Month: July 2009

We’re going through the New Testament trying to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re in the book of Acts right now. Acts does have less in it in the way of doctrine and more on the history of the church, but the doctrine is still in there as we are seeing. Tonight, we’re going to be looking at Acts 19:13-17.

¹³Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” ¹⁴Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. ¹⁵(One day) the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” ¹⁶Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

¹⁷When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.

What we have going on here is that Paul is in the city of Ephesus doing ministry and there are some Jewish boys there who are wanting to get in on the action and see Paul using the name of Jesus to exorcise demons. They decide that they’ll do the same thing only to find that they have no authority to do such.

Note that demons are bowing to the name of Jesus recognizing him as the authority. This is all throughout the gospels as well as the demons constantly recognize Jesus as the holy one of God and believe when they see him that their judgment has come upon them.

This should also be a warning to us about those who seek power. There are many supposed miracle workers in the church today. (Many of them I’d actually say are outside the realm of orthodoxy.) Too many sincere Christians are taken in because they have not been trained. How many people might have been taken in by exorcists just because they saw signs?

Fortunately, the people of Ephesus saw the results and it actually made them respect the name of Jesus. It was seen as one to not take lightly. The demon did not deny knowing Jesus and he even stated that he recognized Paul. He thought his exorcists were not worth mentioning however and as much as we are against demonic activity, one can’t help but read this story and think about what it would have been like for these pseudo-exorcists to get pummeled by this one guy.

Let’s notice the main part at the end of this chapter however. The name of Jesus was held in high honor. This again is where I see the casualness of who Jesus is mentioned. There seems to be no need to explain who Jesus is or why his name is held in honor. It’s mentioned in a matter-of-fact way.

It is not YHWH. It is Jesus. The conclusion to be drawn? There was already a high Christology at the time of the writing of the book of Acts. (Which I date to around 62 A.D.) in which Jesus was seen as equal with YHWH in ontology.

We shall continue this tomorrow.

We’re going to be continuing our study tonight of the Trinity. We’ve been going through the New Testament trying to come to passages where we can get ideas about this doctrine. We’re going to another one tonight as well as getting some idea about what kind of debater Paul was. We’ll be in Acts 17 and reading verses 16-20.

¹⁶While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. ¹⁷So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. ¹⁸A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. ¹⁹Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? ²⁰You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” ²¹(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

The focus I want to get at here is verse 18. When the foreigners thought Jesus was speaking about foreign gods, it was because they heard reference to Jesus and the Resurrection. For us, we wonder how resurrection could be seen as a god, but to the Greeks, it most likely was seen as the name of a female goddess, which could be seen as a consort for Jesus. The point I wish to bring out mainly in reference to who Jesus is is that he was the focus of Paul’s teaching. It was about Jesus and who he was and that he rose from the dead. What makes a Jew go from talking about the work of YHWH to the work of Jesus? I wonder….

I’d like to use this chance to bring out some practical advice however from the mention of Paul in Athens. Paul was debating with the Stoics and the Epicureans. The Stoics could be compared to the pantheists of today and the Epicureans were the materialists. However, Paul was debating them and based on what we read, we have reason to believe Paul knew what he was talking about. After all, he got invited to speak before the Areopagus, which is something that doesn’t happen if you’re an idiot.

While Paul is speaking to the philosophers there, he doesn’t quote Scripture. Scripture is fine. I have no problem with it of course. However, pagans do not accept Scripture as an authority and when Paul spoke, he used their authorities. He was familiar with the writers that they used and he quoted them back at them.

Now some say Paul despaired of this technique. D.A. Carson sees this as simply an example of post hoc in his work “Exegetical Fallacies.” There is no connection between the two and Paul’s mission was not a failure. He did have a convert and there are references today to the work of Paul that he did at this place in Athens.

What’s the message we can learn? Be familiar with the ideas. If you’re going to speak to the philosophers, know their language. I find this ironic as I just got a call from my Dad while I was sitting here typing this telling me he was looking up philosophy in the encyclopedia and wanted to know about some names he came across.

