In the third chapter of the Gospel of John, we meet Nicodemus—a man of stature, learning, and influence. He is identified as a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews, and a teacher of Israel. In every measurable way, Nicodemus is successful. His life has been carefully constructed around knowledge, discipline, and religious credibility. He has earned his place. He has mastered the system.
Yet he comes to Jesus at night.
That detail matters. Nicodemus does not come as a public figure seeking debate, nor as a confident leader issuing instruction. He comes quietly, privately, perhaps cautiously. Whatever confidence he carried in daylight seems to fade in the presence of Jesus. Something in him knows that his credentials are no longer sufficient.
Jesus does not flatter him. He does not affirm his status. He does not invite him to refine his theology or intensify his efforts. Instead, Jesus speaks words that would have cut straight through everything Nicodemus had built his life upon:
“You must be born again.”
Not improved. Not corrected. Not advanced to the next level.
Born again.
This is not a call to self-help or religious achievement. It is a declaration that the entire foundation is inadequate. Jesus looks past Nicodemus’s titles and accomplishments and sees a man who, despite all his success, still lacks life. Not information. Not morality. Life.
For Nicodemus, this would have been deeply unsettling. His identity was forged through study, obedience, and reputation. To be told that none of that could produce what was required would have felt like the ground shifting beneath his feet. Jesus is not asking him to add something to his life. He is telling him that he must become someone entirely new.
This is the scandal and the mercy of John 3. God’s kingdom is not entered through merit, pedigree, or position. It is entered through rebirth—through a work of God that cannot be controlled, earned, or managed. “The wind blows where it wishes,” Jesus says. Life with God begins not with human effort, but with divine initiative.
Nicodemus’s story confronts us with an uncomfortable question: What happens when the things we rely on to define ourselves—our success, our knowledge, our service, even our religion—are no longer enough?
Jesus does not shame Nicodemus. He invites him. But the invitation is costly. It requires surrender. It requires letting go of the illusion that we can build our way into God’s life. It requires trusting that God can remake us from the inside out.
John does not tell us everything Nicodemus felt that night. But later in the Gospel, we see him again—first speaking cautiously in Jesus’s defense, and finally standing openly at the cross, helping to bury the crucified Christ. The man who came in the dark eventually steps into the light. New birth, it seems, is a process as much as a moment.
John 3 reminds us that faith is not about becoming better versions of ourselves. It is about becoming new. It is about allowing ourselves to be fully seen by Jesus—and trusting Him enough to let go of what we thought made us secure.
That invitation still stands.
Not “try harder.” Not “prove yourself.” But: be born again.
I’ve been thinking about that song I Climbed the Mountain and how it captures something I’ve learned the long way.
Most of life isn’t lived on the mountaintop. It’s lived on the climb. The slow days. The uncertain steps. The moments where you’re not sure you’re making progress at all, but you keep putting one foot in front of the other anyway.
Climbing changes you. It strengthens muscles you didn’t know you needed. It teaches patience. It forces you to pay attention to your footing. And it humbles you, because you quickly learn you can’t rush a mountain.
Faith works the same way. We often want God to fix things quickly or move us straight to the summit. But Jesus rarely works that way. He walks with us. He stays close on the incline. He teaches us to trust Him one step at a time, even when the path is steep and the air feels thin.
I’ve learned that the climb itself is not a punishment. It’s preparation. God uses the uphill seasons to form endurance, clarity, and quiet strength. And sometimes, without realizing it, we look back and see how far we’ve come—not because we were strong, but because we didn’t quit.
If you’re climbing right now, don’t measure your faith by how high you are. Measure it by the fact that you’re still moving. Jesus is with you on the trail, steady and faithful, and He never wastes a step taken in trust.
One of the quiet assumptions many believers carry—often without realizing it—is that faith should somehow shield us from hardship. When trials come, they can feel confusing or even destabilizing: If God is faithful, why am I still suffering? Scripture addresses this question directly, and its answer is both sobering and deeply hopeful.
The Bible does not promise Christians a trial-free life. What it does promise is something far better: God’s presence, preservation, and ultimate deliverance.
Trials Are Not an Accident
The New Testament is remarkably honest about the Christian life. Suffering is not presented as a failure of faith, nor as a sign of God’s absence.
