Archive for the ‘Theology’ Category

The flood- legend, myth, or the truth?

Posted: April 5, 2012 in The Flood, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
2

Let’s be honest for a moment.  The list of hard to believe parts of the flood story are many: how did all the animals fit on the boat? wouldn’t they try to eat each other? why hasn’t science found more proof of a global flood? how can you believe in the flood and be a young Earth believer?  Added to this is the fact that although it is a story of horrific judgment, American culture has seen fit to use it for children’s toys and crib bumpers.  How can you take something seriously when there is a Little People version of it?  Just yesterday, I was laughing up a storm watching Evan Almighty, the Steve Carell comedy based on the Flood story.  It didn’t make these questions go away.

There are two common questions that I get about the Flood.  1) Do you really believe that the Flood was global?  isn’t it more likely to have been just a regional flood?  2) Most ancient cultures have a flood story/ epic/ legend.  Isn’t it likely that the Bible “borrowed” from this common mythology in order to teach about the serious nature of sin?  Of course, this is taking it for granted that students believe the Bible and don’t simply dismiss the Flood story as not believable.  (By the way, the stories about people finding remnants of the Ark on Mount Ararat are not helping!  Get a life! Go back to looking for the Ark!)  Let’s tackle the myth angle first, and then move on to the more complicated one about local vs. global flood.

It is true that several other ancient cultures have flood stories in their mythology.  The Babylonian myth of the Epic of Gilgamesh from the Enuma Elish has been the most popular one used to show how the Bible “borrows” from other cultures.  The oldest copies found are on cuneiform tablets dated to the 12th century B.C.  Liberal scholars were quick to point out that the oldest copies of the Hebrew Old Testament date to the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest being from around 250 B.C.).  Most believed at this point that the Bible originated during the time of the kings at the earliest, post exilic at the latest (around 700 – 500 B.C.).  Therefore, they concluded that the Bible was written at least several hundred years after the Babylonian Enuma Elish.  The parallels between the two stories include:  the flood occurring in Mesopotamia; the main character is warned and builds a boat to escape; the boat comes to rest on a mountain after flood; and birds are released to see if it is safe to disembark.  Even I must admit that the similarities are too great to be merely coincidental.

First, I believe that the Flood story and Genesis were written long before the oldest copy we have found dates to.  Using 1 Kings 6:1 and Exodus 12:40, the Bible clearly states that the Exodus happened around 1446 B.C.  Since Moses is given as the author of the entire Pentateuch, he would have written the story of the Flood down around this time, way before the Enuma Elish was written.  I have no problem saying that someone “borrowed” from someone else, I merely maintain that it was the Babylonian legend that borrowed from the Biblical account.  Moses got the account passed down from Hebrew oral tradition, and it isn’t difficult to imagine this being passed from the Hebrews to the Babylonians, where the story was adapted into the Epic of Gilgamesh.  I actually believe that the multitude of flood stories in other cultures gives more weight to the truth of the Bible, as the other cultures corroborate the original story did actually take place (a common shared experience before these people groups descended from Noah’s sons).

As to whether the flood was local or not, I won’t attempt to make a huge scientific argument.  I am not a scientist (although I have played one on tv) and you can find other excellent blogs and sites that help you in that area (which is why I won’t be touching the whole “did the flood happen at all” scientific debate).  I will say that from Scripture, it would seem that it was a global flood.  Genesis 7:19 says that the “waters covered the mountains” and it is hard to see that happening from a local flood.  Also, Genesis 9:19 shows that Noah and his family were the only survivors.  If the flood was only local, other people would have survived.  Last, if the flood was only local, why couldn’t God have saved Noah a lot of time building the ark, and merely told him to leave the area???

Science is great, but the bottom line is that it can’t explain everything in the Bible.  That is why we use the word “supernatural” to explain certain events like the flood or people raising from the dead (and talking animals too).  God can make animals do whatever He wants, can figure out how to flood the whole world, and can decide how to divide up a super continent (if one actually existed).  We need to stop trying to always “prove” miracles, while at the same time appreciating how creation speaks of God all the time.  I am all for Christians who are astrophysicists as long as they don’t try to give me a natural explanation for how people can walk on water.  The Flood happened, killed everyone but Noah and his family, and God showed the harsh penalty of sin, while also showing His great mercy in saving anyone.