If you want to go talk to the scientists, learn science. I don’t really do scientific apologetics often because science just isn’t my forte. I’m thankful for people who do that however. If you like science and you like apologetics, by all means go for it.

The bottom line is that Paul was an educated man and we need to get past this idea that Christianity is anti-intellectual. God does not want his followers to be dumb. He’s not calling for all of us to be leading scholars, but he is calling us to love him with our minds. Learning to think well should be the work of all Christians.

We’re going to get back to our Trinitarian study after spending yesterday at the movies. We’re going to be continuing through the book of Acts. We’re going to be moving ahead to chapter 16 and looking at verses 6-7 in the missionary journeys of Paul. Our question tonight will focus on the relationship of Jesus to the Holy Spirit. Let’s go to the text.

⁶Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. ⁷When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.

In this passage, Paul and his companions are wanting to do some evangelism in some areas, but along the way, they are stopped by the Holy Spirit somehow. How? We don’t know because the text doesn’t show us. At this point, some Mormons might want to show up and say that is the burning of the bosom. That would be up to them to show. I would be inclined to think it a prophetic utterance of some kind as such has been shown to happen in the Book of Acts. However, I am skeptical of the Mormon position because I do not believe it wise to base a doctrine and what could possibly be a method. It is built too much on silence.

However, when we get to verse 7, we find more evangelism being planned and we find this time that the Spirit of Jesus is preventing Paul and his companions from doing evangelism. What exactly is going on in these texts?

It’s interesting to note first off again the casualness with which these things are spoken of. There is no explanation in the text probably because it was seen to be understood by those who were familiar with such concepts reading the texts. We modern Westerners today can often have a problem with concepts of the ANE which shows us that we need to be more educated about their time as well as ours.

My thinking is that these are really referring to the same entity. The Holy Spirit is the one that is at work, but the Holy Spirit I believe takes on a role where he does submit to Christ, which seems fitting as he is said to be the silent person of the Trinity. What it means is that Jesus was addressing the work of the apostles through his Holy Spirit.

I wish to make it clear that we must avoid oneness thought. To say Jesus works through the agency of the Spirit is not to say that Jesus is the Spirit. What the Oneness person would have to show is that the person of the Son is actually the person of the Spirit and I do not believe that a likely interpretation of the text. If someone wishes to present that argument, they will have to give the reasons for that and also they would need to show the problems of Trinitarian thought as Trinitarians can easily interpret a verse like this without doing damage to the text. Can the Oneness do the same? I do not think so.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion some readers might have. Tomorrow we shall continue going through Acts.

Our thanks to Denny again and let me use that thanks as a chance to make an offering to anyone. If you’re an orthodox Christian (And I mean orthodox in your doctrine) and you want Deeper Waters to link to your blog, just say so. Hopefully in the near future, provided I remember, there will be a link to Denny’s blog as well. All I ask is that if I link you that you return the favor.

We’ve been studying the doctrine of the Trinity and all the facets that relate to it. Tonight, we’re going to be continuing in the book of Acts and we’re jumping ahead to Acts 13. Our emphasis tonight is not going to be on Jesus, but on the Holy Spirit as was the case in Acts 5. The text will be Acts 13:1-3.

¹In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. ²While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” ³So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

The church of Antioch became an early base for the Christian church. (It could have been where Matthew wrote his gospel also.) While there is a church service going on, the Holy Spirit speaks and tells the people to set apart Barnabas and Saul for the work to which he has called them.

Don’t read that too quickly. Keep in mind that the Jehovah’s Witnesses say the Holy Spirit is God’s active force and is not a person. If that’s the case, then there can be no Trinity. After all, the Trinity is the doctrine that God exists in three persons.

However, this is another problem text for the Witnesses. Let’s notice the first obvious problem. The Holy Spirit spoke. This is not a metaphorical speaking either as what we have following is a proposition that is uttered by the Holy Spirit.

The second thing is that the Holy Spirit says Saul and Barnabas are to be “set apart for me.” Now if an angel or a prophet spoke, they would have said “Set apart for YHWH” or “Set apart for the Lord.” Instead, when the Holy Spirit speaks, he says set apart for me. He doesn’t refer to someone else in any way. The reason he does this is that he is the one whom Saul and Barnabas will be serving and they will be serving him because he is deity.