Paul tells the Thessalonian church that trials should not surprise them, because “you know that we are destined for them” (1 Thessalonians 3:3). That single statement overturns the idea that hardship is an anomaly. Trials are part of the calling of discipleship in a fallen world.
Jesus Himself warned His followers that obedience would not lead to ease, but to opposition. Faith places us in alignment with God’s kingdom—and that alignment often brings friction with the world as it is.
God Knows How to Rescue the Godly
Acknowledging trials does not mean resignation to despair. Scripture is equally clear that God is not passive in the suffering of His people.
Peter writes, “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials” (2 Peter 2:9). Notice what the verse does—and does not—say. It does not say God prevents all trials. It says He knows how to rescue His people from them.
That rescue may take different forms:
sustaining faith under pressure, moral protection in the midst of temptation, or final deliverance when God brings history to its appointed end.
Peter himself endured imprisonment and martyrdom, yet still testified to God’s rescuing power. For him, rescue did not mean avoidance; it meant faith preserved and hope fulfilled.
Revelation 3:10 is often quoted as a promise of exemption from suffering: “I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world.”
The language is important. The word “keep” in Scripture frequently means to guard or to preserve, not necessarily to remove from a situation entirely. Jesus uses the same idea in His prayer when He asks the Father not to take His disciples out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
In Revelation, the promise is not comfort or ease, but protection during a defined period of global testing. The emphasis is on God’s sovereignty and faithfulness, not on escape from all difficulty.
Watchfulness Assumes Ongoing Testing
Jesus’ warning in Matthew 25:13—“Keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour”—only makes sense if believers remain engaged in a world marked by uncertainty and pressure.
If Christians were guaranteed removal before hardship, vigilance would be unnecessary. Watchfulness, endurance, and faithfulness are repeated themes precisely because trials remain part of the journey until Christ’s return.
The Pattern of Scripture Is Preservation Through, Not Removal From
When we step back and look at the whole biblical story, a consistent pattern emerges:
Noah was preserved through the flood, not taken away before it came. Israel was protected within Egypt during the plagues. Daniel was saved in the lions’ den. The early church grew stronger under persecution.
God’s people are repeatedly exposed to hardship—but never abandoned to it.
What Christians Are Actually Promised
The Bible makes these promises clear:
Christians are not promised a life without trials. They are promised God’s sustaining presence. They are promised protection from God’s final wrath. They are promised ultimate vindication, resurrection, and restoration.
Trials test the world.
Trials refine and reveal genuine faith.
A Final Word
Christian hope is not rooted in avoidance of suffering, but in confidence that suffering does not have the final word. God does not promise to keep His people from every storm—but He does promise to keep them in the storm and to bring them safely home.
Faith is not the absence of trials.
It is trust that God is faithful in the midst of them.
There is a quiet tension running through much of the New Testament: believers are promised both trouble and protection. We are told to endure patiently, to remain watchful, and to expect trials—yet also to trust that God knows how to keep His people. Holding those truths together is essential for mature faith.
In Revelation 3:10, Jesus speaks to a faithful church: “Because you have kept My command to endure with patience, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world.” The promise is not disconnected from obedience. The church is commended for patient endurance first. Only then does Christ speak of being kept. Scripture never presents divine protection as a substitute for faithfulness. It presents protection as God’s response to a people who remain steady, obedient, and anchored in Him.
The New Testament consistently assumes believers will experience hardship. Paul tells the Thessalonians plainly, “You know that we are destined for these trials.” Trials are not evidence of abandonment. They are part of the Christian calling. The promise, then, is not the absence of difficulty but stability within it—being preserved so that hardship does not shake faith loose from its foundation.
Peter adds clarity: “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” God’s rescue of the faithful and His restraint of the unrighteous occur simultaneously. Rescue does not always mean removal. Often it means preservation—being held, guarded, and sustained while history continues unfolding. The emphasis is not on the method, but on God’s competence. He knows how.
Jesus reinforces the proper posture when He says, “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.” Scripture consistently turns our attention away from calculating outcomes and toward cultivating readiness. Watchfulness is not anxiety. It is faithful attentiveness—living in obedience regardless of circumstances. Readiness is measured by faithfulness, not by escape.
Taken together, these passages teach that trials are expected for believers, that testing and judgment are not the same, that God preserves His people even when circumstances are severe, that endurance and obedience matter, and that watchfulness is the correct response to uncertainty.
