of [the] heart.” (3:3) “More than all else” the heart is to be safeguarded. (4:23) It is with all the heart that one is to trust in Jehovah.—3:5; See HEART.
Discipline and the heart. Proverbs puts a high value on discipline in various forms. (Pr 3:11, 12) It says: “Anyone shunning discipline is rejecting his own soul, but the one listening to reproof is acquiring heart.” (15:32) So reproof reaches to and adjusts the heart, helping one to acquire good sense or discernment. “For want of heart [lack of discernment] the foolish themselves keep dying.” (10:21) Because it is the heart that must be reached in training children, we are informed: “Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him.”—22:15.
The Spirit and the Soul. Proverbs is not a book of statements of mere men’s wisdom, of how to please or influence men. Rather, Proverbs goes deep, into the heart as affecting thinking and motivation, into the spirit or mental inclination, and into the soul as comprising every fiber of one’s being and personality. (Heb 4:12) Even though a man may think he is right, or may justify himself in his actions, ‘all the ways of a man being pure in his own eyes,’ Proverbs 16:2 reminds us that “Jehovah is making an estimate of spirits” and so knows what one’s disposition is. Might or power is highly prized in the world, but “he that is slow to anger is better than a mighty man, and he that is controlling his spirit than the one capturing a city.”—Pr 16:32.
Getting the knowledge and wisdom of this divinely provided book will greatly help a person to find happiness in this present life and will put him on the pathway to everlasting life. Since “he that is acquiring heart is loving his own soul,” the inspired counsel and discipline therein, if followed, will add “length of days and years of life” and “will prove to be life to your soul.” (Pr 19:8; 3:2, 13-18, 21-26) “Jehovah will not cause the soul of the righteous one to go hungry.” (10:3) “He that is keeping the commandment is keeping his soul,” Solomon admonishes.—19:16.
Relations With Others. Proverbs describes the true servant of God as one who uses his tongue for good (Pr 10:20, 21, 31, 32), not speaking falsely nor even hurting others by thoughtless words. (12:6, 8, 17-19; 18:6-8, 21) If provoked, he turns away the rage of his opponent by a mild answer. (15:1; 25:15) He does not enjoy disputes or quarrels, and he exercises self-control against outbursts of anger, knowing that he might commit irreparable foolishness. (Pr 14:17, 29; 15:18; compare Col 3:8.) In fact, he will avoid companionship with those letting anger control them and who display fits of rage, for he knows that they would bring him into a snare.—Pr 22:24, 25; compare 13:20; 14:7; 1Co 15:33.
Render good, not evil. The inspired Proverbs urge one to take the initiative to do good toward others. Not only is he to act with good toward those ‘dwelling in security’ with him, who have rendered no bad to him (Pr 3:27-30), but he is also urged to return good for bad. (25:21, 22) He is to watch his heart closely, that he does not have inner rejoicing at calamity that comes to one whom he despises or to one who hates him.—17:5; 24:17, 18.
Gossip and slander. Much is said in the book of Proverbs about the trouble, grief, and damage brought by gossiping, as well as the gravity of the guilt resting on the talebearer. The ‘choice morsel’ of a slanderer is “swallowed greedily” by its hearer and is not taken lightly but makes a lasting impression, going down “into the innermost parts of the belly.” Therefore it causes trouble, and the speaker cannot ‘wash his hands’ of guilt. Though such a person may appear very gracious and may disguise his true heart condition, God will see to it that the hate and badness that is actually within him is “uncovered in the congregation.” He will fall into the pit he has dug for someone else.—Pr 26:22-28.
Family relationships. In the Proverbs marital fidelity is strictly counseled. One should find delight in ‘the wife of his youth’ and not be seeking satisfaction elsewhere. (Pr 5:15-23) Adultery will bring ruin and death to its practicers. (5:3-14; 6:23-35) A good wife is “a crown” and a blessing to her husband. But if a wife acts shamefully, she is “as rottenness in [her husband’s] bones.” (12:4) And it is a misery to a man even to live with a wife that is contentious. (25:24; 19:13; 21:19; 27:15, 16) Outwardly pretty and charming though she may be, she is like “a gold nose ring in the snout of a pig.” (11:22; 31:30) A foolish woman actually tears down her own house. (14:1) The fine value of the good wife—her industriousness, trustworthiness, and management of the household in faithfulness and submission to her husband—is fully described in Proverbs chapter 31.
Parents are shown to be fully responsible for their children, and discipline is emphasized as essential. (Pr 19:18; 22:6, 15; 23:13, 14; 29:15, 17) The father’s responsibility is highlighted, but the child must respect both father and mother if he wants life from Jehovah.—19:26; 20:20; 23:22; 30:17.