Don’t go and throw away all your cute Noah stuff just yet.  At the same time, I would seriously reconsider your plans to make those Bubonic plague baby crib bumpers.  Next up on the blog, Top 10 “Real” Bible Question # 7, “Are the 7 days of Creation in Genesis 1 literal or figurative?”  No biggie, just the whole theory of Creationism is on the line…

Does Jesus have to pray?

Posted: February 19, 2012 in Incarnation of Jesus, Theology
0

Whenever I am going through a tough time, I generally think about myself most of the time.  Ok, ok, maybe a lot of the time.  All right, probably all of the time.  I think about it before bed, driving around, while I am pretending to listen to other people talk in meetings… well, you get the point.  Thinking of others and seeing opportunities to model Christlike living isn’t always on my mind then.  Thank goodness Jesus was God and man, as it enabled Him to seize these opportunities to not only bless people with what He does, but also how He does it.  I believe this is the answer to several passages that people use to say that Jesus was “limited” in His divinity here on Earth.  That Jesus had to rely on God for all of His miracles, in the sense that Jesus couldn’t heal anyone on His own, but had to ask the Father to do it.  This has serious impact on how Jesus could be God and man during the incarnation.

In one of Jesus most memorable miracles, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, there is a beautiful example of the power of prayer, faith, and unity between Jesus and God.  John records the raw emotion of Jesus upon arriving at Lazarus’s home, describing how Jesus was “deeply moved” and “wept” from sorrow due to Lazarus’s death.  In this moment, the humanity of Jesus touches our hearts that He experienced the loss of a friend, while also sharing in the grief of the two sisters.  As He goes to pray for Lazarus, it would be easy for Jesus for once not worry about the crowd.  For once, He could just think about His friend and the wonderful miracle that was about it occur.  Yet, even then, He sees the opportunity for the disciples and those around Him to learn from what He was about to do.

Instead of a silent prayer, enjoying at least that amount of privacy, He prays out loud so that all might hear.  “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.   I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.”  Jesus was never worried that God wouldn’t answer His prayer.  He knows that He and the Father are one, so that whatever the Father would do in this situation is what Jesus would do.  Some Bible scholars say that Jesus couldn’t heal Lazarus on His own.  He had “emptied” Himself (Philippians 2:5), thereby limiting Himself during the time of the incarnation.  As I said before, my view is that Jesus was still fully God as man (Colossians 2:9-10).  He doesn’t pray because He HAS to, He prays because He is MODELING how we should pray and believe in the power of God.

It gets even better though.  The Gospels record the night before Jesus’ crucifixion in detail.  In particular, Jesus’ time of prayer and struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane is highlighted.  Luke 22:42 is one of the most famous quotes of Christ, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me.Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”   Did Jesus really think that the cup could be removed?  Did he honestly believe that there was another way rather than the cross?  If you say yes, you are definitely saying Jesus knowledge was limited while incarnated.  Yet, Jesus was fully man, therefore He had human emotions like stress and anguish over what He knew was coming.

Of course, Jesus knew the suffering of the cross was coming.  He had been predicting this for quite a while (Mark 9:30-32).  That is why He is in stress and anguish.  He knows the cost He is about to pay.  However, even in His greatest time of trial, He once again thinks about His disciples and all those who would read the Gospels.  In this, He can model submission to God, sacrifice for others, and ultimately a willingness to die for the salvation of many.

Remember, if all Jesus cared about was dying on the cross to provide atonement, He could have done it much easier and shorter than what He did.  Raising Lazarus was not necessary to Him dying on the cross and neither was praying out loud in the Garden.  That He did those things is supposed to radically challenge us in our faith, not radically challenge us in believing in the power of Christ or denigrating His divinity.  So, let’s stop arguing about this “mystery”, and instead get our minds wrapped around praying for people to raise from the dead and being willing to die for Jesus.  That’s enough to keep my feeble mind and heart busy for quite some time.

School of Jesus

Posted: February 17, 2012 in Incarnation of Jesus, Theology
0

Sometimes I just never learn.  I can think of so many things that I just keep doing in life, no matter how many times it turns out horribly.  For example, why do I never ask what seat I have when I check in at the airport?  Do I really not want to bother the person checking me in?  Inevitably, I end up in seat 89Z, which is a lovely seat right next to the toilets.  Every minute or so, I get the pleasure of that blast of wind accompanied by a lung searing smell every time someone opens the door.  Why do I keep pressing the top button on my Iphone instead of the bottom one?  Do I think elves might have snuck in at night and changed their function?  I consider myself reasonably intelligent (though my wife may beg to differ), yet it appears to me that there are some things I never learn.