Christian hope is not built on the absence of hardship but on the presence of God within it. The promise is not that nothing difficult will happen, but that nothing will happen outside His keeping. We endure patiently. We remain watchful. We trust the Lord who knows how to rescue the godly. We rest in the confidence that being kept does not mean being spared from history, but being faithfully carried through it.
There is a quiet detail in the opening chapters of the Gospel of John that has stayed with me.
At the wedding in Cana, nothing dramatic is asked of the servants. Jesus does not tell them to pray harder, believe louder, or understand more deeply. He gives a simple instruction:
“Fill the jars with water.”
That is it.
The miracle does not begin with wine. It begins with obedience that looks ordinary.
Naming What Has Run Out
Mary does something equally simple before that moment. She names the shortage:
“They have no more wine.”
She does not fix it.
She does not explain it.
She does not manage the outcome.
She places the lack before Jesus and steps back.
That pattern matters.
My Concrete Step
Here is the one step I am choosing to take in response to this passage:
I will name what has run out in me and place it before Jesus without trying to solve it.
Practically, this looks like this:
I sit alone, quietly, with no agenda.
I write one sentence:
“Lord, I have no more ______.”
I do not explain the blank.
I do not justify it.
I do not turn it into a prayer list or a plan.
Then I stop.
I pray one short sentence:
“I place this in Your hands. I will do whatever You tell me next.”
And I leave it there.
No fixing.
No rushing.
No forcing clarity.
Why This Matters
This step resists my instinct to manage outcomes, optimize solutions, or turn faith into a project. It places me where the servants stood—faithful, available, and unremarkable.
The servants did not make wine.
They carried water.
The transformation was Jesus’ work, not theirs.
What I Am Watching For
I am not watching for a dramatic answer.
I am watching for a quiet instruction.
Something small.
Something ordinary.
Something that feels almost too simple to matter.
That will likely be my “fill the jars with water” moment.
A Closing Reflection
I am not responsible for producing abundance.
I am responsible for obedience.
When I do what I am told—without knowing the outcome—I make room for God to reveal His glory in ways I could not manufacture.
There is a particular kind of weight that comes with leadership in a small rural community. It is not loud or dramatic. It does not announce itself. It settles in quietly and stays. You carry it when you unlock buildings early in the morning, when you answer questions no one else has time to answer, when you make decisions knowing there is no backup team waiting behind you. This year has been full of that kind of weight.
In rural East Texas, leadership is less about titles and more about presence. People know where you live. They know your family. They see whether you show up consistently or disappear when things get hard. Stewardship here is personal. You are not managing abstractions; you are caring for places and people with names, histories, and long memories. That responsibility can be humbling, and it can be heavy, especially when the year brings grief alongside progress.
As an engineer, I spend much of my time working with systems, infrastructure, and technology. Fiber routes, wireless links, power systems, networks that must stay up even when conditions are less than ideal. This year reinforced something I already knew but needed to relearn: technology is never the purpose. It is a tool. It exists to serve people, not to replace presence, wisdom, or care. Infrastructure matters deeply, but only because of what it enables—connection, opportunity, safety, and dignity. When the work becomes only about equipment or metrics, something essential is lost.
There were many days this year when exhaustion and calling pulled in opposite directions. Fatigue does not always come from doing too much; sometimes it comes from caring deeply over a long period of time. There were moments when it would have been easier to step back, to delay decisions, to wait for someone else to take responsibility. But calling is persistent. It does not shout. It simply asks, again and again, whether you will show up today.
Patience has been one of the quiet lessons of this year. Progress in rural places is slow by nature, and that slowness can feel frustrating in a world accustomed to rapid change. Trust grows the same way. It is built through small, repeated acts of reliability. Showing up on time. Following through. Listening more than speaking. These habits rarely make headlines, but they form the foundation of healthy communities.
Faith has been less about answers and more about posture. There were seasons of waiting when clarity did not come quickly. In those moments, faith looked like staying present, doing the next right thing, and trusting that light does not always arrive all at once. Often it comes like morning—gradually, almost unnoticed at first, until suddenly you realize you can see farther than you could before.
Grief has been part of the landscape this year as well. Loss changes how time feels. It reshapes priorities. It has a way of stripping away what is unnecessary and leaving what truly matters. In that sense, grief has also clarified calling. It has reminded me that people are not projects, and that leadership is ultimately an act of care.
