The Unorthodox, yet Popular Theology and "Science" of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

 Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was born in 1881, and died in 1955.  He was a French Jesuit priest, paleontologist, theologian, philosopher and teacher. But he was also a spiritual father of the New Age movements.  He was the fourth of 11 children of a librarian and naturalist, Emmanuel.  His mother, Berthe, was the great-grandniece of Voltaire, a famous Enlightenment writer and hater of Christianity. Pierre’s spirituality was awakened by his mother. When he was 12, he went to a Jesuit college, became a novitiate, and made his first vows in 1901. In 1902, the French premiership began an anti-clerical agenda. Religious associations were forced to submit their properties to state control, which obliged the Jesuits to go into exile in Britain. Teilhard did much of his early work on their island Jersey, but he was a world traveler, and Paris and New York were also his home bases later on.

He was Darwinian in outlook, and his early teaching on Original Sin was so unorthodox that he got himself banned by the Superior General of the Society of Jesuits in 1925.  But that didn’t stop him. He still prepared to teach in China on evolutionary geology, also a no-no—so he was fired by his Jesuit Superiors in 1926 from any teaching at all.

He still went to China and dove into paleontology.  He took part in the discovery of Peking Man in 1926.  The problem is, Peking Man likely did not confirm evolution.  The site contained fragmented skull bones, teeth and tools, supposedly from rock layers 750,000 years ago. This was trumped up as a missing link to apes.  But in a 1959 book, a Catholic Chinese missionary, Patrick O’Connell, accused the scientists involved with fraud.  He claimed that the actual skulls (which disappeared in 1941) were just baboons, but the photographs and casts and measurements were tampered with to make them appear more human.  This was from his observations of the site; his theory had enough evidence that it was circulated by Duane Gish, Christian creationist scientist in 1979.  (P.S. Neither Wikipedia nor Catholic writings have anything negative to say about the Peking Man; it has not been proven as a fraud).  But it is also noteworthy that de Chardin was also previously at the scene of Piltdown Man, discovered in 1912.  But this was definitely a proven fraud, and, since the evidence didn’t disappear this time, it was confirmed as a hoax in 1953. It was really an “altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined (there’s the fraud) with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human.”  Shall we hint that the M.O. of the crime was very similar to the Peking Man, and both were under de Chardin’s watch?  Both of these “proofs,” though they were likely hoaxes, were offered for the defense at the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925.  To show you how the U.S. has changed, Mr. Scopes, a science teacher in Tennessee, was sued because he taught evolution, when Creationist teaching was the only one legal in Tennessee at the time.  Scopes, with the help of the Peking and Piltdown exhibits, and the help of the famed defense attorney Clarence Darrow, was judged not guilty, and in fact, he was offered a new teaching contract—so, he got off easy, partly based on this “evidence” at the time.

Getting to theology, one of de Chardin’s controversial theories was a mixture of science and religion, seldom done at the time, since most “approved” scientists were agnostic.  He conceived of the “vitalist” idea of the Omega Point. Omega Point, to him, means that “everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification…the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos.” Logos is another word for Jesus Christ, but de Chardin’s version of Logos was quite different.  His” theory” was presented publicly in 1922.  This was also reflected in a book he wrote in 1919, “The Spiritual Power of Matter.”  Vitalism is the belief that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities (in that they) contain a non-physical element.”  That mysterious element he referred to as the “vital spark,” which some equate to the soul (he was cagey on this, but that was ultimately proven to be his intent).  But he maintained that plants, since they are a living organism, have a conscious soul.  In the 18^th and 19^thcenturies a similar theory of vitalism was actually discussed among biologists.  They tested the hypothesis but found no support (Benjamin Franklin and Franz Mesmer actually studied it).  It is now regarded as a pseudoscience. 

Perhaps his biggest works was The Phenomenon of Man, 1959 (English).  This posthumously published book set forth a sweeping account of the evolution of matter to attain humanity, then upward again to an ultimate goal of a reunion with Logos. In the book, Teilhard abandoned literal interpretations of creation in Genesis in favor of allegorical and theological interpretations. This  is an example of one of his false teachings:  In Matthew 5:17, Jesus actually said:

 I have come, not to destroy, but to fulfill the law

Teilhard blasphemously re-interpreted His quote as: "I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill Evolution.”

Unlike other Darwinians, he believed that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way. He believed in the following evolution procession: evolution of matter into a geosphere, into a biosphere, into consciousness (in man), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point).  No mention of the crucifixion, and no mention of our Rapture to get to that “Omega Point.”  Oh, yes, he does mention Salvation—but it’s a collective and universal one, as we all evolve to get there.  As he says, “no evolutionary future awaits anyone except in association with everyone else.”  Also, evolution was "the natural landscape where the history of salvation is situated.”  He uses two Bible verses to defend himself:  Colossians 1:17b: 

And He (Christ) is before all things, and in Him all things consist (KJV, “hold together”).

And I Corinthians 15:28: 

Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

In one speech, he asserted that these Scriptures were “pan-Christicism,” or that Christ was tolerant of other ways to get to Omega Point besides orthodox Christianity.  This is now two re-definitions of Jesus Christ and His purpose he has come up with.  His tinkering with Christ to achieve his ideal should engender a fear of God in him, but it doesn’t. He wrote further that Christ, to him, does not have two natures:  He has three. He says Christ is not only man and God; he also possesses a third aspect—indeed, a third nature—which is cosmic. The Body of Christ is not simply a mystical or ecclesial concept for Teilhard; it is cosmic. Teilhard describes this cosmic amassing of Christ as "Christogenesis." I.e., according to Teilhard, the universe is engaged in Christogenesis as it evolves toward its full realization at Omega, a point which coincides with the fully realized Christ. It is at this point that God will be "all in all."

You can see where he is taking this:  pantheism.  God/Christ is in all things, now and in that perfect future; in human and even plant, since ALL living organisms have “vitalism.”  This is multiple blasphemy, but it is politically on point for the extremes of the environmental and New Age groups.