Animal care. Even concern for domestic animals is considered in the Proverbs. “The righteous one is caring for the soul of his domestic animal.” (Pr 12:10) “You ought to know positively the appearance of your flock.”—27:23.
Government stability and fidelity. The Proverbs express principles of good government. Men of high station, such as kings, should search matters through (Pr 25:2), manifest loving-kindness and trueness (20:28), and deal justly with their subjects (29:4; 31:9), including the lowly ones (29:14). Their counselors cannot be wicked men if the rulership is to be firmly established by righteousness. (25:4, 5) A leader must be a man of discernment and a hater of unjust profit.—28:16.
Whereas ‘righteousness exalts a nation’ (Pr 14:34), transgression results in unstable government. (28:2) Revolution also brings great instability, and it is counseled against at Proverbs 24:21, 22: “My son, fear Jehovah and the king. With those who are for a change, do not intermeddle. For their disaster will arise so suddenly, that who is aware of the extinction of those who are for a change?”
Useful for Counsel. Since the Proverbs cover a wide range of human endeavor, they can provide a basis for giving much practical counsel and admonition, as they did for the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. “The heart of the righteous one meditates so as to answer.” (Pr 15:28) However, it is not wise to counsel ridiculers. “He that is correcting the ridiculer is taking to himself dishonor, and he that is giving a reproof to someone wicked—a defect in him. Do not reprove a ridiculer, that he may not hate you. Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you.” (Pr 9:7, 8; 15:12; compare Mt 7:6.) Not all persons are ridiculers, and hence those in a position to counsel others should do so, as is highlighted by the words: “The very lips of the righteous one keep pasturing many.”—Pr 10:21.
[Box on page 705]
HIGHLIGHTS OF PROVERBS
A book consisting of sections in the form of discourses as well as collections of wise sayings regarding practical matters of life
Though attributed chiefly to King Solomon, Proverbs was not compiled in its entirety until Hezekiah’s reign
The excelling value of wisdom
Wisdom, along with understanding, is the prime thing (4:5-8; 16:16)
Essentials for gaining wisdom (2:1-9; 13:20)
Benefits that come from wisdom, such as security, protection, honor, and a longer, happier life (2:10-21; 3:13-26, 35; 9:10-12; 24:3-6, 13, 14)
Wisdom personified was Jehovah’s coworker (8:22-31)
The bitter consequences for failing to act wisely (1:24-32; 2:22; 6:12-15)
Proper attitude toward Jehovah
Trust in Jehovah (3:5, 6; 16:20; 18:10; 29:25)
Fear him and shun badness (3:7; 10:27; 14:26, 27; 16:6; 19:23)
Honor him, supporting true worship (3:9, 10)
Accept his discipline as an expression of love (3:11, 12)
Show appreciation for his word (3:1-4; 30:5, 6)
Find out what Jehovah hates and act in harmony with this knowledge (6:16-19; 11:20; 12:22; 16:5; 17:15; 28:9)
If we please Jehovah, he will care for us, protect us, and hear our prayers (10:3, 9, 30; 15:29; 16:3)
Fine counsel governing family life
A capable wife is a blessing from Jehovah (12:4; 14:1; 18:22; 31:10-31)
Parents should give their children training and discipline (13:1, 24; 22:6, 15; 23:13, 14; 29:15, 17)
Children should deeply respect their parents (1:8, 9; 4:1-4; 6:20-22; 10:1; 23:22-26; 30:17)
Love and peace are very desirable in the home (15:16, 17; 17:1; 19:13; 21:9, 19)
Resist immorality and thus avoid much pain and suffering (5:3-23; 6:23-35; 7:4-27; 9:13-18)
Traits that should be cultivated, and those that should be avoided
Cultivate loving consideration for the poor and afflicted (3:27, 28; 14:21, 31; 19:17; 21:13; 28:27)
Be generous, avoid greed (11:24-26)
Cultivate diligence; do not be lazy (6:6-11; 10:26; 13:4; 20:4; 24:30-34; 26:13-16)
Modesty and humility bring honor; presumptuousness and pride lead to humiliation (11:2; 16:18, 19; 25:6, 7; 29:23)
Have self-control in the matter of anger (14:29; 16:32; 25:28; 29:11)
Avoid a malicious spirit or a desire for revenge (20:22; 24:17, 18, 28, 29; 25:21, 22)
Practice righteousness in everything (10:2; 11:18, 19; 14:32; 21:3, 21)
Practical guidelines for daily living
Respond properly to discipline, reproof, counsel (13:18; 15:10; 19:20; 27:5, 6)
Be a true friend (17:17; 18:24; 19:4; 27:9, 10)
Be discreet in accepting hospitality (23:1-3, 6-8; 25:17)
Materialism is vain (11:28; 23:4, 5; 28:20, 22)
Hard work brings blessings (12:11; 28:19)
Cultivate honest business practices (11:1; 16:11; 20:10, 23)
Beware of going surety for others, especially for strangers (6:1-5; 11:15; 22:26, 27)
Shun unwholesome speech; be sure your speech is upbuilding (10:18-21, 31, 32; 11:13; 12:17-19; 15:1, 2, 4, 28; 16:24; 18:8)
Flattery is treacherous (28:23; 29:5)
Avoid quarrels (3:30; 17:14; 20:3; 26:17)
Shun bad associations (1:10-19; 4:14-19; 22:24, 25)
Learn to deal wisely with ridiculers as well as with foolish ones (9:7, 8; 19:25; 22:10; 26:4, 5)
Avoid the pitfalls of strong drink (20:1; 23:29-35; 31:4-7)
Do not envy the wicked (3:31-34; 23:17, 18; 24:19, 20)

