Why Was God Displeased at Babel?

Posted on January 31, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

The events at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) occurred not long after the Flood.  If the division of the earth in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) refers to the events at Babel (and I think that it does), then the events at Babel occurred about a century after the Flood [Peleg was born 101 years after the Flood (Genesis 11:10 + 11:12 + 11:14 + 11:16)].  If this is not correct, then it must have occurred between  the Flood and the call of Abram, a period of about four centuries {Abram’s call came 395 years after the Flood [Genesis 11:10 + 11:12 + 11:14 + 11:16 + 11:18 + 11:20 + 11:22 + 11:24 + (12:4 – 11:32)].  Note: Genesis 11:26 seems to mean that this is when Terah began to have sons, not that they were triplets (e.g. Noah’s sons Genesis 5:32 cf. 7:6; 11:10).  Abram did not leave Haran until Terah died (Acts 7:4)}.

The events at Babel changed the world.  Man was of one language and one speech (Genesis 11:1).  Due to the events at Babel, the LORD made it where man was (and is) no longer was united in language.

Obviously the LORD was displeased with something at Babel.  But what?  Let’s explore this…

Theories

1.   Theory One: They did not want to comply with God’s command.

“They said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city… lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the earth'” (Genesis 11:4).

Josephus wrote, “They settled on the Plain of Shinar, and grew so numerous that God counseled them to send out colonies.  In their disobedience, they imagined that God was trying to divide them and make them vulnerable to attack.  So they followed Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who set up a tyranny” (Antiquities 1).

2.  Theory Two: They were prideful.

“They said, ‘Come let us build a city, and a tower… let us make a name for ourselves…'” (Genesis 11:4).

The river plains of Shinar seems to have lacked stones and lime-stone (mortar) for building (Clark, Genesis, p. 89).  This did not stop them. They were making bricks for stones. They used asphalt (bitumen) for mortar. They were building a city.  They were building a high tower.  Was there nothing that they could not do?  James Burton Coffman commented, “The children of men… were clearly infected with the ‘us’ virus, the pride arrogance, and conceit of the people standing starkly obvious in this cryptic account (Coffman, Genesis, p. 159).  It is said that Nimrod taught the people that happiness came not from serving God, “but to believe that it was their own courage which procured happiness” (Josephus, Antiquities 1).

What about the tower? Some have suggested that the tower was to be a fortified watch tower to protect against attacks from other people.

3.  Theory Three: They were trying to escape another flood.

“They said, ‘Come let us build… a tower whose top is in the heavens…'” (Genesis 11:4).

Josephus wrote, “So they followed Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who sat up a tyranny and began building a tower higher than any water could reach in case God wanted to flood the earth again” (Antiquities 1).

4.  Theory Four: They were idolatrous.

“They said, ‘Come, let us build… a tower whose top is in the heavens” (Genesis 11:4).

The King James Version reads, “a tower whose top may reach unto heaven.”  Adam Clark commented, “there is nothing for ‘may reach’ in the Hebrew, but its head or summit to the heavens, i.e. to the heavenly bodies… The Targums both of Jonathan ben Uzziel and of Jerusalem, assert the tower was for idolatrous worship” (Clark, Vol. 1, p. 89).

Mesopotamian towers, known as Ziggurats or Zikkurate, are thought to have been part of ancient temple structures.  Some believe that the tower was such a structure.

Assessment of Theories

The reason that there are various theories is because the Bible provides limited information.  Therefore, men theorize.  Let’s assess these theories.

1.  Theory One seems possible.  Certainly, their motive was to prevent being scattered.  This is stated.

Let us remember: “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Samuel 15:23).

2.  Theory Two is more than a theory.  They wanted to make a name for themselves.  Keith Mosher Sr. has written, “The people were building a memorial to themselves…  Their real motive was a desire for renown and for unity of self-purpose rather than God-purpose” (Ed. Curtis Cates, The Book of Genesis, p. 184). They seem to have had the same attitude that Nebuchadnezzar later had when he said, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my power and for the honor of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:30).

Let us remember: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18); and “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (James 4:10).

What about the theory the tower was a fortified watch tower to protect against attacks from others? I ask: attacks from whom? It appears that at least most, if not all of humanity were at Babel. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, if it was a fortified tower, still pride or something else had to be involved for God to so react. God is not against nations protecting their citizens.

3.  Theory Three is not hinted at in the Bible.  Moreover, there seems to be obvious problems with this view.  Consider: (1) Who could make a tower so high, and strong enough to withstand the forces of water found in a global flood?  (2) If they were making the tower for this purpose, wouldn’t it make much more sense to build the tower on a high mountain top, instead of in the Mesopotamian valley area?  The elevation of that land is not high.  (3) If such a tower could be built, certainly it could not hold the entire population at the top, could it? This theory makes little sense to me.

Let us remember that no one can escape God’s wrath by such a strategy.  Remember the words of Amos, “It will be as though a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him!  Or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him!  (Amos 5:19).

4.  Theory Four is not clearly taught in the Bible.  It is possible that they were worshipping objects in the sky; but this theory seems to lack sufficient evidence.

Let us remember: “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve” (Matthew 4:10).

Lessons to Remember

1.  Not all unity is pleasing to God.  They were united at Babel in sin.

The kind of unity needed is found in these words: “only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27).

2.  Sin may have long-lasting consequences.  Men still have difficulty communicating because of differences in language.

However, the gospel is designed to unite man.  The Holy Spirit provided inspired men the gift of tongues to proclaim the gospel in the first century (cf. Acts 2:5-11).  The message of the gospel is for all of mankind (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47; Romans 1:16).  The gospel is the great unifier (cf. Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 3:10-11).

3.  While we may not have all the details, the events at Babel seem to be about an old issue: Who do we ultimately serve?  God or self?  God or society (and national pride)?  God or some other?  Who will be God?

 

 

Posted in josephus, pride, Textual study, Tongue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If You’ve Been Comforted, Comfort Others

Posted on January 20, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Corinthians 1:3-4).

God be blessed (eulogetos, praised).  The original word is used, in the New Testament, only of  God.  Why was Paul praising God?  The answer is that God had comforted Paul and Timothy (“us” cf. 2 Corinthians 1:1) and Silvanus  (“us” cf. 2 Corinthians 1:19).