Since all evolution involves mutation, he has a warped thinking on that score as well.  As apologist Dr. Martin put it, “From his correspondence, it is clear that Teilhard was not overly shocked by bloodshed, and regarded violence as necessary to Evolution, and seemed to have enjoyed war--what he saw of it. Death, bloody or otherwise, was what he called a "mutation." As he said, "it would be more to my purpose to be a shadow of Wagner than a shadow of Darwin." That means he prefers G6tterdiimerung (i.e., world-altering destruction marked by extreme chaos and violence), than slow, ordinary Darwin.  I might add, here, that many cults speak in this apocalyptic way, hoping that at the end of the violence, a new and better society can be raised from the ruins. In some cults, its disciples die in suicidal events, like bombings, to hurry-up this better end. The ruling elite of the Nazis also believed that; it was their way to the Perfect Man.

Teilhard rejected all fundamental Christian beliefs, since believing it means he must accept that mankind’s evil and violence has erupted from Adam and Eve’s Original Sin—not the things that he wants to blame (below) for these depredations. When he saw the famous cyclotrons (atom-bomb accelerators) at the U.C. Berkley campus, he was filled "not with terror but with peace and joy" at these tremendous "wombs of change." It was apparently not the specter of Doomsday he saw there, but the possibility that Doomsday would be the womb of the Omega Point—which would give us a new, better world. 

Yet always and everywhere he spoke and behaved as the visionary with a rock-solid certainty about the future. But, for all of that, there is not one line of his that indulges the same infectious enthusiasm for things the Jesuits were trained for:  celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass; for making reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; for removing sins from sinners; for teaching children their catechism; or for consoling the oppressed. All of him was wrapped up in his version of the "winsome doctrine," in the impersonal glory that would come to every man with the arrival of the "Ultra-Human."  He bemoaned that "no religion explicitly and officially offers us the God we need."  (As if what “we need” has any bearing on Him or His sovereignty.)  He asserted that no faith should be placed any longer in the supernatural, but only in man becoming more than man by his own innate drives. He was critical of God’s revelation of Himself in His Word (especially the Old Testament): he called such a God a "monstrous idea." He also derides the church:  she needed to abandon "juridicism” (this is very modern woke theology, considering the current Bible phase most quoted by non-believers, “Thou shalt not judge”), along with getting rid of moralism, and all things “artificial” in order to live in the very function of the call to love, by a (man-created) God who so elevates our energies. I don’t know how, but he even perverts the meaning of the Cross: he says that the Sign of the Cross was not suffering and death transformed into eternal life and glory, but the Cross is Evolution's triumph. I don’t see the connection. And he had a swipe at marriage and family in his day, too:  He thought God's order to Adam and Eve "to increase and multiply" no longer applied. We should now use eugenics to aim at the optimum in birth, not the self-control in reproduction. Eugenics was later found to be fake science, and in fact, racist.  Hitler passionately believed in eugenics.  Teilhard was a man ahead of his time in not only also prophesying birth control, but asserting that we have "the absolute right to try everything to the end--even in the matter of human biology (sexuality, euthanasia, conception in vitro, homosexuality).” Another of his comments that was scarily dead-on for the wokes today was this: he wanted to offset the excessive "masculinity of Jehovah."

It’s hard to believe that he wrote most of this in the 1950s.

Teilhard, as I said, had a profound influence on the New Age movements as well.  To quote Henry Morris, CEO of Institute for Creation Research: “Although New Agers have a form of religion, their "god" is Evolution, not the true God of creation. Many of them regard the controversial priest, Teilhard de Chardin, as their spiritual father.”  New Agers have been around for decades, stomping on Christian fundamentals, but that is the subject of another whole paper.

He further posits that creation would not be complete until each "participated being is totally united with God through Christ in the Pleroma (don’t you just love all the new words?--very intimidating).  Pleroma is defined as the “totality of divine powers.” (Gnostics like to use the word too.  Gnostics have been around for thousands of years, stomping on Christian fundamentals.  But that is the subject of another paper).  Note that we are all going to have these divine powers at the Omega Point; we are all going to be like God.  (Satan’s favorite lie, Genesis 3).  At that Point, “the cosmos will be transformed; and the glory of it all will be established.”  In one of his conferences, he said that Mankind will acquire “the sudden appearance of a collective humane conscience."

Further, he said “spiritual development is moved by the same universal laws as material development.”  Since evolution, our material development, is “indisputably” moving us up, he has the same optimism of our spiritual development.  He expresses that God is “pulling” is to the Omega Point.   Further evolution, he says, will eventually provide us with “a unification of consciousness.”

Let’s not forget his ideal of unity in another way too:  His alienation from capitalism and his orientation to "the people" meant that evolution should also apply to social justice in the distribution of goods, an equalization of property that capitalism made impossible (he says). "Human society has been more and more caught up in a yearning for true justice ... a liberation from the bonds [of poverty and dependence brought on by capitalism] in which too many people are still held,” he wrote.

The Society of Jesuits have always been in favor of social justice.  Jesuits led the way in liberation theology after his time.  That’s a big part of salvation to them. As Dr. Martin says, “both the Jesuit and Dominican Religious Orders had allowed some of their members to become worker-priests. These men ate and slept, lived and worked in the very same conditions as the ordinary workman. If their fellow workers joined Communist cells, they joined. If their fellow workers rioted in the streets or demonstrated in front of a government building, the worker-priests did too.” They were later forcibly recalled from this by their Jesuit superiors, but half the worker-priests refused to obey the recall order, and opted for membership in the Communist Party instead! As the future Pope John XXIII put it, they had “not gained one soul through this extensive output of manpower, but the Communist and Socialist parties had benefitted enormously.”  The idea of backing a socialist revolution was not repulsive to this Pope—just not gaining new souls for the Church—or keeping the ones they had.  

Teilhard showed his true leanings when he was distressed at Rome's intervention: "Under the circumstances, and in a capitalist world, how does one remain a Christian?" he asked. "Priest-workers find in the face of a humane Marxism not only justice but hope and a feeling for the Earth which is stronger than 'evangelical humanity. '" For Teilhard, Marxism presented no real difficulty. "The Christian God on high," he wrote, "and the Marxist God of Progress are reconciled in Christ." (I did not know that Christ was so political).  Little wonder that Teilhard de Chardin is the only Roman Catholic author whose works are on public display with those of Marx and Lenin in Moscow's Hall of Atheism!