The third thing to notice is that this is the work to which the Spirit has called them. The call of the Holy Spirit was seen as a divine call to which the church responded immediately. There’s also no questioning on the part of the church. Apparently, even if there wasn’t full Trinitarianism, they were able to accept the reality of the Spirit speaking and giving orders on par with God himself.

What do we have in this passage then? The Spirit speaks. The Spirit has workers set apart for him. The Spirit calls the workers. Doesn’t sound like an active force.

Instead, it seems to sound like deity….

Our thanks to ZDenny for his comment and who knows? Maybe that will happen on the future. Unfortunately, I’m not that skilled in the area, but I’m sure I can figure out how it’s done. Tonight, we will be continuing our look through the New Testament and the book of Acts as we seek to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We’ll be looking in the tenth chapter tonight at the conversion of the first Gentile to Christianity, Cornelius, and how Peter describes Jesus in this passage. The passage is Acts 10:36

You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

Up until now, the message of Christianity had by and large been going to the Jews. Now there is a report of it being shared with the Gentiles in Acts 9, but the first account we have of a Gentile being personally converted is right here in Acts 10.

Simon had been staying at the home of a tanner, which shows how quickly some of his beliefs were fading in the Law of Moses as a tanner would be considered unclean since they were dealing with the skin of dead animals. This was in the city of Joppa. Does the name sound familiar? It should. This is where Jonah fled to to book a ship to go to Tarshish so he could escape the message of going to the Gentiles in Nineveh.

Peter is about to get a similar message. He is on the roof praying when a cloth comes down from Heaven and there are unclean animals on it and Peter is told to rise and kill and eat. Peter replies three times that he has never eaten anything unclean and is told to not call clean what God has made clean.

It is after this that he receives word to go to the home of Cornelius who has been told by an angel to send for him.

Peter now sees the truth. God is opening up the blessings of Christ to the Gentiles. It is in this context that Peter says that he now sees that God makes no distinction. He accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.

We are then told Jesus is Lord of all.

Well, the text simply says “all.” From the context, we could at least gather that Jesus is the Lord of both Israelites and Gentiles, and even then I believe we have sufficient case for seeing who Peter thought Jesus was. After all, who is the Lord of Israel? It is YHWH. Let’s look at it this way.

The Lord of Israel is YHWH.

Jesus is the Lord of Israel.

Jesus is YHWH.

Peter has added in Gentiles to this as well which means that Jesus is the Lord of everyone. Everyone bows down to him, which would fit what Peter said in Acts 2 that this same Jesus is Lord and Christ.

Yes. Jesus is Lord of all.

The question for the reader is, do you realize that? If so, what do you plan to do about it?

Hello everyone. Our thanks to Don for his comment on the last blog. I had hoped to find the Watchtower magazine where someone did ask once about that passage in Acts, but alas, I could not. Tonight, we’re going to continue through the book of Acts and we’ll be talking about the conversion of Saul who we now know today as the apostle Paul. This is an exceptionally long passage and so I have decided that I won’t quote it. Instead, I encourage the reader to open their Bible or at least a web Bible to the passage. It’s Acts 9. We’ll look at verses 1-19.

Saul is on the rampage and the text says that he is  breathing out threats against the disciples of the Lord. The idea is that his every moment was spent in doing whatever he could to stop the new movement. While we did not cover it, we are first introduced to Saul as the one who oversaw the death of Stephen.

Saul is continuing on his journey to gather more Christians and bring them to the high priest when he is stopped on his journey by a light from Heaven. He falls to the ground and he hears a voice saying “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

This is an interesting idea already as Saul has not done anything to the Lord physically, but the attack on the disciples of the Lord is seen as an attack on the Lord himself. Saul’s reply is interesting as well as he asks “Who are you, Lord?”

Well wouldn’t that be obvious?