Which brings us to our question of the day, can Jesus learn?  If He can learn, then how can He be God?  God already knows everything, right?  Therefore, if Jesus has to learn things, people might come to the conclusion that He wasn’t really God.  Others might say that He gave up His “divinity” during the incarnation, and that is why He would need to learn things as we do.  We can thank Luke 2:52 for this, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”  WAIT a minute here.  How can Jesus increase in wisdom?  That would imply He was lacking wisdom.  For that matter, how can he increase in favor with God?  That would imply that He had “lower” favor before.

I believe that this verse (and others like it) do not imply that Jesus was not divine during His whole incarnation.  What Jesus did not do is simply incarnate into a fully grown man just before going to the cross.  Of course, Jesus could have done this and saved Himself time in the flesh, as well as the suffering He encountered through living in this world as a man.  The necessity was only that Jesus come in the flesh and die on the cross for sins.  You might argue that Jesus had to “be born in Bethlehem” and “born of a virgin” to fulfill Scripture, but those things did not affect the effectiveness of His atonement.  Jesus could have come as a man, and then would have predicted just that through the prophets instead of His birth and life.

That Jesus didn’t do the “easier” route challenges me to think through why He didn’t.  Yes, Jesus main reason for the incarnation was to provide a sacrifice for sin.  I have no doubts on that.  However, I believe the way He walked that out was to show us a living model of a righteous life.  In our next post, we will look at several examples of Jesus providing us the perfect example of humility, perseverance, integrity, and many other elements of the Christian life.  The very fact that He lives 30 years before beginning His ministry already challenges me with my love for others and willingness to lay down my life for them.

The verse about this whole issue that has touched me most is Hebrews 5:8, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.”  Once again, we are confronted with Jesus learning something, and this time it is obedience.  Not only would Jesus not know something, but some might think He must have been disobedient before suffering.  As we have already established, we have to step back from looking with human eyes, and consider this from Jesus point of view.  Before the incarnation, Jesus was in perfect peace in His divinity.  Of course, He KNEW the future, and understood that He would suffer when He was incarnated.  However, until He was actually incarnated, He had never had that EXPERIENCE of suffering.  Jesus lived through persecution merely by being obedient to God’s will.  He did no wrong or disobedience to deserve that.

What I am struck with once again, is the love of Christ for us.  Not only would He go through the experience of growth as a human from baby to man, but He would also suffer as we do, but from no sin of His own.  Both came at a great cost to Him, yet His love for us drove Him to endure all of it for the sake of our forgiveness and eternal life.   I am signing up for the School of Jesus!

Why the Flamingo hotel?

Posted: February 15, 2012 in Incarnation of Jesus, Theology
0

I will always take the whole issue on the divinity and humanity of Jesus quite personally.  I was reading an article on the Jesus Seminar in a magazine a few years ago.  This group of “Christian scholars” (and I use that first and second term quite loosely) got together in order to decide what parts of the Gospels were true and which were not.  You would think the thing that bothered me most was that they had the nerve to believe that they had the ability to to decide what parts of the Bible were authentic or not.  However, the first thing that caught my eye was where they were meeting to do this.  They were meeting in the exact same place that my wife and I had our wedding reception!  How dare they ruin my happy memories with their conference?  Couldn’t these guys have found a different place to abuse the Bible?  I am sure a meeting room was available at the Lake of Fire resort.

I find it ironic that early in church history, false teachers simply didn’t want to affirm the humanity of Jesus.  Gnostics were so focused on escape from the flesh through knowledge, that it simply blew their minds that God would inhabit an illusory, evil body.   It was much easier for their Greek philosophical minds to accept Jesus only appearing to have a body, then to radically shift their mindset.  (that’s not the ironic part, just hold on a minute).  Now, today, false teachers don’t want to affirm the divinity of Jesus, and are quite happy to reduce Jesus to a poor, Jewish, peasant philosopher.  To their rational, humanistic minds, it is much easier to believe in a wise Ghandi-like figure, than someone who walks on water and is born from a virgin.  I mean, if you believe this kind of stuff, what’s next?  talking donkeys???