As 2026 approaches, there is plenty that could invite fear: uncertainty, resource constraints, the complexity of rural challenges. But fear is not a useful guide. Hope, grounded in faith, is steadier. It does not deny difficulty; it simply refuses to let difficulty have the final word. Looking forward, the goal is not perfection or speed, but faithfulness—continuing to build, serve, and lead with integrity, even when the work remains unfinished.
So the choice at the end of this year is a simple one. To keep walking forward. To trust that God is at work in the quiet, steady moments more than in the loud ones. To believe that showing up, again and again, is itself an act of faith. And to rest in the confidence that light, even when it comes slowly, is still light.
Every human life, whether quietly or loudly, is shaped by a single, foundational question. Most people never stop long enough to name it, yet it governs their priorities, their decisions, and their understanding of meaning.
The question is not, “What do I want out of life?” It is not, “How can I be successful?” It is not even, “How can I be happy?”
The most important question of life is this:
What is ultimately true—and how should I live in light of that truth?
Every worldview offers an answer, whether stated explicitly or assumed quietly. If reality is accidental and impersonal, then meaning must be manufactured. Life becomes a project of self-definition, and morality becomes negotiable. Purpose is temporary, and hope rarely extends beyond the present moment.
If, however, truth is personal, moral, and purposeful, then life is not something we invent but something we receive. Meaning is discovered, not created. Responsibility matters. Love carries weight. Suffering is not meaningless, even when it is painful.
Christian faith brings this question into sharp focus through the words of Jesus Himself. When He looked at His disciples and asked, “Who do you say that I am?” He was not asking for information. He was inviting a decision that would reorder their entire lives.
That question still does the same today.
If Jesus is merely a teacher, His words may inspire but carry no ultimate claim. If He is who He claimed to be, then truth is not an abstract concept but a person to be known and followed.
Scripture consistently frames life in relational terms. Human beings are not autonomous projects but stewards of a gift. We are accountable not only for what we do, but for how we respond to the God who reveals Himself. This reframes everything: work, family, suffering, joy, justice, and hope beyond death.
The tragedy of modern life is not that people ask too many questions, but that they settle for questions that are too small. When the ultimate question is ignored, the answers we chase never quite satisfy.
Life does not become clearer when we eliminate the question of truth. It becomes clearer when we face it honestly.
What is ultimately true? And how, then, should we live?
That is the question every life answers—whether intentionally or by default.
You wake up carrying yesterday with you. Some memories refuse to loosen their grip. Loss. Regret. Questions that never quite resolve. You learn early that life does not hand out clean endings, only long roads and unfinished conversations. Still, you get up. Not because it’s easy, but because something inside you says you must.
You do your work quietly. You try to do it right. You learn that integrity costs more than compromise, but you pay it anyway. You discover that justice, truth, and love are rarely loud. Most of the time, they show up as persistence—showing up again when walking away would be simpler.
There are nights when the weight presses down hard. You replay moments you wish you could change. You hear echoes of people you loved and lost. You wonder whether holding on is strength or stubbornness. And yet, letting go feels like erasing part of who you are.
So you keep walking. Not because you have all the answers, but because you believe life has meaning even when it’s cracked. Somewhere along the way, you realize you are not carrying everything alone. There is a quiet presence beside you—steady, patient, faithful—bearing the heavier part of the load. The kind of presence that doesn’t rush you, doesn’t condemn you, and doesn’t leave when things get dark.
You learn that redemption is not sudden. It’s slow. It’s daily. It’s choosing truth over comfort, mercy over bitterness, and hope over despair. It’s discovering that love can meet you in broken places and still call you forward.
In the end, life is not about forgetting what shaped you. It’s about letting it refine you. You don’t let go of what matters. You carry it—transformed—into something truer.
Note on the spiritual undertones in “Can’t Let Go”
Beneath its noir tone, the song carries quiet traces of spirituality. The repeated tension between holding on and releasing mirrors a deeply human struggle found throughout Scripture—the desire to control the past versus the invitation to trust something greater than ourselves. “Can’t let go” is not just emotional attachment; it sounds like the soul wrestling with surrender.
There is an unspoken confession in the lyrics: acknowledgment of brokenness without denial, longing without easy resolution. That honesty echoes the psalms of lament, where faith is not polished but real. The song never preaches, yet it gestures toward the idea that healing does not come from erasing pain, but from being carried through it.