After all, this is an orthodox Jew we’re talking about and the only one they would know as Lord would be YHWH wouldn’t it? Is Saul having to ask if this is YHWH? And yet, when there is a reply, there are some connotations that come from that reply. Saul is told that the one who is speaking to him is Jesus and he has been identified as Lord.

Switch to Ananias who is in Damascus and is praying and the Lord speaks to him in a vision. Do we have any reason to think that the person who is referred to by the title of Lord here is any different than the one who was identified as the Lord to Paul? No.

It is amazing that all of a sudden after the resurrction, there is no hesitancy by the followers of Christ to refer to him as Lord. It was the resurrection that convinced them of the divine claims that he made and showed them that he had in himself the power to overcome death. Other resurrections had involved a prophet speaking or coming in contact with one somehow. There was none of that for Jesus. He came back by his own power.

In verse 15, the Lord also tells Ananias that Saul is a chosen instrument of his to bear his name before the Gentiles, kings, and sons of Israel. He also says that Saul will have to suffer much for the sake of his name.

Now either we have a Jesus of the same nature as YHWH, or we have one on a massive ego trip. Who is it that makes choices of this sort in the OT? It’s YHWH? Whose name is it that is sought to be glorified? It’s YHWH. Who is it whose name we are to suffer for? It’s YHWH.

And yet here, it’s Jesus, as Ananias confirms in verse 17 speaking of the Lord Jesus. Those words were not lost on Saul. The one he had been persecuting was the one he had thought he was serving.

It’s arguments like this I actually find quite convincing of who Jesus is. The way we overlook these simple references is astounding. All throughout this section we have a clear picture of who Jesus is, and yet this is one we hardly go to to show who Jesus is.

Let’s change that.

Hello everyone and welcome back to our Trinity study. Our thanks to Dan for guessing at the prophecy Stephen had in mind in Acts 7. Unfortunately, that’s not it. Do you really want to know what passage it is? Stay tuned since I do plan on discussing it tonight.

Last time, we started discussing what Stephen said and how the Jehovah’s Witnesses, among other groups, use that passage in an attempt to disprove the deity of Christ. It’s quite amusing that they like to go to a passage like that, but yet a passage that gives them an exceptionally hard time is just three verses down and they ignore that one completely. I had hoped to find something at their website on this passage but a look at the Watchtower website unfortunately gave no hits when I searched for Acts 7:59. I wonder why….

Of course, that is our text for tonight, to get the broader context, we’ll be doing Acts 7:57-60:

⁵⁷At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, ⁵⁸dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

⁵⁹While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” ⁶⁰Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

The problem the JWs have with this is that this is a prayer, but it is one that is prayed to Jesus and addressing him as Lord and the one who would receive Jesus’s Spirit. Stephen is pointing back to the example his Lord followed when he said “Into my hands I commit my spirit.” Stephen is doing that now and instead of commiting his spirit into the hands of the Father as some might suspect, he is commiting his spirit into the hands of Christ.

This is also something that is exceptionally early in the church and has a reference to a passage where Jesus is seen as deity. Are you wondering what passage I was referring to? I suggest opening your Bibles and turning to Daniel 7 and seeing what we have.

We have the Ancient of Days in a vision which would mean God the Father. We have thrones that are there. We have the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days. This is one of the few times after the gospels when the term “Son of Man” is used and it is not a coincidence that that is the same term that is used in Daniel 7.

Stephen is pointing to that event and saying that Jesus is indeed the Son of Man that was spoken of and he is the one who will receive the kingdom. When we looked at that passage earlier, we saw strong connotations of deity on the part of the one who is the Son of Man. Now as much as I love the eschatology of the passage, I’m not going to give in and write on that. I leave that for yourselves to work out.

The conclusion is that the early church did see Jesus on an equal level with God so much that he could be addressed in prayer. This is a problem verse for Jehovah’s Witnesses and I recommend using it.

We shall continue our study tomorrow.