Peer review or thought police?



Ecclesiastes Ch.1 NWT(2013 edition)

1 The words of the congregator,*+ the son of David, the king in Jerusalem.+
2 “The greatest futility!”* says the congregator,
“The greatest futility! Everything is futile!”+
3 What does a person gain from all his hard work
At which he toils under the sun?+
4 A generation is going, and a generation is coming,
But the earth remains* forever.+
5 The sun rises,* and the sun sets;
Then it hurries back* to the place where it rises again.+
6 The wind goes south and circles around to the north;
Round and round it continuously circles; the wind keeps making its rounds.
7 All the streams* flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full.+
To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.+
8 All things are wearisome;
No one can even speak of it.
The eye is not satisfied at seeing;
Nor is the ear filled from hearing.
9 What has been is what will be,
And what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun.+
10 Is there anything of which one may say, “Look at this—it is new”?
It already existed from long ago;
It already existed before our time.
11 No one remembers people of former times;
Nor will anyone remember those who come later;
Nor will they be remembered by those who come still later.+
12 I, the congregator, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.+ 13 I set my heart to study and explore with wisdom+ everything that has been done under the heavens+—the miserable occupation that God has given to the sons of men that keeps them occupied.
14 I saw all the works that were done under the sun,
And look! everything was futile, a chasing after the wind.+
15 What is crooked cannot be made straight,
And what is lacking cannot possibly be counted.
16 Then I said in my heart: “Look! I have acquired great wisdom, more than anyone who was before me in Jerusalem,+ and my heart gained a great deal of wisdom and knowledge.”+ 17 I applied my heart to knowing wisdom and to knowing madness* and to knowing folly,+ and this too is a chasing after the wind.
18 For an abundance of wisdom brings an abundance of frustration,
So that whoever increases knowledge increases pain.+

A look at the pre Nicene creeds.

Earliest Christian Creeds and Writings

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) published a brochure attacking the validity of the trinity doctrine: Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989. Like other brochures the JWs publish, it was limited to 32 pages. This, obviously, isn't enough to cover such a large subject in great detail. Much had to be left out or severely condensed. Nevertheless, an excellent job was done in presenting the basics of this subject. On pp. 6-9 of this brochure an examination was made of the history of the development of the trinity doctrine. This included an examination of the actual writings and creeds of the earliest Christians (those who lived before the trinity doctrine was actually adopted by the Roman Church in the 4th century A. D.).

