Category: Trinitarian Commentary

Hello everyone. We’re back to continue our study of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures. We’re in the book of Acts at the moment. We’ve been going through trying to find clues for the Trinity, although trying isn’t the best word as the Trinity is everywhere in the Bible. Today, we’re going to be in Acts 22:17-21.

 ¹⁷“It happened when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I fell into a trance,

 ¹⁸and I saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me.’

 ¹⁹“And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves understand that in one synagogue after another I used to imprison and beat those who believed in You.

 ²⁰‘And when the blood of Your witness Stephen was being shed, I also was standing by approving, and watching out for the coats of those who were slaying him.’

 ²¹“And He said to me, ‘Go! For I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'”

The account here is Paul before the crowd in Jerusalem after he has been accused of bringing Gentiles into the part of the temple where they were not supposed to be. Paul is giving his defense of what he is doing and in doing such, he is recounting the events of what happened to him on the Damascus Road. I invite the reader to read the whole chapter so they can be entirely certain of the context.

Paul describes going back to Jerusalem and being in prayer and then seeing “Him.” Who is “Him?” There’s no reason to believe this is anyone besides Jesus himself, but notice how the conversation goes between Paul and Jesus as we look into this dialogue.

Jesus tells Paul to make haste and escape. The people in Jerusalem will not accept the testimony Paul has to make about Jesus. The interesting aspect of this one is that Paul’s testimony was going to be about Jesus. He had already become the focus of the Christian message.

Paul addresses Jesus and refers to him as Lord. We have no reason to believe Paul is speaking to the Father for earlier in this chapter, he has referred to Jesus as the Lord in the dialogue that happened when Saul was blinded on the road to Damascus. He not only addresses Jesus as Lord but speaks about imprisoning and beating those who believed in Jesus. The distinguishing mark early on was that the Christian was one who believed in Jesus.

Next, Paul speaks about the death of Stephen and tells the Lord that he was the Lord’s witness. Stephen was then a witness of Jesus. Keep in mind that all this is happening in prayer which would seem to indicate that Paul is praying to Jesus or at least speaking to Jesus in prayer. Stephen is identified as the witness of Jesus instead of the witness of YHWH, an interesting concept considering Isaiah 43;10 refers to being a witness of YHWH, a verse the JWs identify themselves with. (Yet one wonders if they could identify themselves as Jesus witnesses, which is what was to happen according to Acts 1:8.

What’s the point in all of this? There was a shift early in the history of the church and practically immediate where Jesus was put on the same level as YHWH. It has been said that this would be the earliest way Christians would see Jesus. He would be included in the divine identity. The material we see in Acts certainly lends itself to that belief.

We shall continue with this tomorrow.

Hello readers. We’re continuing our look through the New Testament as we hope to come to a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine of God that sets Christianity apart from all other religions. We’ve been going through the book of Acts. Tonight, our look will not focus on Jesus, which it usually is, but will rather focus on the person of the Holy Spirit, though we will mention Jesus also. We’re going to be in Acts 21 and looking at verses 10-14:

¹⁰After we had been there a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. ¹¹Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, “The Holy Spirit says, ‘In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’ ”

¹²When we heard this, we and the people there pleaded with Paul not to go up to Jerusalem. ¹³Then Paul answered, “Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.”¹⁴When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, “The Lord’s will be done.”

The focus here is on verse 11. Agabus was a prophet who was mentioned earlier and now he shows up again to make a prophecy. What is interesting is the source of the prophecy and the way the source is acting. The Holy Spirit says this. Agabus is getting a prophecy and saying that the words are what the Holy Spirit is saying.

In biblical understanding, God would always be the main source of prophecy and to attribute a prophecy to the Holy Spirit speaks of how the writer of the text viewed the Holy Spirit. As we have seen in Acts 5, the Holy Spirit was seen as deity. When we got to Acts 13, we saw even more signs of this and saw that personal actions were attributed to the Holy Spirit. As we look at this text, we do not find anything that goes against our earlier thesis, but rather we find more support for it which leads to questioning the JW idea of the Holy Spirit being a force.

This is further emphasized by the idea of the way the prophetic utterance is spoken as it parallels the way the Old Testament prophets spoke in saying what the Lord said. Agabus came and put the Holy Spirit on the same level.

Note also the word about Jesus in verse 13. Paul is ready to die for the name of the Lord Jesus. This points to a high Christology in Paul in that he is instead of speaking of the name of Jesus rather than the name of YHWH. If you’re a Trinitarian, this makes sense in that you have Jesus on the same level as the Father and can say due to ontological equality that you are ready to die for the name of Jesus. It doesn’t make sense for an Arian. It’s interesting how the name of Jesus is emphasized so much in the NT but not the name of YHWH. (Which also interestingly never occurs in the NT.)

We shall continue our study tomorrow.

We’re continuing our study of the doctrine of the Trinity tonight. We’re going to be in the book of Acts and studying a passage that is often controversial. My main source for this will be Murray J. Harris’s work “Jesus as God” which goes into much more detail than I can on the topic. One reason he goes into much more than I can is that Harris is highly skilled in the Greek and I am not. He knows the works of the scholars better than I and anyone wanting a more in-depth look is advised to go to Harri’s work. We’ll be looking at a verse he examines, Acts 20:28, but getting the whole context by reading Acts 20:25-31.

²⁵I have gone from place to place, preaching to you about God’s kingdom, but now I know that none of you will ever see me again. ²⁶I tell you today that I am no longer responsible for any of you! ²⁷I have told you everything God wants you to know. ²⁸Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God’s church. It is the flock that he bought with the blood of his own Son.  ²⁹I know that after I am gone, others will come like fierce wolves to attack you. ³⁰Some of your own people will tell lies to win over the Lord’s followers. ³¹Be on your guard! Remember how day and night for three years I kept warning you with tears in my eyes.

I had to search through a number of translations until I got to the CEV which agrees with the view I will be representing tonight. I do not believe this is a Trinitarian text, but having said that, I don’t believe it goes against the Trinity either.

I think one of the great dangers would be the idea of the blood of God. As Harris points out, we do not have references to God dying on the cross or God being resurrected. We could have a similar problem with the idea of God’s blood. After all, we as Trinitarians do not believe God died. We believe a person who had the full nature of God died on a cross. God never died, but Jesus died in his humanity in that he experienced the separation of his soul from his body.

This could get us into the area of patripassianism. The idea is that the Father suffered through the Son when the Son died. I am a defender of the impassibility of God in that I do not believe God is the receptor of emotions in that he responds to them in a temporal sense. I believe he is experiencing any emotion or activity in the eternal now. God is not responsive. He is ultimately proactive in that he acts knowing how we will respond to any actions. It’s a surefire recipe for a headache!

The idea of the blood of God would be problematic as it could lead to a bodily idea of God. For this reason and those within the text, Harris goes with the idea that the main thrust of the passage is that God has acted in purchasing the church through the blood of his Son. He doesn’t rule out that this could be a reference to Jesus as being God, but just sees it as unlikely.

Should a Trinitarian be bothered? Not in the least. We have hundreds of different passages we can use. As a Trinitarian however, I believe I must be honest and if I don’t see something taught in a passage of Scripture, I will not say it is there. This is something we should all learn. We should not accept something because it supports our view unless we believe it is a true argument. We should not reject something on the same grounds unless it’s based on a true argument.

We shall continue tomorrow.

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.