How did God comfort them?  (1) Comfort is provided by God’s revelation, which came through inspired men like Paul and Timothy (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17).  Is this in view?  Paul wrote, in this very book, “Therefore we do not lose heart.  Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.  For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen.  For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).  Paul knew of “the things which are not seen” by revelation.  (2) Comfort came to Paul, and his company, by the coming of Titus, and Titus’ report.  Notice: “When we came to Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were troubled on every side.  Outside were conflicts, inside were fears.  Nevertheless God, who comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not only by his coming, but also by the consolation with which he was comforted in you, when he told us of your earnest desire, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even more.  For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it.  For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry only for a while.  Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance… For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: what diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication!  In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter” (2 Corinthians 7:5-11).  This I believe fits the context.  God’s inspired message through Paul had brought these brethren to repentance. This bought comfort to Paul.

Paul’s attitude was that those who had received comfort, should help comfort others.  Adam Clark comments, “Even spiritual comforts are not given for our use alone; they, like all the gifts of God, are given that they may be distributed, or become instruments to help others” (Clark’s Commentary, Vol. 6, p. 314).  Consider this: The revelations given to men like Paul, was not given for the benefit of these men alone (cf. Romans 1:14; 2 Corinthians 5:13; Ephesians 3:1-7; 1 Peter 1:10-12).

God gives the Christians comfort even in the face of difficulties (cf. John 16:3; Romans 15:4).  The spiritually mature find this comfort.  It is their duty to help others also experience this comfort.  Consider these passages: (1) “Therefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thessalonians 4:18); (2) “Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing” (1 Thessalonians 5:11).  (3) “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all… pursue what is good both for yourself and all” (1 Thessalonians 5:14-15).

Posted in Christian Influence, Example, Fellowship, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cursed Be Canaan

Posted on January 14, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

A preacher and dear friend in Africa contacted me, asking me to explain why Noah cursed Canaan (Genesis 9:18-27).  Let’s consider the text…

“Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.  Then he drank of the wine and was drunk and became uncovered in his tent” (Genesis 9:20-21).

This is the first record of drunkenness in the Bible.  Marion Fox suggests, “It is possible that yeast would not ferment in the antediluvian atmosphere… The Pasteur point (the Pasteur effect or Pasteur reaction) at which cells turn from fermentation to respiration might be reached by yeast in the antediluvian atmosphere.  If so, yeast would not ferment grape juice and Noah would not have known about alcoholic beverages” (Fox, A Study of The Biblical Flood, p. 68).  Is this the explanation?  Or, did Noah with full knowledge of what alcoholic wine could do, become drunk.  Henry Morris was of this opinion writing, “Scripture does not hesitate to call attention to the failures of even the most saintly of even the most saintly of men.  Noah, having stood strong against the attacks of evil men for hundreds of years… now let don his guard, as it were, when it seemed that all would be peace and victory from now on” (Morris, The Genesis Record, p. 233). It seems that some time has passed since the flood (cf. Genesis 7:7; 1 Peter 3:20); though, this does not settle the matter.

The Bible later warns about wine.  “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1).  “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper” (Proverbs 23:31-32).

“And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.  But Shem and Japheth took a garment laid it on their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father.  Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness” (Genesis 9:22-23).

William W. Grasham comments, “The account does not record what Ham told his brothers or with what attitude he spoke of the incident.  Was he inviting them to look at his father’s nakedness…?  Was he ridiculing his father…”  (Editor Eddie Cloer, Truth For Today Commentary, Genesis, p. 280).  Ham seems to have gossiped (at the very least) instead of covering the nakedness, as the other two brothers.  Love does not so behave (1 Corinthians 13:1-7).

So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.  Then he said: cursed be Canaan…” (Genesis 9:24-ff).

Who is the younger son (youngest son, ESV)?  (1) Some think this refers to Ham.  However, Ham is always mentioned in the middle (Genesis 5:32; 7:13; 9:18; 10:1).  It seems natural to list the sons according to birth order (e.g. 2 Samuel 3:2-5).  Either Japheth (cf. NKJV) or Shem (cf. NASB, ESV) appears to be the oldest (Genesis 10:21).  (2) The term “son” can be used in Bible a few different ways: (a) Son (Genesis 4:25); (b) Grandson or more remote descendant (Matthew 1:1); (c) Son-in-law (1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (d) Step-son, legal son (Luke 4:22); (e) Son by leverite law (Deuteronomy 25:5-6 cf. Matthew 22:24-26).  Therefore, some think that this refers to Canaan.  Canaan may have been Noah’s youngest grandson (cf. Genesis 10:6).

What did the younger son do?  Speculation abounds.  (1) Some think that this refers to Ham’s gossip and disrespectful behavior.  (2) Some think that Ham conceived Canaan through incest.  The incestuous relations with one’s father’s wife is referred to as uncovering the father’s nakedness (Leviticus 20:11).  The theory is that Ham was with his mother while Noah was drunk.  However, the text says nothing like this.  The nakedness in context is literal.  Shem and Japheth cover Noah.  (3) Some think Ham did something sexual to Noah. They think  that to see Noah’s nakedness means to have sexual intercourse with him (cf. Leviticus 20:17-21).  However, again let us point out that this does not seem to fit how the words are used in context (Genesis 9:22 cf. 9:23).  (4) Some have suggested that Ham castrated Noah, and that Noah cursed Ham’s youngest offspring since he himself could now have no more offspring. The Bible does not even hint at such. (5) Some think that Canaan also gossiped about Noah, and mocked him, along with Ham. However, the text is silent on such.  (6) Some think that Canaan did something to Noah while he was undressed.  James Burton Coffman speculated, “When Ham talked about his father’s condition to Shem and Japheth, the conclusion must be allowed that Canaan, Ham’s son, in that gossip learned about Noah’s shameful condition, and then acting independently of his father, he went to Noah and dishonored his grandfather.  We are not told exactly what he did, but it was certainly more than ‘looking on’ Noah’s uncovered state, otherwise Noah could not possibly have known it upon recovering from his drunkenness.  That action of Canaan was the second offense against Noah.  As man able scholars have pointed out that offense was almost certainly some form of sexual sin” (Coffman, Genesis, p.141).  This last explanation makes sense to me, and provides a possible answer as to why the curse was upon Canaan.  However, the text does not fill in the details.  It is best not to teach theories as facts.

However, let us not miss a clear point.  Instead of gossiping, we should show respect and help for one another.  Matthew Henry commented, “The pious care of Shem and Japheth to cover their poor father’s shame, v. 23.  They not only would not see it themselves, but provided that no one else might see it, herein setting us an example of charity with other men’s sin and shame… There is a mantle of love to be thrown over the faults of all… There is a robe of reverence to be thrown over the faults of parents and other superiors” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1, pg. 60).