Robert M. Bowman, Jr. has written a 157-page book which attempts to reply to the JW brochure. It was published by the Baker Book House in 1989 under the title Why You Should Believe in the Trinity. Mr. Bowman had no such 32-page limit as the JWs set for themselves in their brochure and was able to write in as much detail as he wished. He strongly attacked the honesty and the accuracy of the JWs and their brochure.

One area he focused on concerns the writings of the first ("Ante-Nicene" or "before the Nicene Council of 325 A. D.") Christians. He quoted portions of writings by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen. He ignored the many anti-trinity portions of these ancient Christian writings and produced, instead, portions which seem (as translated by modern trinitarians, at least) to show a "Jesus is God" understanding. For all of these, Bowman quoted from the trinitarian-translated The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) edited by trinitarians Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, published by the trinitarian Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989 reprint.

Before we examine these earliest writings of individual Christians, however, let's examine something which clearly reveals the understanding of the church itself in this three hundred year period before the Nicene Council: the confession of his faith required of each believer before he could be baptized as a Christian. These are the all-important beliefs that the Church itself says each Christian must have!

Earliest Christian Creeds

Cardinal Newman was "one of the most influential English Catholics of all time ... universally revered at the time of his death." - The Columbia Viking Desk Encyclopedia, 1968, v. 2, p. 758.

Cardinal Newman wrote that the Christian creeds before Constantine's time (he was Emperor from 306 to 337 A.D.) did not make any mention of a trinity understanding.

"They made mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that they are coequal, co-eternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them." - The Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 15. (See Awake! 8 Jan. 1973, p. 16.)
The Apostles' Creed (and other very early creeds) grew out of very early baptismal questions. Trinitarian Church historian Dr. H. R. Boer writes:



Around the year A.D. 200, the candidate for baptism answered questions before being baptized as follows:

[1] Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? [Answer:] I believe.

[2] Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and died, and rose the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father [Ps. 110, Acts 2:32-36], and will come to judge the living and the dead? [Answer:] I believe.

[3] Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? [Answer:] I believe.

This form of questioning the candidate began in Rome. In the course of time, questions were changed into a statement or declaration. The beginning of the Apostles' Creed is found in this development. For a long time the creed that came into being in this way was known as the Roman Creed. [This earliest Roman Creed was still in substantial agreement with the above Baptismal Questions even as late as 341 A. D. - see The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1, p. 204, Eerdmans, 1984.]

As need arose, other beliefs were added. The form in which the Apostles' Creed exists today dates from about the fifth century. - A Short History of the Early Church, Dr. H. R. Boer (trinitarian), pp. 75-76, 1976, Eerdmans Publishing Co. (trinitarian) - Cf. p. 280, Augustus to Constantine, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), Harper & Row, 1990.

An


Encyclopedia of Religion confirms the above and adds that

"in the fourth century, the myth of composition by the twelve apostles appears." And, "The final form of the Apostles' Creed was reached in Gaul whence it returned to Rome in the eighth century. The traditional text [the one commonly used today in Christendom] can hardly be traced beyond the sixth century". - pp. 33, 208, 1945 ed.

We can see, then, that the modern form of the creed which is called the Apostles' Creed actually derived from the Roman Creed. And, in fact, the Roman Creed itself was developed long after the death of the Apostles.

Here then, is the true confession of the earliest Christian congregations in Rome itself. These are the beliefs one must have before he can even be baptized!

Number one, of course, is the answer to that most essential question: 'Who is the God you worship?' It is "God the FATHER Almighty"!

If there had been any thought in the Christian community of this city (that over 100 years later would forcefully impose the teaching of a newly-developed trinity concept upon the entire church) that God was really three persons, the question would have been something like "Do you believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit who are Almighty?" or "Do you believe God is one and God is three: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit?" !! But there is no suggestion of such a thing. God is "the Father Almighty" - period!!

Then we go to question #2 in these essential baptismal questions. It is entirely about Jesus but in no way even implies that he is God or even, somehow, equal to God! In fact, it clearly designates him as separate from God ("Son of God") and, of course, separate from the Father, who is God (Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father). Certainly, if Jesus were thought to be God, it would have been as clearly stated in this question as was the other necessary knowledge concerning Jesus that a candidate must answer correctly before being baptized!