It seems that accepting this theory imposes either the abandonment or the complete transformation of all the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism/Christian. Creation, Original Sin, the divinity of Jesus, redemption by Jesus's death on the cross of Calvary, the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the Sacrifice of the Mass, priesthood, papal infallibility, Hell, Heaven, supernatural grace-even the existence and the freedom of God-all must be reformulated, and perhaps abandoned in large part.

But none of that stopped him from being championed by many cardinals and even several recent Popes. He scoffed at superiors’ many attempts to muzzle him. Despite the amazing freedom with which he spoke and published, Teilhard thought of himself as belonging to the "brotherhood" for whom, as he bragged, "thinking freely in the Church these days means going underground. Come to think of it, that's what I've been doing for thirty years." In those days, Church vigilantes were working overtime.  In 1962 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Catholic institution, condemned his works (see their quote below), based on their ambiguities and their doctrinal errors.  Pope Pius XII monitored him.  However, despite being banned several times from further writing, he still wrote.  But, after all, none of his works were placed on their Index of Forbidden Books.  Though his warped theology was loved by several priests and cardinals early on, they kept their views private.  He did get one favorable public mention in those days—an influential French priest, Henri de Lubac, in 1962 affirmed his works.  It was finally decided that his home base should be in the United States, not Europe, because of our feeling, I believe, that freedom should be more important than dogma.  But recently, with the degradation of Catholic vigilance (which suggests, to me, that they have lost somewhat of their mission and purpose), the encomiums have come thick and fast.  He has been honored by Boston College, by Villanova University—both Catholic schools, the former a Jesuit school—and by passing mention in several plays and movies.

I should point out that scientists are not excited by all this. To quote one: “ideas that were peculiarly his were confused, and the rest was just bombastic redescription of orthodoxy."  Another called him a “charlatan.”  But he is loved enough by the Episcopal Church that he is honored with a feast day on the Calendar of Saints of the Episcopal Church on 10 April (the day of his death). 

It is only in the presence of death did that confident optimism and surety that was the personal mark of this man seem to fade. "Now what does he 'see'? I wonder," Teilhard wrote after the death of a friend; "And when will my turn come?" On the occasion of another friend's death: "What shall I 'see'?" That he put the word "see" in quotes showed no persuasion that he would see Jesus and the Father and the Saints. It was an uncertain sentiment for whose lack of faith ordinary words are not sufficient. But he still said, “Dying and death were just the means of becoming one with the universe.” But one wonders what sort of shock Teilhard experienced when on that Easter day at last he "saw" the God of his eternal tomorrow, the God-man who by dying had not become "part of the universe" but remained its sovereign Lord--this time, as Judge.

To bring this story right up-to-date:  Here is a summary of the article published in Catholic Culture (November 2017): 

“Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the widely influential Jesuit paleontologist and philosopher whose writings were cited with a “warning” by the Vatican in 1962, may finally have that blot removed from his record.

Participants at the recent plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for Culture that discussed “The future of humanity: new challenges to anthropology” unanimously approved a petition to be sent to Pope Francis requesting him to waive the “monitum” (warning) issued by the Holy Office in 1962 regarding the writings of Father de Chardin. The participants, which included top level scientists as well as cardinals and bishops from Europe, Asia, America and Africa, applauded when the text of the petition was read.

They told Pope Francis that “on several occasions” during their discussions “the seminal thoughts of the Jesuit Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, anthropologist and eminent spiritual thinker, have been evoked.” They said, “we unanimously agreed, albeit some of his writings might be open to constructive criticism, his prophetic vision has been and is inspiring theologians and scientists.” They mentioned that four popes—Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis—had made “explicit references” to his work. Paul VI, in a Feb. 24, 1966 speech, while expressing some reservations, praised a key insight of the Jesuit’s theory on the evolution of the universe, pointed to it as a model for science and quoted the author’s statement: “The more I study material reality, the more I discover spiritual reality.”   John Paul II, in 1981, through his secretary of state, wrote a letter to Monsignor (now cardinal) Paul Poupard, head of the Institute Catholique in Paris, in which he praised the French Jesuit in words that were widely interpreted as a sign that his rehabilitation was on the horizon. Cardinal Ratzinger, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, “spoke glowingly of Teilhard's Christology” by tying it into the Mass, no less: “the transubstantiated Host is the anticipation of the transformation and divinization (too close to divination?) of matter in the christological "fullness."  (A partial translation in English: We will all become divine.) Further, in a homily during Evening Prayer in the cathedral in Aosta, in northern Italy, on July 24, 2009, when he was Pope, he commended an aspect of the French Jesuit’s vision when he said: “The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. Francis (the current Pope) became the fourth pope to have something positive to say about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He did so in 2015 in his encyclical in a footnote, in which he speaks about the French Jesuit’s “contribution” to the ultimate destiny of the universe. Moreover, the petition, seemed to find receptive ground in his address to the plenary assembly last week.”

      They concluded by expressing their conviction that “this act not only will acknowledge the genuine effort of the pious Jesuit to reconcile the “scientific” (my emphasis) vision of the universe with Christian eschatology, but will represent a formidable stimulus for all philosophers, theologians, theologians and scientists of good will to cooperate towards a Christian anthropological model that fits naturally in the wonderful warp and weft of the cosmos. 

My final word:  Let’s hope they don’t cave in to another false doctrine by giving this guy credibility.  Let’s be vigilant to obey II Timothy 4:3-4:

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Note:  The Warnings issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office are:

On June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) regarding the writings of Father Teilhard de Chardin. In 1981 the Holy See reiterated this warning against rumors that it no longer applied. Following is the text of both the monitum and the 1981 statement:

For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth" Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.

"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.

 

Bibliography

The Jesuits:  The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, Malachi Martin, 1987 (He was a Jesuit priest and paleographer who asked to be released from certain of his Jesuit vows, seeing that he wrote extensive criticism of their works. He died in 1999).