For the next few posts, we will be discussing various challenges of the doctrine of Jesus incarnation.  In the midst of some of the posts (but hopefully not all of them), you may be tempted to throw your hands in the air and say, “Somebody scream!”  Oops, no, that is what you would say at a rap concert.  What I meant to say is, “Why does all this really matter?”  It matters because God’s covenant with His people in the Old Testament began with a great promise.  Exodus 29:46 says, ” They shall know that I am the LORD their God who brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God.”  This was a RADICAL statement and promise from God.

Why?  Because the gods NEVER wanted to live with their people.  The gods lived up there or under there or out there, but never with man.  Why would they want to live with evil, mortal, stinky, weak, insignificant people?  The Greek gods lived on Mount Olympus.  Most Egyptian gods lived in the heavens or sky.  Sure, they would come down periodically just to mess with people and send them on meaningless quests or father a human child for fun, but there is no reason a god would live down here.  The whole point of religion has been to escape this world of suffering and get to where the gods are, not the other way around.  When the Jews failed to live up to their part of the covenant, Ezekiel 11:22-25 reveals that the glory of God departed from Jerusalem.

Yet, we know that isn’t the end of the story.  God made a promise and was serious about pursuing His relationship with man.  How serious?  So serious that He became a man to do so.  John 1:14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory.”  That God would take on hunger, persecution, pain, tears, and eventually a horrible death on the cross to dwell with us is astounding.  But it gets better.  It matters that Jesus was God and man, because the New Testament tells us that He had to be so in order to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins.  Hebrews 10:14, “For by a single offering, he perfected for all time those who are being sanctified”.  Read all of Hebrews 9 – 10.  You will get the point that Jesus was the only sacrifice that would provide us with eternal forgiveness.

That is where these two things come together in the incarnation.  Not only does Jesus coming in the flesh show us God dwelling with us (hanging out with Lazarus, prostitutes, zealots???), but it also had to happen so that Revelation 21:3 could take place.  “Behold the dwelling place of God is with man.  He will dwell with them, and they will be his people.”  This is speaking of our living in eternity in heaven with God, which we can only enter into through the sacrifice of Jesus.  We get Eden back again, and it is all seen and due to Jesus being fully God and fully man.  So, umm, yes it matters.

 

Step back Jack

Posted: February 12, 2012 in The Trinity, Theology
4

Don’t get me wrong, the method of scientific observation, logical reasoning, and detailed analysis are all good things.  I for one am quite glad not to have doctors using leeches on me, or still being afraid of dropping off the edge of the world (since it is flat of course).  Sometimes though, I get the feeling that we get so detailed and logical about a Biblical issue, that we completely miss the point.  Like God is yelling at us, “Hello, hello??!!!  Step back from thinking you are that smart and appreciate the big picture of this thing!”  Our next paradigm for understanding the Trinity forces us to step back and try to see the overall picture being conveyed to us.

Could it be that the way God revealed Himself as the Trinity has more to do with expressing His character and nature than trying show us HOW He can be three in one?  In turn then, as He reveals Himself to us, He also reveals more about who we are, since we are made in His image.  In this view, God’s intent was never for us to discover a perfect way to express the Trinity logically in our theology.  He knew that was impossible as it is an “apparent paradox” due to our limited brainpower as man.  Just like Paul had no problem with accepting the mystery of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will in Romans 9, we should also be willing to bow at the throne of God in humility about the Trinity.  God is still the potter, and we are the clay.  That doesn’t mean we don’t think deeply about it, just that we spend our time on the things we can clearly understand.

The first thing that the Trinity teaches us then is about relationship and fellowship.  Relationship and fellowship are so intrinsically part of God’s character and nature, that even though He is one, He has fellowship and relationship within Himself.  No, God wasn’t incomplete without us.  He wasn’t lonely and decided he needed to create us.  Even if he was lonely, cats would have been way easier. (saying this does not infer in ANY way that I am a cat person!)  God had fellowship already, and created us out of love, wanting to share that relationship with His creation.  Though relationships can often bring us pain as humans, it is just as intrinsically part of who we are since we are made in His image.