Posted in drugs, Ethics, Textual study, Tongue, Wine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pitch-pipes and PowerPoint

Posted on January 8, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

Members of the church of Christ have historically emphasized that the Bible teaches that we should have Biblical authority for what we do.  God has required such.  He did under the Old Covenant (e.g. Leviticus 10:1-2; 1 Samuel 13:9-14; 2 Chronicles 26:16-21).  He does under the New Covenant (e.g. Acts 15:22-24; Colossians 3:17 – Thayer indicates that to do a thing “in the name of” is used of “by one’s command and authority” ; Vine’s indicates that it can mean “in recognition of the authority of”).

Some ask “What about pitch-pipes?” and “What about PowerPoint?”  I believe that there are two types of people who ask such questions.  (1) Some are people who do not believe in this hermeneutical approach to the Bible.  They reject the need to limit worship (and other matters) to what is authorized by explicit statements, accounts of action (examples), and implication in the Bible.  Therefore, they ask such questions to ridicule the need for authority (reduction ad absurdum), or to expose what they believe is an inconsistency in our practice (note: showing an inconsistency in us does not prove their position).  (2) Others are people who believe that we must have Biblical authority for what we do.  However, they do not understand how such things are authorized.

People may ask these questions for different reasons.  Whatever the reason, let us provide an answer.

 Generic Command v. Specific Command

A generic command is a command to do something, but certain specifics are not mentioned.  A few examples: (1) Christians are to assemble on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).  The hour has not been specified.  God has left it to man to decide.  The place has not be specified.  Israelite males were required to worship in Jerusalem, three times per year (Deuteronomy 16:16 cf. 2 Chronicles 7:12; 1 Kings 12:27; Luke 2:41-42).  No such requirement exists for Christians.  The church met in various locations (Acts 8:1; 13:1; 18:22; Romans 16:1; 16:3-5; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 16:19; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2; 1 Peter 5:13; Revelation 1:11; 2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14).  (2) Christians are to give on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1-2).  How this giving is to be collected is not specified.  Should it be dropped into a box?  Should we pass a hat?  God has left such details to man.  (3) Christians are to sing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).  The type of songs are specified: psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.  However, the specific songs and how to start these songs are not specified.  Therefore, God has left such to man (e.g. song books, song leader, the pitch and speed of the song).

A specific command is a command to do something with certain things specified.  A few examples: (1) God did not just tell Noah to build the ark; He told Noah to build the ark out of gopher wood, with certain features, and dimensions (Genesis 6:13-16).  Where God has specified, man is not at liberty.  (2) God did not tell Christians to make music (any music).  He specified the type of music (singing) and the type of songs to be used (psalms, hymns and spiritual songs).  (3) Jesus did not tell His disciples to eat and drink something remembering Him.  He specified the elements (Matthew 26:26-28).  Unleavened bread (cf. Exodus 12) and the fruit of the vine (grape juice) are to be used.

Expedient v. Addition

I am using the word ‘expedient’ to refer to an aid to carry out God’s command.  A few examples: (1) Saws and hammers may have been expedients to Noah’s building the ark.  (2) A collection plate may be an expedient to gathering the collection.  (3) A podium may be an expedient to preaching and teaching.  (4) Song books may be an expedient to singing.  So also may be the use of an overhead projector or PowerPoint to display the words and musical notes of the song.  An expedient does not add to what is being done.

I am using the word ‘addition’ to refer to an unauthorized addition to what God commanded.  A few examples: (1) The use of another kind of wood in the ark (e.g. oak, pine, etc.) would have been an addition.  (2) The use of chicken and iced tea, along with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine, would be an addition.  (3) The use of purely patriotic songs, along with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, would be an addition.  (4) The use of instrumental music in our worship is an addition to the command to sing.

Pitch-Pipe

It is possible for one to use the pitch-pipe as a musical instrument, like a harmonica, to play a tune.  Moreover, it could be used this way with the intent of worshipping God.  Such would be an addition.

However, it is an expedient to use a pitch-pipe to get a pitch in preparation to leading a song.  There is no intent to worship with such.  The pitch-pipe ceases to be blown before the intended song of worship begins.

Consider this comparison.  A song leader may clear his throat before leading a song.  He does so preparing to worship in song.  He does not do so as a part of worship  N.B. Hardeman said in one of his tabernacle sermons of 1923, “I have been told …that there is just as much scripture for the organ or piano or flute or violin as there is the tuning fork…  they are not parallel…You watch what a tuning fork does… I strike it here, and it gives the pitch of the music to be sung…When does worship begin? In the singing of the song. There was an old gentleman in my town who in answer to this, once made this remark  ‘the difference between a tuning fork and the organ is this: that the tuning fork has enough respect for God to quit before worship begins, while an organ continues all the way through.’ Let me say to my friends who use the organ that if you would use it as a tuning fork, let it stop before we commence to worship God, I would not open my mouth against it.” (Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons Vol. 2, p. 278).  G.K. Wallace said, in the Wallace-Hunt debate of 1951, “All right, now what are we doing with the tuning fork?  We do not produce music with it.  The singing is a result.  The singing is a result of getting pitch.  You get the pitch”(Wallace-Hunt Debate, p. 37).  Guy N. Woods said, “The tuning fork gives the leader the pitch of the first note and is silent when the worship begins.  This is one great difference between a tuning fork and organ or piano – the tuning fork knows when to quit!” (Woods, Questions and Answers, Vol. 2, p. 34).

PowerPoint

It is an expedient to use PowerPoint.  In singing, its function may be likened to the song book (It displays the words and notes of the song).  In preaching and teaching it may function as a Bible (displaying the text being studied) or as a visual aid (much like white boards, chalk boards, overhead projectors, hand-out notes, flannel boards and sheet sermons – preachers of an earlier generation often presented their points on white sheets which were suspended before the audience).

The use of visual aids is authorized.  They were used in the Old covenant (e.g. Jeremiah 18:1-ff; 19:1-ff; Ezekiel 4:1-3; 12:1-7; 24:1-14).  They may be used under the New Covenant (e.g. Acts 21:10-11).

Let us be careful Bible students.  Let us discern between good and evil.  Let us discern between what is an expedient and what is an addition.