What makes the spirituality subtle—but powerful—is that the answer is not self-mastery. The weight feels too heavy to bear alone. That quiet recognition opens the door to grace. In Christian language, it resembles the moment before surrender, when the heart realizes it cannot save itself and must be held.
In that sense, Can’t Let Go becomes a prayer without religious language—a reminder that even in shadowed places, the struggle itself can be sacred, and that letting go is often less about loss and more about learning who is truly strong enough to hold us.
1. The New Testament canon is earlier than Constantine
A common modern claim is that “Constantine or Nicaea created the Bible.” Historically, the Council of Nicaea (325) dealt with Christology (Arian controversy), not a canon list, and there is no historical record of Nicaea deciding the New Testament contents. Phoenix Seminary+2The Gospel Coalition+2
What we actually see is a recognition process already underway well before the 300s:
By the late 2nd century, a substantial core of NT books is already listed in early canon evidence such as the Muratorian Fragment, which includes Acts, Paul’s letters, and other familiar books; it also distinguishes between books read publicly in church and books read privately. Encyclopedia Britannica
By A.D. 367, Athanasius’ Festal Letter 39 provides the earliest surviving list that matches the 27-book New Testament used by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox today. New Advent+2Archive.org+2
This matters because it shows that the 27-book NT is not a late, political invention. It is a convergence of early, widespread Christian usage that becomes explicitly documented.
2. Councils did more “confirm” than “create”
Councils and synods functioned to standardize what churches were already reading and receiving, especially when disputed writings circulated. That is different from “a group of bishops invented Scripture.” The historical record supports a gradual recognition and consolidation rather than a single moment of authoritarian selection. Phoenix Seminary+1
3. The Great Schism (1054) does not destabilize the New Testament
The 1054 schism created institutional and doctrinal tensions between East and West, but it did not produce rival New Testaments. The 27-book NT is shared across Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox traditions. The major differences across traditions relate primarily to Old Testament scope (Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books and some tradition-specific texts), not to the apostolic NT core. New Advent+1
4. Reformation-era disputes were mostly about the Old Testament boundary and authority, not “losing the Gospel”
A frequent claim is “Protestants removed books.” Historically, the Reformers argued that the Old Testament canon should follow the Hebrew Bible (the 39 books Protestants use), while often still printing the Apocrypha as useful reading but not a basis for doctrine. Evidence of this is visible in the Geneva Bible tradition, where the Apocrypha was included in many editions (often between testaments), even when distinguished from canonical Scripture. Garrett Guides+1
So the Reformation is better described as a dispute over the status of certain books, not a discovery that Christians “had the wrong Bible for 1500 years.”
5. The strongest reliability claim is the textual evidence base
Reliability is not only “which books,” but also “do we have the text accurately.”
Modern textual criticism tests reliability through:
comparing thousands of manuscript witnesses,
cataloging variants,
weighing manuscripts by age, geography, and textual family,
and publishing transparent apparatus notes in critical editions.
This discipline exists because the manuscript base is large enough to detect copying variations rather than hide them. The existence of variants is not evidence of corruption; it is evidence that we can see and evaluate differences openly. Archive.org+1
Addressing modern criticisms directly
A. “Constantinian corruption”
This claim generally assumes centralized political control could rewrite Christianity’s texts.
The counter-evidence is:
Canon recognition and widespread usage predates Constantine (late 2nd century evidence exists). Encyclopedia Britannica+1
By Athanasius (367), the 27-book NT list is explicit and matches today’s NT—again, not a late medieval invention. New Advent+1
Manuscripts and early translations are distributed across regions and languages, which makes coordinated, empire-wide “rewriting” implausible without leaving obvious traces across textual families.
B. “Various councils picked winners”
Councils helped settle disputes about public reading and orthodoxy, but the evidence points to recognition of already-authoritative books, not the creation of authority. Phoenix Seminary+1
C. “The Reformation changed the Bible (Geneva/KJV, etc.)”
The key clarifications:
Canon (which books) is different from translation (how the text is rendered in English).
Many early Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha as non-canonical reading; later publishing decisions often omitted it. Garrett Guides+1
The central Christian message does not depend on the Apocrypha, and the New Testament canon is shared across major traditions.