America, the Jesuit Review, specifically:  www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/11/21/will-pope-francis-remove-vaticans-warning-teilhard-de-chardins-writings

www.catholicculture.org/search/searchResults.cfm?querynum=1&searchid=2083717&showCount=2

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/scopes-trial

https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-new-age

www.biblegateway.com

www.wikipedia.com/pierreTeilharddeChardin

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-27

Title:  Peking, Piltdown, and Paluxy:  Creationist Legends About Paleoanthropology https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-false-teachers

YouTube: Posthumanism, Omega Point, Noosphere Theory, and Teilhard deChardin

The Holy Bible

YouTube:  POSTHUMANISM, OMEGA POINT, NOOSPHERE THEORY, AND TEILHARD DE CHARDIN

 

 

 

Let's Re-introduce Proper Church Discipline

In the area of church discipline, here’s where we are now: If your church is evangelistic, they're probably too careful about not offending people.  They want those clearly lost in sin to hang around and listen and get saved--so they won't exercise any church discipline, even for a divisive troublemaker--unless, if a person who is 'way out of line', they might reprimand the offender to make them uncomfortable, and hopefully they leave the church.  Let's present a situation: a guy is known as living with a woman, and they show up together Sunday morning, week after week. The fact is, they need to be spoken with on the subject of adultery or fornication.  Many churches won’t do a thing, on the grounds of not offending them.   In some evangelical churches, many times the only real church discipline might occur if someone questions the pastor’s authority, or points out where Scripture seems to differ from what is being taught.  That person might indeed get the left foot of fellowship.  Disputing the knowledge of the pastor; that'll get you down.

A few isolated independent churches take an opposite approach. If they do exercise serious discipline, they will carry a reprimand to the point of shunning.  They go overboard on applying discipline too much; the cults are big at this.

My point is, seldom are the Scripture's rules on church discipline used as a guideline any more—which is too bad, since the rules are laid out there in detail and are easily understandable--and are meant to keep a healthy church, free of people whose purpose is to sneak in and destroy God's local light of evangelism and fellowship.

So, let’s take a look at what churches should be doing, by looking at Scripture. There are graduating steps. First, let’s say you, a regular churchgoer, have a problem with another person at church; they are definitely doing something to harm you. Let’s say you confronted them, exhorted them, but their only reaction was feeling victimized when you are seeking the truth--or they ignore you. If you are close to the Lord, you know their sin hurts them and you and possibly the church you both attend, so something has to be done. The next step, in most cases should be in Matthew 18:15-16:

“… if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

After one-on-one failure, the church should be an interested party, if anger and bitterness among its members have negatively affected its evangelistic light. (We'll assume when they became members, they knew about this brand of accountability being expected, being spelled out in church bylaws.  Of course, they might not be members, which changes the rules).  The church's role in my example is to provide objective witnesses trying to get at the truth, and render solid advice to repair relationships.  But--in today’s society, if you tell one of the offenders that you’re bringing a couple people to listen and talk to him, it’s unlikely that he will even meet with you. But bringing witnesses are necessary—they are important for validating what was said, critical in later steps below. (By the way, though I'm using male pronouns, all these rules work for women too). Let’s say he does meet with you and the witnesses (which are, hopefully, not just your friends at church).  But, in the end, he still won’t agree with you. Then it’s time for step 2, in Matthew 18:17a:

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.

This means it's time to tell the senior pastor or counseling person. They will need to check out your story by asking you, and him, and maybe a couple others some questions. Getting the church administration involved could be a big step, and has the potential to make reconciliation harder. Do you have mature people in leadership who will follow the Scripture’s discipline rules? Hopefully. Then there is another problem: Your problem person might react like the church is “ganging up” on him, and just mentally make himself the victim--or the rebel—so it may make him even less likely to repent. On the other hand, if he’s got a long history with the church, his next step could be to chatter with his church friends, make everything “your side vs my side,” and if these people have power, it may even split the church. Whether all this goes in a godly direction depends on whether most church members choose to follow Scripture--or do they follow charming personality instead, even if that person is hurting the church?

So here’s what SHOULD happen next if the church leaders feel you have a genuine case, have checked out all the facts, and have the courage to actually do church discipline—I Timothy 5:20:

Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

Wow, a public rebuke. Scripture doesn't list what sins are serious enough to get into this stage of treatment; it’s the elders’ (or pastor's) call. Even if the troublemaker refuses to talk with them, they shouldn’t shirk from following through this verse, since God may want to “prune” His disobedient church member (John 15:1-6) to make him better. This verse means the pastor has proper authority, by Scripture, to do a public rebuke to a member. Keep in mind, I remind you, that it is all done in love, with the goal of bringing this person to repentance and reconciliation. It has a side benefit, as stated above: “the rest also may fear (God).” (I have a blog on the benefits of a fear of God; there are many, many Scriptures that speak of it.) Ideally, in the public event, the offender, who has been told of this rebuke, is present. If he is not there, do it anyway.  I know this sounds contrarian, but the reprimand should seek to make sure as many church members as possible are there, too. If everyone hears all the details of the case and the quality of the reprimand, there will be fewer rumors and lies that fester and grow into division later.

Most church members today would really be shocked and anxious when they hear about such an upcoming public rebuke, it's so rare it happens anymore, so the pastor has to prepare them Scripturally beforehand. Some of the regular attendees will leave the church as soon as they hear about the public rebuke, and some will leave after, since the church no longer served their purpose as the comfy place where they can relax and do whatever they want, sin as much as they want, without accountability. Don't worry about losing such members.  God made the church for accountability--just look up the many verses with the words "exhort," "entreat," "implore" or "admonish."

This public rebuking was done in the earliest days of the Church—and we’re not talking about Salem, or The Inquisition here. We’re talking about the Acts chapters 2 through 5 church, the most powerful, Spirit-infused church in history—so the public rebuke wasn’t harmful to church evangelism of the Gospel.  In fact, I believe it was part of the reason why they were the most effective church in history. So, you may lose some rebellious members—this may not be bad. As Gideon proved, you can accomplish more for Him by obeying His difficult Word—in this case, properly exercising church discipline--even though you’re now operating with fewer in number. Accomplishing more for God--that is what you want, right? Not just a puffed-up membership number.  You don't want to be a church which spends most of its time trying to put out fires caused by the "baby" Christians who have had a long time growing up--and haven't.