Then we go to question #3. Do we see even a hint of the essential knowledge of a 3-in-one God: that the Holy Spirit is a person who is equally God? No! In fact, we see a question dealing with important things!

Question number one, then, deals with the most important belief about the individual who, alone, is the God we must worship. He is identified as the


Father.

Question number two is a question about the second most important belief (and about the second most important person in existence). This is Jesus.

And question number three is about the next most important beliefs: The holy spirit, the holy church, and the resurrection. That these three things are lumped together is highly significant!

A trinitarian might say (although clearly false from context alone) that each of the three questions deals with one aspect of the Trinity. But question number three alone shows the falsity of such a statement. If this question were truly speaking of believing in the Godhood of the Holy Spirit, it certainly would not include the church and the resurrection equally in that very same statement. [1]

Now notice this admission by another trinitarian scholar and church historian:

Besides Scripture and tradition one finds at the end of the second century another entity of FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE for the doctrine of the church, namely the creed .... One of the oldest creeds to be canonized in a particular church was the old Roman baptismal creed, which is generally designated as Romanum (R) .... an early form of this confession read as follows:

I believe in God, the Father, the Almighty;

And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord,

And in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the resurrection of the flesh.

In this form the old Roman confession probably originated not later than the middle of the second century. [Toward the end of the 2nd century the additional information about Jesus ('who was born of the Holy Spirit, etc.' as found in the quote from trinitarian Boer above) was added to R]. More or less similar creeds were extant in most of the Christian congregations of the West .... Later the wording of R became generally accepted in the West.

The same trinitarian authority also admits that the East (the original home of Judaism and Christianity) had a slightly different form. The original Eastern Creed, he tells us, read as follows:


[2]
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, of whom everything [else] is,
and
in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, through whom everything [else] is,
and
in the Holy Ghost.

.... Hence the formula of faith was intended primarily for the instruction of candidates for baptism. This leads to a further point, namely, that the creed functioned as a formal summary of the Christian faith. It was the criterion of faith upon which catechetical instruction was based. - pp. 33-35, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernhard Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.

Please notice that this first "summary of the Christian faith" of all Christians one hundred years after the death of Jesus affirms one God only: the Father only! (See the TC study pp. 4-7 [1 Cor. 8:6].) There is no greater testimony (and no further evidence required) that the Christians of the first two centuries did not believe in nor teach a multiple-person God!

There is another book of Christian history which has received high praise from many sources including Publishers Weekly (which called it: "a book whose honesty, scholarship and general attractiveness commend it") and the highly trinitarian-influenced Christianity Today ("If you have only one church history book, this should be it."). This trinitarian book, The History of Christianity, a Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 Rev. ed., strongly confirms the above information:


Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father. - p. 114.

Christians Summarize Their Beliefs
.... One important outline of basic Christian beliefs in the late second and early third centuries was the 'Rule of Faith'. Origen described it as: 'the teaching of the church preserved unaltered and handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles.' ....

Irenaeus [writing ca. 160-200 A. D.] is the first writer to record a clearly identifiable Rule. Its main content was as follows: '...this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who [or which] made known through the prophets the plan of salvation ....' - p. 115.

.... Hippolytus's account of baptism at Rome at the outset of the third century [ca. 200 A.D.] is very important: 'When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him shall say:

"Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?"

And the person being baptized shall say: "I believe." Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say:

"Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?"

And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized again. And again he shall say:

"Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?"

The person being baptized shall say: "I believe," and then he is baptized a third time.'

.... Creeds in statement form ('I believe ...') developed from the mid-third century by adaptation of the question-and-answers. They were originally used in the closing stages of the instruction of converts prior to baptism. - pp. 116, 117.

Instruction Before Baptism
At the birth of the church, converts [Jewish only at first] were baptized with little or no delay. But a course of instruction prior to baptism soon became customary, especially for non-Jewish converts. Justin explained that before baptism: 'All those who are convinced and believe the things which are taught by us and said to be true, and promise to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to call on God with fasting.'

Hippolytus of Rome [wrote ca. 200-230 A. D.] again provides valuable evidence. A convert's occupation and personal relations were scrutinized, and then came pre-baptismal instructions which took three years (even longer in Syria!). [How many in Christendom take their worship that seriously today?] - p. 117.