Translation errors: what’s possible, and how we investigate it
What can go wrong in translation
word-sense ambiguity (one word, multiple meanings),
idioms that don’t map neatly across languages,
textual variants (different manuscript readings),
theological bias (rare, but possible).
How accuracy is tested
translation committees include specialists in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek,
they work from critical editions with documented manuscript evidence,
differences are footnoted,
translations are compared across philosophies (formal vs dynamic).
In other words, modern scholarship does not ask you to “trust blindly.” It shows its work.
What remains contested today
It’s important to say plainly what is still debated:
A small set of New Testament passages with notable manuscript variation (often flagged in Bible footnotes).
Old Testament scope across Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox/Ethiopian traditions (a canon-boundary question more than a “text corruption” question).
Interpretation (especially Revelation), far more than the existence or basic wording of the core texts.
A clear bottom line
The Protestant canon’s reliability is supported by:
explicit 27-book listing by Athanasius in 367, New Advent+1
and a manuscript tradition robust enough for transparent, critical comparison rather than reliance on a single “controlled” transmission line.
Why the Book of Enoch Is Not Canon Elsewhere
1. Not Included in the Hebrew Scriptures
The Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians often call the Old Testament) were preserved, transmitted, and recognized within the Jewish community long before the time of Jesus. By the first century, there was a widely recognized core collection of sacred writings—the Law (Torah), the Prophets, and the Writings.
The Book of Enoch does not appear in any Jewish canonical lists from antiquity. It was not copied or preserved alongside the Hebrew Scriptures, nor was it read in synagogue worship as Scripture. While it circulated among some Jewish groups, circulation alone was never sufficient for canonical status. Many ancient Jewish writings existed, but only a limited set were recognized as divinely inspired.
From a Christian standpoint, this matters because Christianity received the Old Testament through Israel’s Scriptures, not by later Christian invention. A book excluded from the Jewish canon already stands outside the primary scriptural stream Jesus and the apostles inherited.
2. Not Affirmed as Scripture by Jesus
Jesus consistently treated the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative. He regularly cited the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, and He spoke of them collectively as “the Scriptures.” When Jesus appealed to divine authority, He appealed to this recognized body of texts.
There is no record of Jesus quoting or affirming the Book of Enoch as Scripture. He never introduced it with formulas such as “It is written” or “Scripture says,” which He frequently used for canonical texts. His teaching assumes and reinforces the authority of the Jewish Scriptures already recognized by His contemporaries.
This silence is significant. If Enoch had been regarded as Scripture in Jesus’ time, its absence from His teaching would be difficult to explain, given how freely He used other texts. Christian theology has always treated Jesus’ use of Scripture as a decisive indicator of what belongs to the canon.
3. Not Used as Scripture by the Apostolic Church
The apostles followed the same scriptural framework Jesus used. In their preaching, teaching, and letters, they consistently quoted from the recognized Jewish Scriptures, especially the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. These writings formed the foundation for how they interpreted Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
There is no evidence that the apostolic churches read the Book of Enoch as Scripture in worship or instruction. Early Christian communities distinguished between writings that were spiritually helpful and writings that were authoritative. Enoch falls into the former category for most of the early church.
When disputes arose in the early centuries, the question was not “Is this book interesting?” but “Is this book apostolic, consistent with the rule of faith, and universally received?” Enoch did not meet those criteria outside of a limited geographic tradition.
4. Quoted Once in Jude, Illustratively Rather Than Canonically
Jude 14–15 contains a quotation that parallels a passage from 1 Enoch. This is often cited as proof that Enoch should be considered Scripture. However, the logic does not hold historically or theologically.
The New Testament contains multiple examples of authors quoting non-biblical sources:
Paul quotes Greek poets (Acts 17:28; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12)
Biblical writers allude to cultural sayings, hymns, and traditions
Wisdom literature sometimes reflects common ancient Near Eastern thought
Quoting a source does not canonize it. Jude uses a familiar text to make a point his audience would recognize, just as Paul does with pagan poetry. Jude does not introduce the quotation with “Scripture says,” nor does he place Enoch on the same authoritative level as the Law or the Prophets.
The early church understood this distinction clearly. Jude’s use of Enoch was seen as illustrative and rhetorical, not as an endorsement of Enoch as inspired Scripture.