Well, the disobedient one may not show up for “the rebuke,” or even if he shows up, maybe his heart is hardened and he will not change his mind. Now what do you do, as a church? Matthew 18:17b shows us the next step:

But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

What does that mean, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Well, don’t just assume this means “shunning.” Yes, that would be the meaning where the Pharisees ruled (they threw people out of the synagogue).  Keep in mind, that wasn't a church.  But, why do we care about how the Pharisees thought, since Jesus condemned them? We're under a new covenant, the New Testament, which has our instructions.  Instead, let's look at how Jesus treated the heathens and tax collectors. (The tax collectors were Jews who collected taxes for Rome. Some cheated on the books and made themselves rich. Not a beloved crew). There are plenty of verses on this. Consider Mark 2:16-17:

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

As an explanation of the phrase "I did not come to call the righteous," Jesus is not saying the Pharisees are "righteous," as in righteous to God; it’s more like self-righteous.  And “those who are well” really means “well in your own eyes.” These are the proper definitions of the Greek--and thus we see His sarcasm of the Pharisees. The point is, He had no problem socially mingling with the sinners and tax collectors—in fact, it was one of the charges against Him at His trial. He did good things with the Gentiles (non-Jews), as well--such as the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. The Jews normally refused to even speak to Samaritans. He also went into their homes. More fascinating reading is Luke 19:5-7, the story of Zacchaeus, a Jewish tax collector:

And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. 7 But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”

Note that in the later verses, Zacchaeus believes in Jesus and performs righteous acts of large amounts of alms for the poor and people he had offended. So Jesus' visit was effective. Even though he was a known sinner, and might have even stolen from his Jewish brothers, Jesus just wanted to save souls, and this man had a sincere salvation experience.  The best place to evangelize is among people who are humbled and low in life, unloved by the masses.

Well, then, did all this time He spent with the obscure sinful folk mean that Jesus winked at sin, and caroused with sinners? Not at all; Jesus wanted to bring salvation to as many people as He could. Sometimes people are reached through hard rebuke—Jesus did those at other times. Other times, it was by love—such as with Zacchaeus.

To fully understand what we're saying, we're not suggesting shunning these people.  To give you a little more history: Jesus knew that no “sinner” or Gentile or tax collector could ever be a member of a synagogue. They were denied sacred ritual. This in itself was a serious disciplinary rebuke. In the same way today, I’m saying, after a public rebuke, the unrepentant sinner should not be allowed Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, which is, after all, a channel of grace—thus he is “ex-communicated.” (Ex-communication, for several hundred years, was a fearful situation to be in, and was often used as a weapon to get people to toe the "proper" doctrinal line.) Communion was so important to the early Church that it was celebrated weekly—even daily, for some. They were so strict on this, that in the case of a serious sin, and even if the person showed repentance, the early church might still keep him in ex-communication for a while longer to test out the sincerity of his repentance.  In those early days, if you denied Christ and buckled under persecution, let’s say, then later wanted to repent and rejoin the church, you could still be denied Communion for years. I remind you, this delay of reinstatement had to do with really serious sins. The sinner needed to be reminded of the gravity of his sin, and the church wanted to know if he is really serious in his repentance.

Temporary ex-communication, or denying the Lord's Supper, could also be advised for a lesser sin, after public rebuke has failed to work.  An unrepentant sinner might be denied Communion for that week, until he repents.  Considering the stubbornness of some, he may be denied, week after week, and never have Communion again.

Ex-communication doesn't have the effect on people that it once did, but it still should be used.  Again, with giving him explanation. In the Middle ages, that was enough for him to feel that he lost his salvation. Now its importance is casually ignored.  We will pay the price for being casual about adult baptism and Communion; they are important instruments of maintaining salvation.

Getting back to the present subject, the unrepentant sinner is also not a “member in good standing,” either-- which means he can go to meetings, listen to the sermon, but gets escorted out or ignored in the passing of the Lord's supper. He certainly cannot be a speaker, or voter.

But despite all these negatives, here’s what separates Scripture from cults: at this level, for unrepentant sinners, based on what Jesus did above for Zacchaeus, and others, it’s OK for regular members to socially get together with them. You're not at the shunning stage yet.  But, in your getting together with them, your purpose is to leave yourself honest and open.  You should still carry a good testimony; the real goal is that your godliness might gently nudge them to reconciliation.  And this could mean his salvation.  After all, if the sin involves his unmerciful attitude, or unwillingness to forgive, he could be unsaved just because of that. Consider Matthew 6:15:

…if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

A word of warning here:  we cannot say out loud that someone has lost his salvation, because Scripture says we often can’t tell the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:29, 30).

So Scripture teaches a delicate mix (shunning them from the sacred ritual, but not shunning them from socializing). This is what God decided through Scripture to handle this situation at this point.

I want to remind you: The pastor who refuses to wade deep into discipline, and study it, is not a friend of the flock. After all, if he backs off, he has treated Scripture lightly, besides turning his head on evil deeds—that’s a bad example. He will be judged by God on judgment day.

Now, let’s move on to the next level and when it’s activated. Read I Corinthians 5:11:

But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

Keep in mind that this person would have already gone through public church rebuke and ex-communication--but to no effect.  Now we're talking a person who is probably not a Christian, but broadcasts that he is.  He is still practicing his grievous sin.  He is hurting Christ by claiming to be a "brother" while sinning like this.  So we break away socially as well, almost complete shunning, and this level is for the most serious of sins: Someone who was, or claimed to be, a brother and has done one of these terrible things, and won't repent, you are not to eat or socialize with them. (But you could, of course, attempt to rescue them if they were drowning, or you could do a good deed for them, as Christ commanded even for an enemy).  Other lists of serious sins are: Ephesians 5:3-5, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. They do not all list the exact same serious sins, but they’re very close. It shouldn’t be hard to decide when to take this step. Note the phrase above, "anyone named a brother." By his behavior, he has denied His Savior. Unrepentant denial of our Savior through practicing serious sin could mean eternity in hell (Matthew 10:33).