Posted in Apologetics, Bible authority, worship | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Loving Loyalty

Posted on December 27, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

Society is filled with self-centered people.  It always has been, to one degree or another.  It is all about them.  They are only your friends or close family members, so long as they see a direct benefit to them.  The Bible speaks of these type people (e.g. Job 6:15-17; Psalm 27:10; Proverbs 14:20; 23:22: 27:10; Luke 14:12-14; Mark 14:50; 2 Timothy 4:16, etc.).

Loyalty should characterize the people of God in the following relationships.  Let’s notice  –

1.   Loyalty is needed in our relationship with God.

Life is not always easy.  Job did not have it easy at every moment of his life.  However, his loyalty to God never wavered.  He said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return.  The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; Blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21 cf. Genesis 3:19; Psalm 90:3; Ecclesiastes 12:7).  Again, “Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” (Job 2:10); “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him” (Job 13:15).

This type of loyalty is essential to heaven.  Jesus said, “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10).  It takes trust. Paul said, “I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.  For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day” (2 Timothy 1:11-12).

“True-hearted, whole-hearted, faithful and loyal, King of our lives by Thy grace we will be/ True-hearted, whole-hearted, fullest allegiance Yielding henceforth to our glorious King” (Song: True-Hearted, Whole-Hearted by Frances Havergal).

“To Christ by loyal and be true; His banner be unfurled, and borne aloft till is secure the conquest of the world/ To Christ be loyal and be true; He needs brave volunteers, to stand against the pow’rs of sin moved not by frowns or fears/ To Christ be loyal and be true; In noble service prove your faith and your fidelity, the fervor or your love” (Song: To Christ Be True by Elisha Hoffman).

2.  Loyalty is needed in our relationship with brethren, and the local church.

Such loyalty is rare in this day.  Many church-hop, with little or no commitment to the local church and her work.  John Hobbs, citing a 1990 Newsweek article writes, “The baby boomers are returning to church, but the type of church they are looking for is one which offers support not salvation, help not holiness.  They are seeking a church that is convenient, entertaining, one that does not point out any problems in their life, one that does not preach a list of do’s and don’ts.  They do not want to feel guilty… They inspect congregations as if they were restaurants and leave if they find nothing to their taste… They don’t convert – they choose… Participation follows not out of duty or obligation usually but if it fits their needs… They do not want an authoritative church or guide… A group affirmation of self is at the top of the agenda, which is why some of the least demanding churches are not in greatest demand” (Hobbs, The Compelling Power of the Cross, pp. 71-72; Newsweek, December 17, 1990,  “And the Children Shall Lead Them – Young Americans Return to God” by Wade Roof). Sad! I do not think much has changed, since these words were written, concerning church shopping.  The consumer mentality asks, “What do you have to offer me, right now?”  It says, “the church is here to entertain me and my kids, and to cater to my wants and desires.” The consumer never really considers himself as a part of the church. The church is separate. It is exists to serve me.  The disciple mentality says, “It is the truth which sets man free.  Does this church stand for the truth?  True greatness is found in service.  How can I serve others?  Let me take up my cross and follow Him and His will in all that I do. I want to be a worker in the church and a part of the church.” The church is not seen as an institution completely separate from the members. Members of the Body make up the church.

Some are quick to leave over some real or imagined personal problem with another brother or sister in Christ. We are supposed to be brethren (e.g. I have five siblings, according to the flesh. I would never simply walk away from my relationship with them without diligently seeking to resolve the problem). Love should exist between us. Instead of rushing off, we should make great effort to resolve the matter (Matthew 18:15-17; Matthew 5:23-24;  1 Corinthians 13:1-7; Ephesians 4:1-3). Is leaving, without making a real effort to resolve the situation, really how God teaches us to handle things?

Some are quick to leave over some real or imagined difference in doctrine (even if that point of difference is not even understood by them to be a matter of salvation).  Do not misunderstand Me; I am not suggesting actual false teaching is to be tolerated (Romans 16:17; Galatians 1:6-9; 1 Timothy 6:3-5; Titus 1:10-13; 2 John 9-11; Revelation 2:14-16; 2:20-22, etc.).  However, shouldn’t we care enough about one another to reason with one another?  Is rushing off really the best way to handle things? And if we are going to leave over what is taught, shouldn’t we consider it something which is essential to salvation?

There are legitimate reasons to leave a church.  One may relocate to live in another location.  One may decide that his talents can be better used elsewhere.  One may decide that moving is necessary for spiritual growth or spiritual well-being. False doctrine and sin may be entrenched and tolerated.  Unbiblical things may be taking place; things which one has tried but cannot change.

However, church-hoppers we should not be.  Loyalty is needed to build a local church. Ask yourself where a local church, any local church, would be if all members were as committed as you.

3.  Loyalty is needed in our relationship with family.

Families in America, in many cases, are not what they should be.  Husbands and wives work against each other, and even divorce.  Parents are uninvolved and irresponsible, and even abandon their children.  Children show no respect, and even abandon their parents.  Family members do not talk to one another. Sad!

Loyalty is needed.  Our love of Christ, alone, should surpass our love for family (cf. Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26).

Husbands and wives should be loyal to one another.  Marriage ideally is for life (Matthew 19:6; Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39).  Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25).  Wives are to love their husbands and their children (Titus 2:4).  Husbands are not to cast off their wives, but are to rejoice with the wife of their youth (Proverbs 5:18). Wives are to be the helper of their husbands (Genesis 2:18; Proverbs 31:10-12,23).

Parents need to be loyal to their children.  Parents are not to abandon their children.  They are to educate their children in the way of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4; 2 Timothy 1:5 cf. 3:15).  Parents are to provide for their children (1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Corinthians 12:14; Titus 2:4-5; Proverbs 31:15, 21). Parents should help them grow in the four areas of life (intellectually, physically, spiritually, and socially cf. Luke 2:52).

Children need to be loyal to their parents.  They are to be obedient when young (Ephesians 6:1).  They are to be respectful and helpful, and even providing when old (Psalm 127:4-5; Proverbs 23:22; Matthew 15:4-6; 1 Timothy 5:4, 8, 16).  Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner report, “The economists Doug Bernheim, Andrei Shleifer and Larry Summers in using data from the U.S. government… Showed that an elderly parent in a retirement home is more likely to be visited by his grown children if they are expecting a sizable inheritance.  But wait, you say: maybe the offspring of wealthy families are simply more caring toward their elderly parents?  A reasonable conjecture – in which case you’d expect an only child of wealthy parents to be especially dutiful.  But the data shows no increase in retirement-home visits if a wealthy family has only one grown child; there needs to be at least two.  This suggest that the visits increase because of competition between siblings for the parents estate… Some governments, wise to the ways of the world, have gone so far as to legally require grown children to visit or support their aging moms and dads.  In Singapore, the law is known as the Maintenance of Parents Act.” (Levitt and Dubner, Super Freakonomics, pp. 105-106).  Sad!