The Trinity also teaches us that roles and authority don’t carry value statements or inequalities within them.  The Trinity each plays a separate role in the redemptive history as told in the Bible.  Of course, they are united in this purpose and plan, but only Jesus was incarnated.  Only the Holy Spirit came down on the day of Pentecost and empowered the disciples.  Is Jesus more important since He died on the cross?  No, since God is one, none of them are more important than the other because of what they do.  As Jesus said in John 5:19-20, “whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise”.  It is the same with us as Paul described in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26.  We are all “one body” in the church and as such, no part is more important than another.  The pastor isn’t more important that the guy who cleans the church bathrooms.

Not only do roles not mean value, but authority doesn’t connote inequity either.  As the Father “sends the Spirit” and the Son “obeys the will of the Father”, the presence of authority doesn’t make God the Father more valuable.  Even if we say that the submission of Jesus to the Father was only during the incarnation, it was still for that time period.  Within that time, Jesus lived in submission to God, but it didn’t mean that God was in any way “better”.  In the same way, God has instituted the role of government and authority here on earth for man.  God explains to us that He puts governments in place, and there is a clear authority structure used in the church.  We can discuss the implications for husband / wife relationships in another post, but many see another application of authority here.  Regardless,  an elder isn’t more “important” than the guy who cuts the grass just because he decides what color to paint the church.

The bottom line is that we just need to step back from debating the word “person”, “begotten”, or “economic Trinity”, and try to appreciate the beautiful picture of God’s character and nature expressed through the Bible in the Trinity.  Then, we will come away with far more powerful application for ourselves, since we are made in His image.  But if we did this, what would Bible nerds like me sit around and blog about?

God a la Mode

Posted: February 11, 2012 in The Trinity, Theology
0

So now, it seems like we are right back where we started with the discussion on the Trinity.  Thanks a lot Sean!  We have affirmed the distinction that the Bible makes on God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  Not only are they spoken of separately, but their roles are different and there appears to be even an authority structure within the Godhead.  However, we also have clear evidence that God is one from the Old to the New Testament.  God is three in one.  How in the world can we explain this not only to ourselves, but to people in polytheistic religions that we are preaching the Gospel to?

One approach has been to say that protecting our monotheism is not only the most important thing, but also the Bible itself sets this as the foundational character of God (His “oneness”).  To do this, scholars have emphasized that oneness by finding alternatives to using the word “person”.  In the classic doctrine, God is of one “substance”, therefore  all three are equal in power, thought, and existence.  Building on this to protect monotheism, some say that God then “appears” or “manifests” Himself in these three ways to man out of that one substance.  God “appeared/manifested” as Jesus in the incarnation.  Jesus is how the Bible and God describe God appearing to man as God/man.  The Holy Spirit is how God “appears/manifests” in His working power through the church today and throughout history in various ways like the prophets and Creation.  By using “manifests” or “appears” the issue of looking like polytheists is avoided when the term “person” is used.

The problem is that this theological approach is called “modalism” (or Sabellianism) and has been around for a long time.  So why is that a problem? The church as a majority has rejected this view as heresy.  Bummer for those of you who were thinking, “Hey, this sounds pretty good Sean, keep going!”  Unless you are going for that whole rebel, heretic vibe.  This is not to be confused with Unitarianism, which denies Jesus’ divinity.  Modalists say Jesus was God and man, but that God doesn’t have there persons, rather three “modes” or “aspects” that He appears to man as.

Here is the part of the blog where I am completely honest with you (whereas for most of the blog, I am only partly honest???)  If it weren’t for the fact that so many in church history has condemned modalism as heresy, I would probably be closer to their view on the Trinity than the classic view.  There, I said it.  If I weren’t already on a heresy watch list, I am probably on it now.  I have to agree with the modalists, that “persons” isn’t the best choice for describing the Trinity.  The problem is I just can’t come up with a better one.  I also respect the great minds that have come before me, and don’t take it lightly when most of them view something as false doctrine.

Attempt to explain the Trinity number 1, strike one!  Though some part of the modalist thought might come in handy later, as a whole system, it is not advisable.  Maybe we really will end up with the egg or water illustration… No, I refuse to go down that road!  Help me!

Holy Ghost

Posted: February 9, 2012 in The Trinity, Theology
0

I realize that the English language has changed, but Holy “Ghost”???  Are you kidding me?  Were we trying to scare people away from God?  It seems like there should have been way better options than that.  I don’t think that keeping this name waaaaaay too long was smart either.  I know that no one wanted to reprint all those church creeds, hymnals, and daily prayer guides, but at some point the pews with the built in holders for communion cups have to go.