So, (1), the complete lack of any single clear statement of a trinity idea for the all-important knowledge of God (Jn 17:3) in the entire Bible shows that the Bible writers did not believe any such thing.

And (2), the complete lack of any clear, undisputed statement of God as a trinity in the writings and teachings of the very first Christians also shows that they hadn't been taught this "knowledge" of God by the Apostles nor did they understand that the inspired writings of the scriptures themselves taught any such a thing. The very first Christians were considered a sect of Judaism (see the ISRAEL study), and the Jews would not have allowed anyone who was a Jew to proclaim a God other than the one who has always been the Jewish God: The Father alone, Jehovah!


The first Christians were all Jews. They had come to believe the apostles' message that Jesus was the promised Saviour of God's people. 'Jesus is the Messiah (Christ)' summed up all that the Jews were called upon to accept. .... But all early Christian theology was Jewish - pp. 101, 102, The History of Christianity (trinitarian), Lion.

Consequently, the Early Church was primarily Jewish and existed within Judaism. - p. 59, Christianity Through the Centuries, Cairns (trinitarian), Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1977 ed.

In [the first century] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members .... professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. They used the Hebrew Scriptures, and they took messianism, the eschatology (even angelology), and the ethics of Judaism for granted... - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.

The leaders of Judaism simply did not allow those within their religion to teach or believe in any other God. If Christians had believed this most blasphemous trinitarian (or even "binitarian") "knowledge" of God, the Jews would have killed them immediately. At the very least they would have been driven out at once. And, if they miraculously had been allowed to exist along with the other Jews, there would have been nothing that would have been more emphatically written and taught during that period than the blasphemous "God" of the Christians (and the equally loud defense of a "trinity" God by the Christians themselves)! But there were no such teachings, writings, or defenses by the Jews or by the Christians. And there was not even a mention of such a thing by the contemporary pagan writers who wrote about those Christians and those Jews!

And (3), the complete lack of even a hint of a trinity teaching in the baptismal questions and earliest creeds confirms this non-trinitarian understanding for the very first Christians for the first 200 years of the Christian Church. Remember, these are the statements of the most important, basic beliefs of a Christian for at least 100 years after the last book of Scripture had been written.

Earliest Christian Writings

It is true that apostasy set in quickly. We find varied teachings and speculations beginning to creep into the writings of early Christians about 120 years after the death of Christ. It seems that many writers about this time were developing some favorite hypotheses of their own that were not shared by other Christian writers. The more educated the writer, the more likely he was to be affected by the most respected "science" (Greek philosophy) and religions of that day. (Even Bowman admits that citations from the Ante-Nicene Fathers - about 150 to 325 A.D. -


"need to be treated with some caution. In many cases they reflect not the general theological beliefs of common Christians in their day, but the often brilliant, often wrong-headed, speculations of intellectuals trying to take seriously the new faith." - p. 28, Bowman.)
But as even many trinitarian scholars and historians of today admit, the very first writers (the "Apostolic Fathers" who wrote from the time of the Apostles up to about 150 A. D.) made no changes in the understanding of God. In fact, even when changes began to be made in the latter half of the second century, Christ was still not considered equal to God (who was the Father alone). And the trinity concept wasn't developed until the 4th century (325) when in Nicaea a partial such doctrine


A look at the pre Nicene creeds II

3] was first forced upon the church by a Roman Emperor. The completed doctrine was further forced upon the church in the late 4th century (381) by another Roman Emperor (see the HIST study) and has completely dominated Christendom ever since.

Of all the thousands of NT manuscript copies which still exist today there are only a very small number (mostly fragments) which are not from this completely trinitarian-dominated time period (381 A.D. to present). Any changes made by copyists in this time period would, obviously, be trinitarian changes! And it is well known that from 325 A. D. (when the emperor, who presided over the Nicene council, and his trinitarian advisors had the anti-trinitarians banished and persecuted and their anti-trinitarian writings burned - see the HIST study) onward the Roman church began systematically destroying (and changing) writings and manuscripts which were considered non-trinitarian or otherwise "heretical"!

There are other problems associated with the existing copies of the writings of these very early Christians.