Hello everyone. Tonight we’re going to continue our look through the book of Acts. Now what I’m going to get into tonight I believe does have some eschatological significance, but I will not be discussing eschatology tonight due to my stance on not discussing secondary issues. (And yes, I’m somehow going to pull that off when I get to the book of Revelation.) We’re going to be covering the reaction to Stephen’s prayer in Acts 7 and we have two parts to look at on this one. Tonight we’ll be looking at Acts 7:54-56.

⁵⁴When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. ⁵⁵But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ⁵⁶“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

I’ve heard this one from both Mormons and JWs. In fact, I’m dialoguing with someone now who is stressing that God is seen as separate and distinct from Jesus in the NT. I wonder what the problem with this is. God when spoken of of YHWH in the NT often refers to the Father and of course the Father is distinct from the Son. Whatever could be the problem?

Tonight’s verse is along those lines with the JWs. The Jehovah’s Witnesses will point to a passage like this with the clear anthropomorphisms and state that based on that passage, it is obvious that Jesus cannot be God since he is on the right hand of God.

The Mormons, on the other hand, will use this to point to God being in a body since it speaks of the right hand of God. I believe this is a vision however. Those interested can consider what vision this might be a reference to because I believe the case is strong that Stephen has in mind a certain OT vision. Consider it some fun for you the readers to try to figure out which one it could be. Since that is the case, I do not believe a vision is meant to give us a literal picture but to paint an image of something in a way we can understand.

Now moving back to the JWs, when we go to the text, the text does indeed say that Jesus is standing at the right hand of God to which I say “Yeah. He is. Your point?” There is a consistent problem with JWs and other cultists that when they want to deny the deity of Christ, they do not go to passages that speak of ontology. They go to passages that speak of function and argue an ontology from there. If you want to know who Jesus is, the best place to go is to passages that speak of his ontology. Now you later figure out his function in relation to that or how Jesus can submit to the Father and be ontologically equal to him, but you don’t draw the ontology from the function.

Furthermore, since God usually refers to the Father, what else do we expect? The Arian still comes with the assumption that God is one person only and only one person can be in the divine identity. Well if that’s true, then Jesus is definitely out, but that’s the assumption and it has yet to be proven. You should not approach the text with that assumption. Approach the text and see what it says and then make your ideas fit the text instead of making the text fit your ideas.

Tonight, we’ve answered the objection. Tomorrow, we’ll give the argument in this passage for who Jesus is.

We’re going through the New Testament now here at Deeper Waters trying to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re in the book of Acts for the moment. Now the majority of our time has been spent in the New Testament looking at the deity of Christ. Tonight, we’re going to look at the deity of the Holy Spirit, which is also essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. We will be looking at Acts 5:1-11.

¹Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. ²With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.³Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? ⁴Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

⁵When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. ⁶Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

⁷About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

⁹Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

¹⁰At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

If you’ve done any Trinitarian apologetics, you should know this passage. It is one of the main ones used in defending the deity of the Holy Spirit and not only his deity, but his personality, contrary to the idea of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Holy Spirit is a force.

The charge is that you don’t lie to a force and I agree with that. We’ll see throughout the epistles especially that the Holy Spirit is spoken of in personal terms and when we come to passages that seem to indicate he’s less than personal, we’ll show that this is not so.

The charge in this passage is a strong one as Ananias and Sapphira have been caught making false claims in the early church. Now the problem was not that they kept money for themselves. There was no wrong in that. The problem was how they wanted to appear to the early community.

Such an offense was taken seriously I believe to show that God did still take sin seriously in the New Testament. This would go against any idea that Christianity means you can do whatever you want and there are no consequences. God was still wanting his people to live holy lives, not for their salvation, but because that was what they were meant to be and that was something that Christ had revealed to them.

Peter tells Ananias that he has lied to the Holy Spirit and later that he has lied to God, a way of putting them on an equal playing level. He later tells Sapphira that she has tested the Spirit of the Lord. Combined together, we have a case that these two chose to challenge God but in this case, Peter referred to indicate the ministry of the Spirit.

The Spirit of the Lord knew what was going on and would not allow it. Ananias and Sapphira paid the price for wanting to have a show of religion while denying the message of truth behind that religion.

Let’s make sure we aren’t doing the same today.