One other set of verses is a serious enough sin to place it in this level of discipline: it's in II Thessalonians 3:6, 10-15:

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us... 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner… 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Thus, living off welfare, where one can work, but has no intention to work, was a serious sin to be added to this level of discipline.

In all these above verses, keep one thing in mind: All those verses speak of an UNREPENTANT sinner, who has/is attending church as a "Christian," doing those things. Every saved person should experience repentance and confession. God loves us enough to clean us from sin and give forgiveness if we are repentant at the foot of the Cross.

Next let's talk about the “total shunning” level: This is reserved for those who are bringing a doctrine that says Christ has not come in the flesh. In the church’s early days, the target of this one was the Gnostics. In their mysterious religion, they had two gods; the inferior god created an inferior race, Man. But the perfect God couldn’t come to earth as a man, they said, which is inferior, so in His appearances, He wasn’t really flesh and blood. This heresy is spoken about in II John 10-11:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

It’s the phrase “nor greet him” that makes this level of discipline unique. That’s total shunning. Is there a limit to the shun? I guess it’s OK to rescue him if he were drowning, but I don’t know—what if he’s heavier, what if he’s thrashing wildly? I’d think about it for a while, hmmm.  No, I’m just kidding. You don’t take shunning THAT far.  But it advises that we don't even speak to this person.  This person is a true enemy of God's people, but don't forget, Christ said we should still love and pray for our enemies.  But they're kryptonite, and working with the devil to destroy the Church.

Anyway, these are the levels of church discipline. May God help us to pray that our church leaders will have courage to exercise these things before some really bad people start secretly tearing things down in our church. Which has already happened, weakening even many denominations.  Let’s stay Scriptural, with lots of love and firmness to go around.

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, CD: Church Discipline, Scroll Publishing.

 

The Virgin Birth, and Why It Was Necessary

 Let’s talk about the virgin birth of Jesus. Specifically, two things: Scriptural verses predicting and saying that it will be happening; and secondly, the meaning of it—why a virgin birth was necessary. We’ll begin with Luke 1:26-37, as the New King James Version (NKJV) presents it. Partial verses in some, to reduce the length:

²⁶ Now in the sixth month (ed., of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, as will be explained later), the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, ²⁷ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. ²⁸ And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”

²⁹ But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. ³⁰ Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ³¹ And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. ³² He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. ³³ And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

³⁴ Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” ³⁵ And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. ³⁶ Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. ³⁷ For with God nothing will be impossible.”

As you can see from v.34 and on, NKJ Scripture emphasizes that Mary was a virgin. Why was that necessary? Let’s begin our discussion with this:  People have had a sinful nature ever since Adam and Eve; we have a natural tendency to ignore, or even do the reverse of God’s commands. His Word tells us not to lie; but we lie frequently when it serves our purpose. I could name many such examples of different sins such as this, but you get the point. All of us; all through time, lean toward sinning. Wanting to be holy, fearing and loving God, should be our first priorities, but we fail on all counts. As Romans 3:23 puts it, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

It’s important to emphasize that God cannot stand sin (Habakkuk 1:13). This means we humans are not reconciled to God, and cannot have access to heaven no matter what we do on our own, because our sin prevents that. We need forgiveness, and for our sins to be expunged. A just God cannot just avert His eyes from our rebellion against Him, which means hell is our destiny for sin. No matter whether we’re “generally good.” But God wanted to make a way for us to escape hell. He provided a way, but only for those who abide with Jesus. Reading Scripture tells Jesus’ exact role in that. Though He had eternal existence, Jesus did not come from heaven to earth to primarily be a moral leader, nor to heal people, nor to be a martyr. He came to save sinners. Consider I Timothy 1:15 and Luke 19:9-10, on why He came:

…Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners... 

⁹ And Jesus said to him… the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Many “theologians” assert that there was nothing supernatural about Jesus or His conception. This would make His birth and life just about another sinful man, though good. But how could Jesus save us from hell, if he was just another guy like us? Even a philosopher, or a super-religionist, when he died, would just be another human death, since all humans sin and cannot enter heaven, for themselves or for others.

It helps figuring it out, to remember this primarily:  Jesus was God, also called the Son of God, which is the same thing—both titles say  He was God. Part of the Trinity. Scripture confirms His deity, in a slew of places. Here’s a good one: Hebrews 1:1-3, 8:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, ² has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; ³ who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high…8 But to the Son, He (God the Father) says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Note the many phrases asserting Jesus’ deity:

1)     God spoke to believers through His Son (Jesus)

2)     God appointed Jesus to be heir of all things

3)     Jesus was involved in original creation

4)     Jesus was the “express image” of His (the Father’s) person. The term “express image” means “the exact representation of God’s being;” and “the visible form of the invisible God.” He was called “Immanuel” three times in Scripture. One is in Matthew 1:23:

²³ “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Do not think lightly about “God with us.” While Jesus was on earth, God, who created the vast universe, was truly right there with people. His birth was called the Incarnation—taking on flesh.

5)     Jesus upholds all things (even the universe) by the word of His power. Did you ever wonder, what holds all of this, flying around in space, together? It’s Jesus.

6)    God (the Father) calls His Son, Jesus, “God.”

Finally, the phrases “sat...at the right hand,” and “A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom” are important. In ancient literature, these are symbolic references to equals, to acknowledge their honor and power. To have these bestowed by God the Father upon Jesus, can mean only one thing. Jesus is God.

So the only way to be acceptable to God, as Scripture says, was to believe that we couldn’t do it, being sinful, but Jesus was God-in-the-flesh and did it for us. But if Jesus was a man, how was He also God?

There is a phrase coined by St. Augustine about the New and Old Testaments: “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.”  So in the Old Testament, a foretaste of the New Testament, the Jewish priest would, as God commanded, offer up the blood of a healthy innocent lamb, as a substitute (the innocent lamb paid for the sins of the people and for the priest himself). The priest had to do this yearly, since obviously the people sinned often. (Each offer of a lamb only covered sins of the people submitting the lambs to that date—they would have to come each year—if they could). Jesus, being a greater High Priest, had a New Covenant; He offered up Himself—as a Lamb, an innocent substitute, for our sins, not His—and He only had to offer it once, covering all the sins of people.