First
, unlike the writings of Holy Scripture, there are very few existing manuscripts of the writings of the first Christians. For many of these writers there are only one or two manuscripts available, and they are often of relatively late date (many hundreds of years after the original was composed). In other words, instead of having the original words of the ancient writers themselves, we have copies of copies, etc. many times over. Justin Martyr's important 'Dialogue with Trypho,' for example, exists only in a copy made over a thousand years after the original was written.


Second
, the copyists very often did not take the same care or have the same reverence for these manuscripts as they did for the scriptures themselves. They would sometimes change the wording and even add their own thoughts and beliefs to the original writings in order to provide greater authority for these beliefs in an attempt to persuade others (for example, see the "Rufinus" note at the end of the Origen study below).

"Furthermore, the manuscripts of the Church Fathers have suffered the usual transcriptional modifications to which all ancient manuscripts were subject; this was especially true for Biblical passages where the tendency of scribes was to accommodate readings to the Byzantine textual tradition." - p. xxxvi, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) [The Byzantine textual tradition is of relatively late date and very trinitarian. - RDB]
We find that there have been many changes which were intended to advance trinitarian ideas even in copies of the scriptures over the many centuries (since 381 A. D. at least) of copying and recopying by the scribes of trinitarian Christendom. Words that were not in the originals have been added (e.g., 1 Jn 5:7 as rendered in KJV - See 1JN5-7 study paper and Insight, Vol. 2, p. 1019) and changed (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:16 as rendered in KJV - See MINOR study paper) in later copies.

Of course, the best copyists were used in copying manuscripts of scripture itself. More care was taken to assure the accuracy of these copies of copies of the original inspired scriptures than with the writings of other early Christians. But even in copies of scriptural manuscripts we find a great amount of purposeful changes made by the copyist himself.

For example, the copyist of the very early papyrus manuscript known as p66 (copied ca. 150 - 200 A. D.), which is a copy of much of the Gospel of John,


"was quite free in his interaction with the text. He produced several singular readings that reveal his independent interpretation of the text. .... This leads to another phenomenon in the manuscript p66, that of omissions. .... Thus, it is more likely that the shorter text in p66 is not original but redactional, the work of the scribe attempting to trim the text of whatever he perceived to be unnecessary." [italic emphasis added - RDB] - pp. 373-374, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, Baker Book House, 1999 by trinitarian scholar Prof. Philip W. Comfort & trinitarian editor David P. Barrett.
Why, even the copyist who is considered "the best of all the early Christian scribes" (the copyist of p75) , did not resist the temptation to make changes in his copies of earlier manuscripts of inspired Scripture!

"... when he did deviate from his exemplar [the earlier ms. he was copying], he did not go in the direction of simplifying the text (as did the scribe of p45) ; rather he elevated it." Some of his numerous changes and additions are then listed. - pp. 494-496, Comfort & Barrett.

Fortunately, there are thousands of manuscripts of NT Scripture remaining today (some of quite early date) which can be compared. This helps greatly in the process of determining what the original writings most likely were.

It should be no surprise, then, that there are a great number of changes, additions, deletions, etc. to be found in the very few remaining (mostly late date) manuscripts of the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians, and they are almost impossible to isolate and positively identify because of.the extreme rarity of still existent manuscripts for comparison.

Third, since trinitarians have ruled the world of Christendom in every way, politically, economically, numerically (99% of all professing Christians even today are trinitarian), etc. for over 1600 years now, it should not be too surprising that trinitarians are the ones who have written the modern translations of the existing manuscript copies of these ancient writers. And these trinitarian translators have written their translations for trinitarian publishers who publish for a trinitarian market! Surely we wouldn't expect them to translate an ambiguous or vague passage (and the trinitarian translators themselves have admitted that these writings are full of such passages) in a non-trinitarian way if they could find another (even if much less probable), trinitarian, interpretation. (They even admit that they have purposely done so. See Preface, Vol. 5, ANF)

Fourth, the terminology used by these early Christians has been redefined in later years. Terms translated today as "person," "substance," "nature," "begotten," "of the same substance [homoousios]," etc. often had a different meaning for these first Christians. But early trinitarians began REdefining them starting in the 4th century.

For example, early Christian Heracleon [c. 160 A. D.] taught that those who worshiped God in spirit and truth were themselves "of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father"! - p. 394, note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.