4.  Loyalty is needed in our relationship to friends and family friends.

The world is filled with “fair-weathered friends” (cf. Job 6:15-17; Proverbs 14:20).  These “friends” are there in good times.  They disappear when times are not so good. They abandon one when health, emotional,  financial, and other difficulties come. Sad!

Some abandon old friends when a new friend comes along.  Sad!  Consider the words of Cicero, “Should new friends, assuming the deserve the designation, sometimes be ranked above old ones – in the same way we prefer young horses to old?  This is not a question which any human being ought to ask.  There are some things we can easily have too much of; but friendship is not one of them.  The older it is the better it ought to have become, like a wine that has improved with age.  There is truth in the saying that men must eat many a peck of salt together before they can know what friendship really means.  I am not saying that new friendships are to be despised – on the assumption that they really offer a prospect of bearing fruit, like blades of corn that fulfill their promise at the harvest.  Yet, the old friendships must still keep their place, for length of time and familiarity are by no means negligible factors.  To go back to the horses for a moment; other things being equal, everyone would prefer to use the mount he knows rather than an untrained and unfamiliar one.” (Cicero, On the Good Life, p. 210 – 211).  These are good words.

There should be loyalty.  The Bible says, “Do not forsake your own friend or your father’s friend” (Proverbs 27:10 cf. Matthew 7:12; 1 Corinthians 13:1-7).  True friendship is precious.  True friends help one another through life. True friends “bear one another’s burdens” [(Galatians 6:2), of course such is not specifically about friends]. True friends help each other to be better. “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friends” (Proverbs 27:17).

A word of caution is in order.  Loyalty to friends does not require that we remain with those who are continued influences on us to sin (Psalm 1:1-2; Proverbs 1:10-15; 13:20; 22:24-25; 1 Corinthians 15:33). I am speaking of a general pattern of evil influence, and not an occasional lapse of judgment or  transgression of which one is willing to repent. When our friends sin, we should seek to restore them (Galatians 6:1-2; James 5:19-20). We should not quickly forsake them.

There is not a greater friend to man than Jesus (John 15:13). He deserves our loyalty (Matthew 10:32-33).

“They tried my Lord and Master, With no one to defend, Within the halls of Pilate He stood without a friend/  The world may turn against Him, I’ll love Him to the end, And while on earth I’m living, My lord shall have a friend/ I’ll be a friend to Jesus, My life for Him I’ll spend; I’ll be a friend to Jesus, Until my years shall end” (song: I’ll Be A Friend to Jesus by Johnson Oatman)

Posted in Chruch, Endurance, Family, Fellowship, friends, Love, Marriage, Priorities | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

God: Anthropomorphism

Posted on December 21, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

Anthropomorphism (from the Greek Anthropos meaning man or human, and morphe meaning form or feature) is a figure of speech which is used in the Bible.   It is “an ascription of material  forms to God” (Clinton Lockhart, Principles of Interpretation, p. 182).  It helps man understand God.  It describes things unseen, by things which are seen.

Let us notice…

1.  God is spoken of as having eyes and ears.

“The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3).  He sees (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 23:23-24).  “There is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).  He is even able to look upon the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).  “There’s an Eye watching you… Every day mind the course you pursue… There’s an all-seeing Eye watching you” (Song: Watching You by J. M. Henson).

“The wages of the laborers which mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth” (James 5:4).  “The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their prayers” (1 Peter 3:12 cf. Psalm 34:15).  He hears. “There is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O LORD, You know it altogether” (Psalm 139:4).  We are accountable for our words (Matthew 12:36).

2.  God is spoken of as having nostrils.

The song of Moses says, “With the blast of Your nostrils the waters were gathered together; the floods stood upright like a heap; the depths congealed in the heart of the sea” (Exodus 15:8 cf. 14:21-22).  This speaks of His might.  Pleasing sacrifices are described as a sweet-smelling aroma to Him (Philippians 4:8 cf. Genesis 8:21; Exodus 29:18, etc.).  What do you think improper worship smells like to Him?  (1 Samuel 15:22; Amos 5:21-24; Malachi 1:7-8, 11-14).

3.  God is spoken of as having a mouth.

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4 cf. Deuteronomy 8:3).  Scripture is “inspired by God,” literally, “God breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).  There used to be a TV ad which said, “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.”  God has spoken.  Are we listening? May we be as Samuel, who said, “Speak, for Your servant hears” (1 Samuel 3:10). May we be as Cornelius, who said to Peter, “We are all present before God, to hear all things commanded you by God” (Acts 10:33).

4.  God is spoken of as having limbs (arms, hands, fingers, feet, and even wings).

God redeemed Israel out of Egypt by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm (Exodus 6:6; 15:16; Deuteronomy 4:34; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8).   His might and compassion are in view.  His hands were creative (Isaiah 45:11-12; Psalm 19:1).  His fingers created (Psalm 8:3).  He wrote with His finger (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10).  His finger cast out demons (Luke 11:20 cf. Matthew 12:28). “Thus says the LORD: ‘Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool.  Where is the house that you will build Me?'” (Isaiah 66:1 cf. Acts 7:49).  He is much larger than this earth.  Boaz spoke of Ruth as one who had come under the LORD’s wings for refuge (Ruth 2:12).  David requested, “Hide me under the shadow of Your wings, from the wicked who oppress me, from deadly enemies who surround me” (Psalm 17:8-9).  Jesus said to Jerusalem, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37).

5.  God is spoken of as having a face.

“The face of the LORD is against those who do evil” (1 Peter 3:12 c. Psalm 34:16).  Elihu spoke of God’s face being expressive with joy over the sinner who repents (Job 33:26-28 cf. Luke 15:7, 10, 32).  “The LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face shine upon you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace” (Numbers 6:24-26).

John Haley has written, “These texts, which represent God as having hands, fingers, wings, feathers, horns, and the like, are simply bold figures and startling hyperboles in which the Orientals are wont to indulge.  They would never, for a moment, think of being understood literally in using them” (Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, p. 63). God is Spirit (John 4:24). A Spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24: 39).