To explain it deeper for this paper, look at Hebrews 7:26-27, where Jesus is called the High Priest:

For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners…²⁷ who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Jesus’ sinlessness enabled Him to be our Substitute Lamb. He offered up His body as payment for our sin—if we are believers in what He did. God the Father accepted that offer, because of Jesus’ sinlessness. That’s the only way Jesus gets His believers reconciled to God. There were no other sinless people.

But how did Jesus remain sinless, if He was also a man? The answer is, in His conception—he was not a regular man. How is that?

The explanation lies in two important facts. First, the curse of the sin nature began with Adam and is passed through the male. Everyone has a father, so everyone has the tendency to sin. Why not through Eve? Two reasons: Scripturally, the male is the head of the wife, and takes the accountability for her actions. Anyone in the hierarchy of the military knows what I am talking about here. Secondly, he is the head of the house, so a child was called “his seed.” See Genesis 9:9, 12:7, 15:13, 19:32, etc.

 Also, because while the curse for Eve in Genesis did not mention disobedience, Adam was accused of disobedience in God’s curse, which can be seen from this partial verse from Genesis 3: 

 ¹⁷ Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’

The women, starting with Eve’s sin, get a totally different curse. Adam, in his curse, carried the sin-nature to the next generation—as all men do, ever since. Therefore, Joseph Could Not have been father to Jesus. Jesus would then have obtained that dreaded sin nature from Joseph, and could not have been God because He would have sinned. The solution was, Jesus’ Father was the Holy Spirit, who also was God, and sinless. Let me repeat again Luke 1:35:

 ³⁵ And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 

It is obvious that Joseph knew he did nothing to her at that time to be a father. He thought she had lain with somebody else. As Matthew 1:19-20 puts it:

Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. ²⁰ But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, part of the Trinity of God, who obviously did not have a sinful gene, was the father. Only Joseph’s exclusion, coupled with the Holy Spirit’s intervention,  made it possible for Jesus to be Divine (we are not).

You say, Isn’t it enough that He was the greatest moralist, the greatest teacher, of all time? That is not enough. Jesus had to be sinless, or His death would have been an unacceptable offering to the Father to relieve us from our sin. That’s how much He hates sin. Certainly that assures us that no matter how “good” we are, we cannot obtain heaven on our own. If Jesus weer not God, no matter how good Jesus was, with a curse passed onto him like the rest of us, He would be sinful. We would still be on the way to hell. John 1:29 confirms that: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" I Peter 1:18-19 says:

…you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, ¹⁹ but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 

This blows apart any claim that Jesus is the same as Buddha, or Confucius, or Muhammad, or Ghandi. Jesus alone was sinless, and alone had the “superpower” of substitution—and the power of resurrection, to prove that he alone among men was God, and save us from hell. His followers, I mean.

Hopefully you can see why Mary had to be a virgin, and be impregnated by the Holy Spirit. (This was not a physical act). There are many Old Testament verses suggesting Jesus would have a virgin mother. Such as Genesis 3:15, which is spoken by God to satan:

I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.

Note that Jesus was called her Seed. (Scripture always calls a child “his seed” because a father was the head of the house.  See my references above.)

Note that Seed is capitalized (suggesting the child would be God), and note that it is singular (just one Seed, Christ--we are not gods).

Satan, of course, was the serpent in the temptation of Adam and Eve. God’s prophecy here predicted a battle between satan and a Seed—Jesus—which battle Jesus won at His death and resurrection. Satan would “bruise” Jesus’ “heel” with a temporary hurt--His crucifixion, but He rose from the dead. But Jesus would crush satan’s “head”—a mortal wound administered to satan—which will happen in the last days.

Our desire is to be like Him, and Scripture is pointed that to remain saved, we must crucify our sinful desires, to bear His part in crucifixion; and we must live a new life, a resurrection, as it were, to be seed of our Lord and Master—we must strive to be in His service.

I like the way GotQuestions.org puts it: “The virgin birth is important in that it preserves the truth that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. His physical body He received from Mary as her biological child. But His eternal, holy nature was bestowed by the Holy Spirit. He was all-God and all-man. Thus, He was tempted in every way that we are, yet without sin. Therefore, He is our perfect sacrifice and also able to empathize with our weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15). Our God graciously revealed His love for us.”

Hopefully that explains how Mary had to be a virgin; so Jesus could, without a sin nature from Joseph, be an acceptable substitute, since He was sinless, paying the price for our sin, enabling us to follow Christ and avoid hell and obtain heaven. Please note: the Holy Spirit is what made Jesus the Holy One—not Mary. Mary had no immaculate conception, and she was not a co-redeemer. She was sinful, but she was a devout person. So Mary’s virginity was part of a pathway for God to enable a way for us to heaven. I have never heard a sermon on this, which is odd, considering its importance.

Now let’s explore a tragically related topic—how some Bibles have attacked Mary’s virginity. The New King James quote I gave you from Luke 1 at the beginning of this paper is in updated English, based from the venerable King James edition of 1611. The King James was the result of an English translation from Greek partial texts, that Erasmus (16^th century Dutch theologian) put together, all 27 books, the New Testament that were earlier acceptable as Holy Spirit-inspired. Since there were insignificant differences among those 5-6000 partial texts of the Bible, they were trustworthy. Erasmus’ Greek Bible was called the “Textus Receptus” (Received Text). The reason I mention all this is that there were false prints of “Bibles” going around then—and there still are. Those false “Bibles” often spread the doctrine that Mary was not a virgin when she conceived Jesus. But word spread among believers as to which ones were false; so if a large portion of a Bible was years past its release, yet in great shape, it was pretty certain to be a false Bible, since not too many believers would read it, since they could tell if it was false. The true Bibles and partial texts, on the other hand, were passed around everywhere and grew tattered, in contrast. Only pieces are found—but there were thousands of them. Erasmus, codifying Scripture over a millennium later, was a master theologian, and did a great job of deciding which texts that crossed his path were real or false. He used this “in great shape” as one of several measures of whether it was a false Bible. We should do the same. But…we didn’t. Every single Bible produced today (except KJV or NKJV) came from the Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus texts, from Alexandria, a city known for its notorious heresy known as Gnosticism. (I have more on another pair of blogs). They were “discovered” in near-perfect shape, but altered to make them look old; and they had that guilty suspicious mark—they were whole volumes of the New Testament together, not pieces.