Back to the main point, the New Testament is where the true distinction of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead becomes clear.  John 13 – 16 contains what appears to be the main teaching Jesus gave His disciples shortly before the crucifixion.  It contains foundational concepts that they will need as they build the church after the ascension.  He wants them to know that even though He will be gone (in bodily form) from them, they will not be alone.  God is going to still help them accomplish the expansion of His kingdom.  John 14:16-17 says, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth”, who is further named in verse 26, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name…”  Not only is this name used in the New Testament without the possessives we saw in the Old Testament, but the distinction is clear in defined roles.

There has been discussion in church history about the “Father will give/send” part, just like all the debate over describing Jesus as the “firstborn” or “only begotten Son”.  Whole church creeds have risen and fallen based on how to define these terms.  With the Holy Spirit, Jesus’ teaching in John can give you the impression that God is “ordering” the Spirit around like an angel.  This has led some to view the Holy Spirit as not equal in the Trinity, or not part of the Godhead at all.  However, based on this reasoning, we would lose Jesus as well.  In the last post, we discussed the issue of subordination and can find many passages which show Jesus following “God’s will” in His actions.  Eventually, when we bring all the Trinity stuff together, we will discuss roles vs. authority vs. value.  For now, my view is that roles and authority in the Trinity have nothing to do with value or equality.

Even though we don’t have the incarnation with the Holy Spirit, there is still ample evidence for the “personhood” of the Holy Spirit.  This can be attested with passages showing will, decision making, specialization of role and actual outworking of this, and emotion.  For will and decisions, 1 Corinthians 12:11 speaking of spiritual gifts says, “All these are empowered by the one and same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.”  The Holy Spirit decides and chooses when and who to give spiritual gifts to in the church.  There are many passages which show the role of the Spirit, and Acts lets us witness those roles in action.  Acts 16:6, “having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.”  The Holy Spirit empowers and guides the apostles in Acts.  Finally to see emotion, Ephesians 4:30, “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit…”.  We can’t grieve the Spirit unless He is capable of emotion.

There goes my millions of dollars for my new, best selling book titled, “The Two-ity Driven Life”.  (actually, there is a long, complicated name for those who only believe in two persons of the Trinity- binitarianism…not nearly as cool as mine)  While I totally understand how people struggle, and have questioned it myself, the Bible does teach the Holy Spirit as the third “person” of the Trinity.  Stay tuned for the next post where we try to pull all of this together…somehow.

Three’s company

Posted: February 8, 2012 in The Trinity, Theology
2

I am convinced, well sort of, all right, I am not totally sure, but you have to start with a bold statement to get attention, so here it goes.  If it wasn’t for Jesus’ teaching on the Holy Spirit in John 14-16 and Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 12 – 14, I don’t think we would have the doctrine of the Trinity.  It would be the doctrine of the Two-ity (isn’t there a cooler way to say that?).  Before you throw me under the bus, hear me out.  The Old Testament presents the Holy Spirit in a similar way to how it presents a person and his spirit.  What I mean is that the Spirit of the OT doesn’t seem to be a separate entity, as much as a way to describe how God does things (He pours out His Spirit, He sends His Spirit to…).  In the New Testament, many passages could be read in this exact same way.  Sure, you can look at them with the benefit of John and Corinthians and say, “this totally points to the Trinity and the Spirit being separate.”

At this point, there is a smartypants out there who would say, “What about the book of Acts? huh?”.  It is true, that Acts belongs in the list with John and 1 Corinthians in being the best source of teaching the Bible gives on the Holy Spirit.  However, since it is narrative, I think you could still make the argument that it is merely talking about God’s Spirit at work, and not a separate “person” in the Godhead.  It is this lack of teaching on the Holy Spirit that can lead many to wonder whether the Holy Spirit should be discussed as part of the “Trinity”.  I can still remember speaking with a fellow Bible school staff about 6 years ago about his struggles with the Spirit in the Trinity.  It was like he was confessing some deep, dark secret or something.  I think he felt hesitant to voice he feelings that he was doubting the Trinity in favor of the Two-ity.  Are there any other closet Holy Spirit Trinity doubters out there right now?  Another reason so many struggle with this is that the “separateness” of Jesus and God seems much clearer due to the incarnation.  You have one in the flesh, and the other maintaining “spirit” only form.  We can connect with Jesus easier and see the distinction.  Add to this the lack of passages with direct teaching as I mentioned before, and we have the recipe for doubt.