Theological Summary
The Book of Enoch is excluded from most Christian canons not because it was hidden or suppressed, but because it was never widely received as Scripture in the first place.
It was not part of the Jewish Scriptures Jesus affirmed
It was not treated as Scripture by the apostles
It was not used authoritatively in early Christian worship
Its occasional quotation functions illustratively, not canonically
Ancient, interesting, and influential do not mean inspired.
Christian Scripture is defined not by curiosity or novelty, but by apostolic witness and Christ-centered authority. The canon reflects a careful process of recognition, not the loss of secret books or suppressed truths.
When people refer to “the Ethiopian Bible,” they are usually referring to the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which is the largest biblical canon in Christianity.
It includes:
The standard Old Testament and New Testament books
Additional writings not included in Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox canons
Notably, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and other texts
This canon reflects local church tradition, not a universal early-Christian consensus.
2. Historical Origins of Ethiopian Christianity
Christianity reached Ethiopia very early:
Acts 8:26–39 records the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch
By the 4th century AD, Christianity was established as a state religion under King Ezana
Ethiopian Christianity developed largely independently of Roman and later Western ecclesial structures
Because of this isolation:
Ethiopian Christianity preserved texts and traditions that fell out of use elsewhere
Canonical boundaries developed differently
This explains difference, not superiority or inferiority.
3. Language and Manuscript Tradition
The Ethiopian Bible is preserved primarily in Geʽez, an ancient Semitic language.
Important points:
Most Ethiopian biblical manuscripts date from the medieval period (not the 2nd century)
Earlier sources are inferred through translation lineage, not surviving originals
The Ethiopian canon is based on received tradition, not apostolic authorship tests
There is no complete Ethiopian Bible manuscript from 160 AD. That date often cited refers to:
Approximate composition periods of certain texts
Or to traditions preserved orally or textually before later compilation
4. The Book of Enoch (Most Common Question)
Authorship
Not written by the biblical Enoch
Composed by multiple Jewish authors between 300 BC and 100 AD
Pseudepigraphal (written under an ancient name to give authority)
Content
Apocalyptic visions
Angelology
Judgment imagery
Commentary on Genesis 6
Why Ethiopia Preserved It
It was valued in some Jewish communities
It survived in Ethiopia when lost elsewhere
Preservation does not equal inspiration
Why It Is Not Canon Elsewhere
Not included in the Hebrew Scriptures
Not affirmed as Scripture by Jesus
Not used as Scripture by the apostolic church
Quoted once in Jude, as Paul quotes pagan poets—illustratively, not canonically
5. How the Canon Was Determined Historically
Across early Christianity, books were recognized as Scripture if they met these criteria:
Apostolic origin or authority
Consistency with the rule of faith
Widespread use in worship
Theological coherence
Reception across the whole church
The Ethiopian canon reflects local reception, not ecumenical recognition.
6. Reliability vs. Authority (Critical Distinction)
The Ethiopian Bible is:
Historically valuable
Culturally important
A witness to early Jewish and Christian thought
But reliability and authority are not the same.
A text can be ancient and preserved yet not inspired Scripture
Reliability in Christianity is measured by apostolic witness and Christ-centered coherence, not age alone
7. Does the Ethiopian Canon Undermine the Bible?
No.
Key reasons:
Core Christian doctrines do not change across canons
The identity of Jesus is consistent
Salvation theology is unchanged
The Gospel message is stable
The Ethiopian canon adds material, not corrections.
8. Why These Questions Arise Today
Interest in the Ethiopian Bible often comes from:
Internet apologetics
Suspicion of Western authority
Desire for “lost” or “hidden” knowledge
Cultural fascination with ancient texts
Pastorally, this often signals:
Curiosity mixed with insecurity
Hunger for certainty
Fear that something essential was withheld
9. A Theological Bottom Line
The Ethiopian Bible does not expose a flaw in Christianity.
It shows:
Christianity developed across cultures
Scripture was preserved in multiple streams
The Church carefully discerned, not casually discarded
The Bible we have is not a reduced version of something larger. It is a focused, Christ-centered witness.
10. Pastoral Closing
Christ did not promise secret books. He promised the Holy Spirit.
Scripture was not given to satisfy curiosity, but to reveal Christ and form faith.
The Ethiopian Bible is a valuable historical witness. The canonical Scriptures are a reliable theological foundation.
John Hargrove Seeking Truth and Reality 