Let’s dig into the subject of modern, false versions from those questionable texts further, and show how it questions Mary’s virginity. You only have two choices in determining what Bible to buy: the King James or New King James will stress her virginity, thus directing us clearly how Jesus made salvation possible. OR, you can choose ANY OTHER version, since they are based on the two false texts. When they back off her virginity, they are saying they want us to think that Mary was a fornicating slut. And Jesus was not God. And we can’t be saved. All that is satan’s theme for you. I will show this choice clearly for you. Keep in mind, the false versions will only get worse, not better, as time passes. If you have any of the false versions, including the ones I outline below, it would be good advice to throw out the bad Bibles. As Google AI puts it, “the two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) disagree with each other on over 3,000 occasions in the gospels.” That huge number is in only four books—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Well, what are the disagreement numbers on the other 23 New Testament books? That sort of blows the infallibility of Scripture out of the water for their readers, doesn’t it? Textus Receptus doesn’t have significant disagreements like that.

So here we go. Let’s start with Isaiah 7:14, a famous verse predicting that the Messiah (the Jewish Savior) would be born of a virgin—or does it, according to modern “versions”? Our pattern will be, we give you the KJV first, then the false reading after.

a.     King James Version (KJV) says: …Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel

b.     The New International Version (NIV)  (which has sold over 500 million copies worldwide) says: The virgin^[d] will conceive and give birth to a son…(note the handy footnote (d) which, in the bottom of the page, calls her a “young woman”). This may seem OK to you, since the false claim is “only” in a footnote, but they are not expounding clear Truth. The Hebrew word means “virgin.” Isaiah, the writer of his book, says “Behold!” (Which means, “here comes a shocker fact.”) So he definitely means a virgin conceiving. (The NIV conveniently left off the Behold!) No pregnant young woman would deserve a “Behold! A young woman is pregnant—what a shocker.” The NIV writers are copping out, wanting you to make the choice. If you make the wrong choice, and decide that Mary was not a virgin, then she was a slut who fornicated with someone, and Jesus was just another baby--that’s your choice, not theirs, they would say. Joseph thought that, too, until the angel set him straight. (Of course, begging the question: if she’s just a young woman who got pregnant, why all the angelic fanfare for a fornicated birth?)

 

a.     Now let’s try Luke 1:34. In the KJV, it says, in Mary’s quizzical question of the angel about being pregnant: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? This archaic phrase, “know not,” which means, “haven’t had sexual intercourse with,” was prudent, considering how children read Scripture too. The words are used elsewhere, some very interestingly.

b.     But consider the Revised Standard Version: "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" Well, obviously, women can become pregnant without a husband, so this verse tells us nothing about the uniqueness of Mary’s upcoming birth.

c.     Or consider the “Basic English” Bible: How may this be, because I have had no knowledge of a man? I would say, “Well, read a book.” Knowledge is terribly abused here.

 

a.     Let’s look at Luke 3:23: KJV gives a crowd’s thoughts, giving Joseph credit for the birth: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. The “as was supposed” says their thoughts were in question.  Very crafty interpretation to English, and true.

b.     But the New Living Translation (more than 50 million copies sold), says: Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. The phrase “was known as” doesn’t suggest that their thoughts were wrong—which they were. The new reader would think that Jesus was the son of Joseph. This is tragic theology.

 

a.     Look at Matthew 1:25. KJV: And (Joseph) knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Once again, we have the discreet “knew her not.” Joseph first had sex with her after she had Jesus, making her not a virgin any longer.

b.    Once again, the Basic English Bible founders on modern English: And he had no connection with her till she had given birth to a son; and he gave him the name Jesus. Since when did “connection” necessarily mean sex? Maybe, with the vague word “connection,” they didn’t hold hands? The word “connection” falls under the “Hey, whazzup” interpretation of the Bible. I must remember, never to tell my children after our good conversation, “we have connected.”

 

a.   In Luke 1:26-27, the KV reads: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

b. But the bad Good News Translation has Luke 1:27 thus:

…He had a message for a young woman promised in marriage to a man named Joseph, who was a descendant of King David. Her name was Mary. No virginity at all.  This falsity is not even limited to a footnote. The ultimate bad-news for honest theology.

c.     The Weymouth version is hardly better, considering there is confusion over the word “maiden,” in Luke 1:27: to a maiden betrothed to a man of the name of Joseph, a descendant of David. The maiden's name was Mary.

You can see how different modern “theologians” like to play with “virgin.” You can tell, they really can’t stand the word. It’s supernatural—and they were trained in seminary to distrust supernaturalism. Right now, the only version trustworthy is the (New) King James edition.

So that is the end of my paper. There’s a lot of other things you get, if you read carefully and think about it. If Jesus was God, shouldn’t the Gospels be the first place to go for Truth about how to be saved? Get the word on salvation from Jesus, God Himself, since Jesus will someday judge us for heaven or hell. And Jesus was the only person who said much on hell—and He said a lot—most of which are unknown because few pastors will preach on it. So if you need to know more about heaven vs hell, Jesus in the Gospels is the place to go first. Just read those red-letter editions in context. You will be shocked, and might even consider you haven’t been getting the path to salvation from your pastor. That’s what I concluded. And every word Jesus spoke is serious; He won’t change the rules that He lays forth. And don’t even think that His rules are too difficult, so I can ignore Him.  And don’t let any “theologian” tell you that Jesus’ words in some particular verses were for Jews only, or for Gentiles exclusively. Or, telling you that He is speaking about behavior “not for now, but for a specific future time period.” Scripture says nothing about such discriminations. Pray every time you read Scripture, which should be frequently. It is God’s Words for you, for all of us. Be like the Bereans, who checked out what was preached. Your pastor or denomination are not gods. The Holy Spirit can help you to obtain wisdom and judge what you hear. And get a Bible that is untainted with those modern versions where the theme is “avoid supernaturalistic stuff. Like virginity, or angels.” May God bless you.