Consider all the passages in the Old Testament that connect the Spirit to God in a possessive fashion.  From the very beginning, Genesis 1:2 states, “the Spirit OF God was hovering over the waters.”  David’s famous plea in Psalm 51:11 says, “take not YOUR Holy Spirit from me”.  David doesn’t say, “take not THE Holy Spirit from me.”  Isaiah 63:10 says, “But they rebelled and grieved HIS Holy Spirit” not “the Holy Spirit”.  This possessive phrase can be found in at least 14 more Old Testament passages, all using “of” and not “the”.  There are a few passages in the Old Testament like Ezekiel 8:3, “the Spirit lifted me between earth and heaven.”  However, just a few chapters later in 11:24, he uses “Spirit of God” (he also uses “My Spirit” 3 times as well).  In fact, finding a “the Spirit” in the Old Testament without “the Lord’s”, “of God”, “Your”, or “His” are few and far between.  This is why I said earlier that with only the Old Testament, we don’t see a firm separation of “The Holy Spirit”, but rather would view it as  “God’s Spirit”.

We already discussed the strong monotheism of the Jews in Old Testament times.  No serious rabbinic literature teaches the Holy Spirit as a “separate person” from God.  Deuteronomy 6, “The Lord is one” rules out to them any possibility of viewing the Spirit in the Old Testament as “The Spirit”.  Even after Jesus’ teaching, I wonder if many of the disciples would have agreed with assigning a separation of the Spirit.  They were having a hard enough time understanding the relationship between Jesus and God!  It’s a good thing that we do have the New Testament, and next time, we will piece together whether it fully affirms the “personhood” of the Holy Spirit.  Until then, if you are doubting the Trinity doctrine, just keep it to yourself.  You never know when your friend will start a Bible blog and use you as the example.  Just kidding!  Sort of…. maybe…

Who’s the boss?

Posted: February 8, 2012 in The Trinity, Theology
4

Who is in control?  As humans, we are often consumed by this question.  We rebel against authority, desperately trying to become our own authority.  Rebels without a clue I guess you might say.  The whole concept that the leader or boss is more valuable or special than everyone else saturates our culture.  Does this affect how we view the issue of authority in the Trinity?  You bet it does.

We left off last time promising to discuss the issue of subordination in the Trinity.  A few select passages of Scripture will be awfully tough to dismiss on this.  First, consider 1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”  Now, I am not touching the man/woman part in this blog and perhaps not in this lifetime as I highly value self preservation.  Anywho, “the head of Christ is God” means what exactly?  I am glad you asked.  “Head” is obviously figurative, and most of the time that Paul uses this illustration, it carries the connotation of authority (like the head of a company).

I get that this is a powderkeg because of the “husband/wife” connection.  If we say head means authority, what are the implications for a Christian marriage?  Unfortunately, we can’t just ignore evidence because of implications for other issues.  It is true that “head” can also be used figuratively for “source” (like the head of a river).  You can find lots of amazing articles and arguments on the authority/source discussion, but for now, I personally see 1 Corinthians 11 speaking of authority not source.  Even if we go with the “source” option, we will find other passages to discuss this.

1 Corinthians 15:28 says, “When all things are subjected to him (God), then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”  The context here is discussing the 2nd coming and the final judgment of God.  Not only then does the New Testament speak of God and Jesus separately, having different “roles”, but it also speaks of an authority structure within the Trinity.  How can Jesus be God but be under God?  How can God be His own “head”?  This is really getting confusing now!

There are two main options I can give you to understand this.  The first is called incarnational subordination (you think I am making that up right?  I wish…).  This means that during His incarnation, Jesus voluntarily placed Himself under the authority of God the Father.  After His resurrection, He was exalted back to His rightful place of equality with God as seen in  Philippians 2:9-11.  This explanation fits well with the view that much of what Christ in His incarnation serves as a model for us in our relationship to God.  Jesus shows us how even He can submit to the will of the Father with words like, “Not my will, but yours be done” right before His arrest and crucifixion (Luke 22:42).