Anthropomorphism is found in some of our songs.  We have already mentioned one. Now, let us mention two more. “He’s got the whole world in His hands.  He’s got the whole world in His hands.  He’s got the whole world in His hands.  He’s got the whole world in His hands” (Song: He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands, by Laurie London).  “Time is filled with swift transition – Naught of earth unmoved can stand – Build your hopes on things eternal, Hold to God’s unchanging hand.  Hold to God’s unchanging hand!  Hold to God’s unchanging hand!  Build your hopes on things eternal, Hold to God’s unchanging hand” (Song: Hold To God’s Unchanging Hand, by Jennie Wilson).

Posted in God, Godhead, God`s eye, God`s word, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

God: One or Three? (Part 5)

Posted on December 14, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

In this last segment of this study, we will consider some questions which are commonly asked.

1.   Is the idea of multiple persons in the Godhead found in the Old Testament?

While it is not as clearly found in the Old Testament, as it is in the New Testament, some believe that such can be found in the Old Testament.  (a) “The Angel of the LORD” or “The Angel of God” is mentioned throughout the Old Testament.  He seems to be called “God” and “LORD” or “Jehovah” (Exodus 3:2 cf. 3:4; Judges 6:12 cf. 6:14, 16, 20).  He seems to call Himself “God” (Genesis 31:11 cf. 31:13; Exodus 3:2 cf. 3:5).  Angel means messenger.   This messenger of God is called “God.” (b) “The Spirit of the LORD” or “The Spirit of God” is mentioned throughout the Old Testament.  The Spirit seems to possess qualities of deity (Isaiah 40:13-14).  The Spirit, at times, is distinct from the LORD of host (Zechariah 7:12).  However, on other occasions, there is no clear distinction (Psalm 139:7-8).  The LORD can be grieved (Genesis 6:6).  This is not said specifically of the Spirit in the Old Testament.  However, the New Testament reveals that the Holy Spirit likewise can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). Therefore, the Spirit is not just some impersonal force.

2.  1 Corinthians 8:6 reads: “There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”  Does this passage teach that Jesus is not God?

No.  If this passage denies that Jesus is God, then it also denies that God is Lord (cf. Luke 1:32).

This passage makes two distinctions.   (a) God, the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ are distinguished from idols (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).  (b) God, the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ are distinguished from creation (1 Corinthians 8:6). Notice that the Father and Jesus are both so distinguished.

This is actually a reference to the Shema  – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4 cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6).  Jesus is being included as being of the Godhead.

3.  Ephesians 4:4-6 reads: “There is… one Spirit… one Lord… one God and Father of all…”  Does this passage teach that the Spirit and the Lord (Jesus) are not God?

No.  If this passage denies that the Spirit is God, then it also denies that God is spirit (cf. John 4:24).  If this passage denies that the Lord is God, then it also denies that God is Lord (cf. Luke 1:32).

The one Spirit, in context, refers to the Holy Spirit.  The Spirit revealed the message of salvation to man (Ephesians 2:18, 20 cf. 3:3-5).

The one Lord, in context, refers to Jesus Christ (cf. Ephesians 1:2; 1:3; 1:15; 1:17; 3:11; 3:14; 5:19-20).  He is worthy of worship (Ephesians 5:19-20).  He is over all flesh (cf. John 17:2; Romans 10:12).

The one God, in context, refers to the Father (cf. Ephesians 1:2; 1:3; 1:17; 4:;;6; 5:20; 6:23).  The word “God and Father” appear twice in this book (Ephesians 1:3; 4:6).  The word “and” (Kai) could be rendered “even.”

The fact the Father is referred to as the one God in no way denies the deity of the Spirit or the Lord (Jesus).  Albert Barnes comments, “Christians worship one God, and but one (God).  But they suppose that this one God subsists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, united in a mysterious manner, and constituting the one God, and that there is no other” (studylight.org).  Remember the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4 cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6).

4.  1 Timothy 2:5 reads: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  Does this deny the deity of Jesus?

No.  The fact that Jesus is called the “Mediator between God and men” no more denies His deity, than it does His humanity.  He is said to be “the Man Christ Jesus” in this passage (1 Timothy 2:5 cf. Acts 17:31).  Other passages speak of His deity (e.g. John 1:1 cf. 1:14; Philippians 2:5-7).

He is the perfect mediator.  Wayne Jackson comments, “There is one God, i.e., one divine nature… There is one mediator also.  “Meditator” (mesites)  literally is a ‘go between’ (from meses, ‘middle,’ and eimi, ‘to go).  A mediator is one who seeks to restore peace between estranged parties.  Those parties are the holy God, and man, the transgressor.  To be a balanced mediator, the mediating person must be equally related to both parties.  Christ, possessing both divine and human natures, as exactly that… It is very important that one notice the mediator is ‘man’ (without the article, hence, man, as to his nature), in contrast to the later Gnostic error (docetism), that Christ only appeared to be human” (Jackson, Before I Die, p. 56).

5.  John 10:30 reads, “I and My Father are one.”  Does this passage teach that Jesus and the Father are one and the same person, identical, without distinction?

No.  This would contradict other passages (e.g. John 5:31-32, 36-37).

Let’s look closer at this passage.  The literal language is, “I and the Father one we are” (The Zondervan Parallel New Testament).  The word “one” in neuter gender.  Marion Fox comments, “The word ‘one’ (en) is in the neuter gender in the Greek, not masculine as one would expect if He was saying ‘one person.'” (Fox, The Work of the Holy Spirit, Vol. 1, p. 37).  The point being made, in context, concerns purpose.  Guy Woods comments, “One in the sense indicated in verses 28 and 29, i.e., in protecting his followers, and in keeping them safe all harm.  He and his Father are one in purpose, in interest and in plan, and thus the action of the son is inseparable from the will of, and the desire of, the Father” (Woods, A Commentary on The Gospel According to John, pp. 220-221).

6.  John 14:9 reads, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father…”  Does this not prove that Jesus and the Father are one person?

No.  Consider the words of Marion Fox, “God is spirit (John 4:24); and no man can behold God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12).  Therefore, the seeing of which Jesus is referring is not a literal seeing.  What they saw was either the Father’s flesh or His attributes (perfect love, etc.).  It cannot be His flesh they saw because God is spirit (John 4:24), and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).  Therefore they saw His attributes as they were revealed through Jesus (Matthew 11:27)” (Fox, The Work of The Holy Spirit, Vol. 1, p. 37). Remember that Jesus physical appearance was of no special beauty (Isiah 53:2).