Some trinitarian historians today will even admit that the Son being homoousios ("one substance/essence") with the Father merely meant to Origen (and other early Christians, such as Heracleon above) that the Son was UNITED IN WILL with the Father! But, starting around the time of the Nicene Council in the 4th century,


[4] trinitarians began insisting that this very influential Christian writer of the 2nd century had meant by homoousios that the Son and the Father were equal in absolute essence and were, therefore, both equally God. Most trinitarian writers and translators of today continue this trinitarian redefinition tradition. - See the HIST and REDEF studies.

Even more important is the redefinition by later trinitarians of "a god" (theos - a term used in Scripture for angels and even certain men who REPRESENTED God - see the BOWGOD study) into "God" (ho theos - a term used in Scripture for the only true Most High God - see the DEF and PRIMER studies). Even the following respected trinitarian reference work reluctantly admits this:

"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank." - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.
But when trinitarian translators find Jesus called theos ("a god") in these earliest writings, they most often translate it as "God" instead!

So, after more than 1500 years of trinitarian dominance, redefinition, rewording, and selective translating, it should not be surprising that the trinitarian translations of the existing copies of the manuscripts of those early Christian writers will at times appear trinitarian. (See the sections on Origen and Hippolytus below for examples.) What would be very surprising would be, given the above conditions, that there would be any support for a non-trinitarian doctrine still left in modern trinitarian translations of the writings of these earliest Christians!

We can see from the very early creeds quoted above that the churches of that time were not trinitarian. Now let's see if any of that truth still remains in the trinitarian-reworked letters of the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.


"Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father." - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
Other respected trinitarian scholars agree.


"Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father." - pp. 112-113, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

"The formulation 'One God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:


"The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact." - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.

Clement of Rome
(wrote c. 96 A.D.)

The writing of Clement of Rome (c. 96 A. D.) to the Corinthians (1 Clement) is:


"the earliest and most valuable surviving example of Christian literature outside the New Testament" and "was widely known and held in very great esteem by the early Church. It was publicly read in numerous churches, and regarded as being almost on a level with the inspired scriptures." - pp. 17, 22, Early Christian Writings, Staniforth, Dorset Press, New York.
Clement, St., Pope of Rome (ca. 92-101) .... St. Clement is looked upon as the first of the 'Apostolic Fathers.' - p. 177, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.

So what did this famous Apostolic Father tell us about the essential knowledge of God?


[In the early days of Christianity] one believed in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but no tie was available to unite them together. They were mentioned separately. Prayers were addressed, for example, to the Father who 'alone,' according to Clement of Rome, 'was God.' - Revue d¡' Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses (Review of History and of Religious Literature), May-June, 1906, pp. 222, 223.
Yes, Clement of Rome wrote:


"And we will ask, with instancy of prayer and supplication, that the Creator of the universe may guard intact unto the end the number that hath been numbered of His elect throughout the whole world, through his beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of His Name.

"[Grant unto us, Lord {Jehovah, Father}] that we may set our hope on Thy Name {Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, KJV, Ex. 3:15, NEB, LB, MLB} which is the primal source of all creation ... that we may know thee, who alone abides Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy ... Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture." - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, noted trinitarian scholars. [Information in special brackets { } and emphasis added by me.]

"Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order." - 42:1, 2, Lightfoot & Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers.

Not only is this the earliest and most important of the early Christian sources, but the earliest existing manuscript for it is probably the oldest of any of the other early Church writers.
The text [for 1 Clement] is mainly due to three sources. (1) The famous Alexandrian uncial MS of the New Testament [A] in the British Museum, belonging to the fifth century, to which it is added as a sort of appendix .... (2) The Constantinopolitan or Hierosolymitan MS [C] .... This MS is dated A.D. 1056 (3) The Syriac translation .... bears a date corresponding to A.D. 1700. - pp. 3, 4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1984 reprint.
We see, then, that the witness of the very first and most important of the Apostolic Fathers is clearly not trinitarian! But what about the later Ante-Nicene Fathers (ca. 160-300 A.D.)?

Justin Martyr
(c. 100-165 A.D.)

Justin, whom the trinitarian The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 770) called "the most outstanding of the 'Apologists,'" wrote:



God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all. - ANF 1:197 ('Dialogue').

But,