The other explanation is our whole was of looking at the Trinity needs a serious overhaul.  Perhaps the whole way that God revealed the Trinity to us as man says more about Him than it does about “modeling” a righteous life.  The Trinity shows us that relationship. love, and unity is an intrinsic part of God’s character and nature.  Even without us humans, God has these things within Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit.  Authority does not have anything to do with value.  Within the Trinity, we are shown that different roles and subordination are not negative things but how God works together within the Trinity to perfection.

We can’t really finish these last thoughts until we discuss the Holy Spirit.  Whew!  Finally, we are to a part of the Trinity that no one in the church ever argues about… the Holy Spirit, right?

 

Is God keeping secrets from Jesus?

Posted: February 6, 2012 in The Trinity, Theology
0

There are a few passages in Scripture that I just know God put in there to torment me.  I can just hear God saying, “You know, that Sean Ellis isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.  Let’s throw this one in to make sure he knows he is an intellectual flea in this universe.”  Mark 13:32 is one of those passages, and I will explain in a minute why.  One of the things that is difficult to explain in the doctrine of the Trinity (one of many as you have seen so far), is the relationship of Jesus to God when it comes to His time incarnated in the flesh.

Two big questions arise from the way the Bible talks about this time: 1) did Jesus “give up” any of His divine power, or right to use it, for the purpose of wanting to model complete dependance on the Father?  did Jesus have to pray and ask the Father for miracles or could He do them on His own?  2) was Jesus subordinate to the Father while He was in the flesh?  did He take “orders” from God?  what about after His ascension?  are they “equal” in authority again?  These two questions speak directly into the trouble we have been having with seeing Jesus and God as “one God” but separate somehow.  It is time to wade into the murky theological waters.

In Mark 13, Jesus has been explaining to the disciples that the temple in Jerusalem will eventually be destroyed (which happens in 70 AD).  In the classic role of a prophet, Jesus telescopes from this prediction to a far prediction of His return to Earth in the 2nd coming.  In 13:32, Jesus wants the disciples to understand the “surprise” element of the 2nd coming, which the Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to have overlooked (don’t give up guys, I am sure you will predict the 2nd coming this time!).  Jesus says, “But about that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”.  Say what???  How can God know something that Jesus doesn’t know?  How can they be equal and Jesus fully divine and man, and there is part of the future that He is unaware of?

Of course, there are a lot of fancy explanations out there that sound much better than my answer, which is “I have no idea how to make sense of this passage.”  I am usually game for giving it a shot, as you can tell already by reading this blog.  For a while, I was satisfied with the “incarnational” response.  According to the Philippians 2 passage we looked at in the last post, Jesus “emptied Himself” (other translations read “made Himself nothing”).  We realize that Jesus sacrificed perfection and peace in heaven with God in order to become a man and suffer on the cross.  Perhaps one of the things He “gave up” or sacrificed His right to was knowledge of the future, even if for only this one event. I am not so satisfied with this answer anymore.  Other passages in the Gospel seem to me like Jesus knows what people are thinking (John 2:25) and knows the future (Mark 10:32-34 ).  How can He not know this one thing?

When we have a difficult passage, the best thing to do is to not build our whole doctrine based upon it.  The clear passages of the Bible should interpret the unclear.  The Gospels and the New Testament letters are clear in Jesus divinity, with the book of Colossians directly addressing the false teaching that He was not.  Even though I haven’t found or thought of a rational way to explain this verse, I believe the problem is with us, not the Bible.  I assume that there is something we don’t understand about the Greek used, or what Jesus was meaning here.  To try to build a whole teaching on Jesus basically giving up all His power so that He would be fully like us and dependent on God is standing on shaky ground if you ask me (and since you are reading my blog, you did!).

Now, I will do a classic teacher move.  You know, when a teacher promises he will cover something in the next class, but blabs way too long, and runs out of time.  Well, I blabbed too long, so we will look next at the issue of subordination in the Trinity.  Drawing a conclusion here first, elements of the incarnation will always remain mysterious to us.  How can Jesus be fully God and fully man at the same time?  We should be extremely cautious though, when we start putting Scriptures together that make Jesus less than divine.  John’s Gospel presents a clear view of Jesus as the “Son of God”, fully divine within His humanity.  I am not taking away from His humanity.  He did hunger, thirst, and suffer.  Let’s just say I am not going to make any bets against Jesus not knowing stuff.  He seems on top of it to me.

Older Entries
Newer Entries