7.  Did the Trinity develop from paganism?

Some think that they have found similarities between the trinity of Christianity and triads in other religions.  However, some of these “similarities” are not so similar upon closer examination.  In some cases various gods are over looked to emphasize three persons.  In many cases, these are not three persons in one God, but polytheism.

If similarities do exist how do we explain this?  “Some… believe that various pagan triads and threefold deities may have originated a primitive revelation of – or memory of – …the one True God.” (Is The Trinity Pagan? http://www.ukapologetics.net).  In the case of Hinduism, it may be that they borrowed from Christianity.  Robin Brace writes, “Scholars tell us that this ‘trimurti’ (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva or Siva – B.H.) only appears in Hinduism during the 4th – 7th centuries A.D…. If the Holy Trinity concept predates the Hindu trimurti (which certainly appears to be the case), the former could not have been copied from the latter.  In fact, given Hinduism tendency to absorb concept from other religions, and the fact that Christianity reached India in the first century, it is very likely that the Hindu teachers developed the trimurti along the lines of the Trinity – concept professed by Indian Christians.  Yet, the former is not an exact copy of the latter… Brahma, Vishnu and Siva each have a goddess consort  – Sarasvati, Lakshmi and Sakti respectively.  That would make not three but six.  Add Ishvara and his consort, Maheshvari, and you now have eight… Yet, these are only eight among millions of divinities in the Hindu tradition… (ibid).

The subject is difficult.  Our faith should be derived from the Scriptures (Romans 10:17).

Posted in Apologetics, God, Godhead, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Old Testament/New Testament, Word Study, World Religions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

God: One or Three? (Part 4)

Posted on December 9, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

One of the most difficult issues in understanding the nature of God is understanding the number of God.  Is God one or three?

Let’s review.  In lesson one, it was concluded that there is one God.  In lesson two, it was concluded that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not identical.  There is a distinction in identity.  In lesson three, it was concluded that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are referred to as “God” in the Scriptures, and possess Divine qualities.

Let us continue our study –

Triune God

There is one God.  This one God has related and manifested Himself in three persons, and these three persons are distinct.

How can we understand this?  Many imperfect illustrations have been set forth.  (1) Some have compared God to a three-leaved shamrock (three leaves, one plant).  (2) Some have compared God to an egg (shell, white, and yolk – but one egg).  (3) Some have compared God to an apple (skin, flesh, and seed – but one apple).  (4) Some have compared God to water’s form [solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (vapor) – but still H20].  (5) Some have compared God to a triangle (three sides – but one geometrical figure).  (6) Some have used the triquetra to illustrate God (three interwoven arcs – but one figure). (7) Some have compared God to a three cord rope (three intertwined rope – but one rope). There are problems with some of these illustrations, and none of them is perfect (modalism, partialism).  It is possible that man will not fully understand, this side of heaven.  John Wesley said, “Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, then I will show you a man that can comprehend the Triune God.”  (www.christianquotes.info).  J.J. Turner and Edward Myers write, “The doctrine of the ‘Trinity’ has rightly been called a mystery.  The existence of three persons in one essence is beyond human comprehension.  We must admit, also, that this doctrine is one of the deepest to be found in the Bible; and in final analysis, it must be accepted by faith.  This doctrine is not provable from natural theology or empirical observation.  Man would never know of the trinity of God without revelation from God” (Turner, Doctrine of the Godhead, p. 40).

Some have ridiculed the use of the word “Trinity.”  Walter Martin has written, “Jehovah witnesses take great delight in pointing out that the word ‘trinity’ does not appear as such in the Bible.  They further state that since it is not a part of Scripture, it must be of pagan origin and should be discounted entirely.  What the witnesses fail to understand is that they very word ‘Jehovah,’ which they maintain is the only true name for God, also does not appear as such in the Bible, but is an interpolation of the Hebrew consonants YHWH or JHVH, any vowels added being arbitrary.  Thus it is seen that the very name by which they call themselves is just as unbiblical as they suppose the Trinity to be” (Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, p. 61, footnote 14).  The truth is a concept may be Biblical, even though the wording does not appear in Scripture (e.g. God’s providence, God’s plan of salvation, God’s sovereignty).

Roles

Let’s consider creation.  (1) God planned creation (Genesis 1:3; 1:6; 1:9; 1:11; 1:14; 1:20; 1:24; 1:26).  (2) The word, the pre-incarnate Jesus, executed the plan (John 1:1-3, 10, 14; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:1-2).  (3) The Spirit was also active in creation (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30).

Let’s consider the plan of salvation.  (1) God, the Father, was the source of the plan (John 5:36; 6:38; Luke 22:42; 1 Corinthians 2:7-9; Ephesians 3:8-11; Hebrews 10:7).  (2) God, the Son, was sent to execute this plan (John 3:17; Galatians 4:4).  (3) God, the Spirit was also active in the plan revealing and confirming this plan (John 16:12-15; 1 Corinthians 2:7-11; Hebrews 2:3-4; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

“Holy, holy, holy!  Lord God Almighty!  Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee. Holy, holy, holy!  Merciful and mighty, God in three persons, blessed Trinity!”                (Song: Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty by Reginald Heber)

“O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,  Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made;  I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,  Thy power throughout the universe displayed\

When through the woods, and forest glades I wonder,  And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees. When I look down, from lofty mountain grandeur And hear the brook, and feel the gentle breeze\

And when I think, that God, His Son not sparing; Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;   That on the cross, My burden gladly bearing, He bled and died to take away my sin\

When Christ shall come, With shout of acclamation, And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart, Then I shall bow, in humble adoration, And then proclaim: ‘My God how great Thou art!’\

Then sings my soul, My Savior God, to Thee,  How great Thou art! How great Thou art!Then sings My soul, My Savior God, to Thee, How great Thou art!  How great Thou art! (Song: How Great Thou Art, by Carl Boberg)

 This series will continue next time.

Posted in Apologetics, God, Godhead, Jehovah Witnesses | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

God: One or Three? (Part 3)

Posted on November 30, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

One of the most difficult issues in understanding the nature of God is understanding the number of God.  Is God one or three?

In the previous lesson, it was concluded that there is a distinction between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  The unitarian position that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same person (an intelligent, thinking existence) seems contrary to scripture.

Let us continue our study –

God, The Father

The Father is referred to as “God” in scripture.  Jesus taught, “Do no labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him” (John 6:27).  Why trust the message of Jesus?  Because God the Father set His seal on Him.  Guy N. Woods comments, “To seal anything is to attest by some sign or mark that it is indeed authentic… The Father sealed the Son by (a) direct testimony; (b) by signs and wonders and (c) by his resurrection from the dead” (Woods, A Commentary on the Gospel According to John, p. 124).  Notice that the passage speaks of “God the Father.” Other passages also so speak (e.g. John 20: 17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Galatians 1:1; Philippians 2:11; 1 Peter 1:2).

God is the Father of mankind.  Malachi asked, “Have we not all one Father?  Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:1 cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6).

The Father – Son terminology is used of the relationship between God and Jesus.  However, this language seems to be only used in connection with the incarnation and after; it does not seem to be used of the pre-incarnate Logos.

God, The Son

The Son is referred to as “God” in Scripture.  Isaiah foretold of the birth of a child, who would be called “Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).  The wording “mighty God” is used of Jehovah (e.g. Isaiah 10:20-21; Jeremiah 32:18).  Paul referred to the Christ as “the eternal blessed God” (Romans 9:5).  Other passages could be considered (e.g. John 1:1 cf. 1:14; 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:5-6; Titus 2:13 – See Granville Sharp Rule; Hebrews 1:8).

It is true that the use of the word “God” for Jesus does not prove that Jesus is of the Godhead (Divine Nature).  The term “god” (el, elohim, theos), for example, is sometimes used of men in positions of power and authority (e.g. Exodus 7:1-2; 22:28 A.S.V.; Psalm 82; Ezekiel 31:11; John 10:34).

However, let us also consider: (1) Jesus used the words “I am” to describe His existence (John 8:58 cf. Exodus 3:14).  (2) Jesus seems to be called Jehovah (Malachi 3:1 cf. Matthew 11:10; 1 Peter 3:15 A.S.V. cf. Isaiah 8:13; Hebrews 1:10-12 cf. Psalm 102:1-2, 25-27).  (3) Jesus is the first and the last (Revelation 1:11; 2:8 cf. Isaiah 44:6).  (4) He is the heart searcher (Revelation 2:23 cf. Jeremiah 17:10; 20:12).  (5) He is the Holy One (Acts 3:14 f. Isaiah 43:3).  (6) He had power to raise Himself (John 10:18).  (7) He is worthy of honor and worship (John 5:23a; Romans 14:11 cf. Isaiah 45:23; Ephesians 5:19 cf. 5:20; Hebrews 1:6b; Matthew 4:10 cf. – Matthew 2:2; 2:11; 8:2; 15:25; 28:16-17; John 9:38).

God, The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit seems to be referred to as “God” in Scripture.  Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…?… Why have you conceived this thing in your heart?  You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:34).  Notice that the Holy Spirit is juxtapositioned with God.

Moreover, consider: (1) The Holy Spirit is closely joined with the Father and the Son in Scripture.  “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).  Neither the name of mere men or angels are included.  Notice that the name or authority is singular.  “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.  Amen” (2 Corinthians 13:14).  Again, no mere men or angels are included in the benediction.  (2) The Holy Spirit possesses qualities one would expect of deity.  The Spirit is eternal (Hebrews 9:14), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10), and omniscient (Isaiah 40:13-14).

The unitarian position which denies the Divine Nature of the Son and the Holy Spirit [This position is sometimes called Arianism.  It is named for Arius (256-336 A.D.), a North African theologian] seems at odds with the information we have considered.

We will continue to study this issue next time.  Continue reading.

If one desires additional information defending the deity of the Holy Spirit, consider my article The Holy Spirit: An Impersonal Force?

If one desires additional information defending the deity of Jesus, consider my articles – Jesus: His Pre-Existence, Jesus: A Created Being?, JESUS: a god?, and Jesus: Divine Language.

Posted in Apologetics, God, Godhead, Holy Spirit, Jesus | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

God: One or Three? (Part 2)

Posted on November 22, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

One of the most difficult issues in understanding the nature of God is understanding the number of God.  Is God one or three?

In the previous lesson, it was concluded that there is one God.  Tri-theism seems contrary to scripture.

Let us continue our study –

Distinction: Father and Son

There is a distinction made between the Father and the Son.  Jesus said, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.  There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true… And the Father Himself, who sent me has testified of Me” (John 5:31-32, 37a).  Jesus point is: there would be inadequate evidence to believe in Me, if all you had were My testimony; but you have more than this.  You have another (allos = another of the same kind) witness.  The Father bears witness of Me.  He does so by miraculous works (John 5:36 cf. 9:3 cf. 3:1-2).  He does so through the scriptures (John 5:37-39).

Jesus, in the garden, prayed, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42).  Are we to believe that He prayed this to Himself?

Jesus, on the cross, prayed, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit'” (Luke 23:46).  Surely, He was not speaking of Himself.

Distinction: Son and Spirit

There is a distinction made between the Son and the Holy Spirit.  “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10:38).  There must be a distinction.

Distinction: Spirit and Father

There is a distinction made between the Holy Spirit and the Father.  Jesus said, “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (John 15:26; Guy N. Woods comments, “The comforter (Helper – B.H.) would proceed from the Father; thus, he differed from the Father in person; he was sent by the Son and so was distinct from him; therefore, any theology which denies the separate and distinct personalities of the godhead is false” (Woods, A Commentary on The Gospel According to John, p. 335).

Simultaneous Appearance

“When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.  And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:26-17 cf. Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34).

Compare this passage with the teaching of Sabellius.    Roy Lanier Sr. writes, “In the third century after Christ a man named Sabellius taught that the one divine substance simply assumes three different forms, or manifestations, in its three-fold relation to the world.  But this divine substance never manifests itself in its three forms simultaneously, and as each new manifestation appears the former manifestation ceases.  Sabellius thought the first manifestation, the Father, served from creation to the birth of Christ; the second manifestation the Son, began with the incarnation and worked to accomplish our redemption; and the third manifestation, the Holy Spirit, does the work of revelation and sanctification” (Lanier, The Timeless Trinity, p. 46).  This doctrine, which is known as Sabellianism or Modalism seems at odds with this passage.

Several passages have been considered in this writing.  The unitarian, oneness position, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one person seems at odds with this passages.

We will continue to study this issue next time.  Continue reading.

Posted in Apologetics, God, Godhead, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment