Veiled Deity

Veiled deity.  Its an odd concept.  For how can it be that someone who desires to reveal Himself is unable to do so?  How can it be that someone so personal and close would desire to reveal Himself so much as to come to Earth, even to take the form of the very creation He had made?

A God who desires intimacy with His creation but who cannot reveal Himself in His fullness because to do so would destroy all whom are not as Holy as He.  Yet, He desires to do so and to enable us to come to know Him.  Therefore, He must turn His back when Moses asks to see His face and permits just a glimpse of who He is (Exo 33:18-23). 

Later He will send forth the Messiah.  Jesus, the Anointed One, the Christ, a man without a physical description who was the true fulfillment of a personal God.  He was God veiled in human flesh.  Full of grace and power, strength and mercy, He walked this earth but the world did not know Him.  Though He had been the One to create all things, His handiwork had not recognized their Creator.

Veiled deity.  Hidden glory.  Covered majesty.  The world He came to save, the Kingdom He came to announce, the God He came to reveal was His greatest attempt to express the love that He has for all of mankind.

Joshua

I Hate This World

I recently received an email regarding a co-worker who had passed away. I knew this individual well and he had worked for the company for over 10 years.

Yet, in the email it was asked that his family would be kept "in your thoughts".

Why only "in your thoughts" and not "in your thoughts and prayers"? Why? Because somewhere someone would have been offended that the mention of praying at a time in which a person has just died would be brought up.

I hate this world. I hate its political correctness. I hate its compromises. I hate its morality.

I hate its desires to hide the only truth that needs to be proclaimed at an awful time like this that Jeus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and without Him you have no hope.

You have no reason to be happy, cheerful or even get out of bed in the morning. When will we we learn that refusing to speak truth never brings comfort? It brings a false sense of hope.

I absolutely hate this world. Yet, it is the very world that Jesus came to save.

Come Lord Jesus come. (Rev 22:20)

Joshua

The Exclusivity of Christ

They were emboldened fisherman.  Having spent the previous night in jail for preaching the resurrection of Jesus, they stood toe to toe with the religious elite.   Faced with accusations of false teachings and performing false miracles for healing a lame man, they were now asked to give an account for their actions.  Yet, in the midst of extreme difficulty, they spoke boldly, ferverently, and clear.  There was a sense of passion and disregard for "political correctness" in their speech.  The words they used were black and white.  They resounded loud and clear and penetrated even the hardest of hearts cutting to the core of every listener. 

"Who were these men?"  The people thought.  Uneducated and lacking in formal training.  Unpopular and poor, they represented the "lower class" and therefore should not have possessed the clear knowledge and insight that they in fact demonstrated as they spoke.  Who were these men?

Peter and John.  They had amazed both the uneducated peasants and skeptical rulers, elders, and scribes alike with their ability to expound upon Scripture and to perform mighty miracles in the name of God.  Their physical demeanor might have been questionable but their message and the results of their miracle certainly were not.

It is in Acts, Chapter 4, verses 5-12 that we learn about the boldness and confidence of Peter and John.  We find men who have been filled with the Holy Spirit and are willing to speak truth no matter what the consequence.  Their preaching had been powerful and effective.  Verse 4 states that now 5,000 men had come to believe in Jesus.  And remember that this is just a count of the men who were converted.

Yet, in verses 5-12 Peter addresses the very men who had put Jesus to death.  He speaks to the very people responsible for His execution.  Can you imagine the adrenaline that must have been flowing through his veins at the time?  Remember that it had been Peter who denied Jesus three times when his life had been put in danger.  He had been unwilling to plead allegiance with Christ to a small child and others in a courtyard.  He had never stepped up and spoken to the highest religious authority in the land.

How could he have been given such courage and ability to speak so powerfully?  Let's examine these verses:

Verse 5 begins "On the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of priesetly descent."  (NASB)

Stop for a minute and make sure you understand who these guys are.  John 18:12-14 gives us some background information about this story.  First, Annas was the former high priest.  He was the one who had been in charge before Caiaphas.  He is also the one who was the father-in-law to Caiphas.  Now, it was Caiaphas who had instituted the procedure to kill one of the convicts as apart of the Passover festival.  John 18:14 tells us that this was a practice created to expedite the charges brought against such a man.  He was the current high priest. 

Now if we back track to find out when he began to rule we see that it occurrs sometime during the lifetime of Jesus.  Annas ruled from 6-15 AD.  Caiaphas took over and ruled from 16-37AD.  Now, depending upon the date of the birth of Jesus (some say 2-3 BC and others 1 AD) we can find out that Jesus was between 16 and 19 years old when this happened for the first time.  He would have come to the Passover feast and for the very first time seen a man being executed.  He might even have known that this would become His own fate.  Can you imagine that?  That will just overwhelm you if you stop and think about it.  When I discovered that fact, I was in a daze for two days just thinking about what that might have been like.  Thinking about what Jesus must have thought and felt as He witnessed such an event for the very first time.  Anyway, Caiphas was married to Anna's daughter and through the tremendous influence of Annas had become the high priest. 

Annas had also had other children.  Two of them are mentioned here.  His sons were John and Alexander.  They too would someday rule the land.  Therefore, this is somewhat a "family meeting" to discuss what has been going on since Jesus' death.  It is the elite.  Verse 5 states that the rulers, elders, and scribes were all present.  Unable to keep the problem of Christianity from spreading, these men now want to question Peter and John who in Acts 3 had just healed a lame man who had been crippled from birth, a man that Acts 4:22 states was over 40 years old.

The crowds were amazed and rightfully so.  Let's continue in verse 7, "When they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?"  Notice the intentions of the question.  The placement of the men tells us something.  They are placed in the "center".  They want to accuse them of wrong doing. 

The purpose of the question also tells us something.  By what power or name did “you” do this?  Did they believe that God had worked through these men to perform a miracle?  No.  Did they want to find out if these men were also from God in order to learn from them and seek God on their own?  No.  Did they suspect that God had done this?  Evidently not.  They insisted that "they", Peter and John, had done something.  Maybe they had used some form of trickery or magic to fool the people.  "What have you done?", they ask.

I believe that they could not see past the miracle.  They wanted to explain it away.  Certainly, God did not work through these men.  He only works through “us”, the religious leaders.  They felt that Peter and John had tricked the people and healed this man through an act of deception.  It was an illusion not a miracle and they were determined to get to the bottom of it.

There are those today who also deny miracles.  Some are Scientists, others Atheists.  Others hold to their beliefs of Naturalism and that everything we see in the universe must be explained by natural causes.  All evidence may point to the contrary but they will still refuse to accept it and instead look for any possible way to explain it.  These men fell into that same category.  The way they stated the question indicated their own motivations.

Then Peter says something truly radical.  He speaks directly to these men and accuses them of having killed the Messiah.  Not only that but he is going to explain how through their sinful deed, they actually fulfilled Scripture.  Their very own prophets had prophesized that they would do exactly what they did.  Amazing.

Talk about some guts.  Peter could never have said these things without having been filled with the Holy Spirit.  Let's take a look at what he say.  Starting in verse 8 we read,

"Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health. "He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:7-12 (NASB)

First, Peter’s confidence is something to behold.  Verse 7 stated that he was “filled with the Holy Spirit”.  That’s where his confidence came from.  He knows he’s on trial.  “If we are on trial” means that he knows he has been brought in to be questioned intentionally.  Yet, he is unusually confident.  Jesus had told him before that he would receive the Holy Spirit at times such as this.  He stated is such in John 14:26 when He said, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”  Thus, the Spirit living within Peter enables him to speak boldly.

It reminded him of Scripture, here he quotes from Psalm 118:22, which states “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone.”  This message had been given to these same people before by Jesus.  He confronted the chief priests and scribes in Luke 20:17-19 and used the same words to condemn them and prophesize of how He would die.

Second, Peter’s convictions are also on display.  He states that he is on trial for healing a sick man.  The sick man he refers to is the lame man who has been healed.  That story was found at the beginning of Acts 3.  Its interesting that Peter tells us that he is being questioned for the "benefit done" to this sick man.  He's pointing out the obvious that they are upset at him for doing good.  He was "sick" but now stands here before you in "good health".  Yet, do they want to praise God for this?  No.  He is basically telling them, “You can deny the reason but you can’t deny the result.”

The man was lame but now “this man stands”.  It reminds me of the scene in Forrest Gump when Forrest says, “Lietenant Dan, you got new legs!”. 

Third, Peter’s confession is important.  Peter explains to them that they had killed Jesus.  He identifies them as guilty.  He also addresses their need to repent and accept Jesus.  Thus, he explains their own responsibility of sin and their need to accept Jesus as Lord. 

Moreover, by stating that Jesus is the “One by which we must be saved” he’s also saying “You’re not the one.  You’re not needed in the same way anymore.  You used to be the mediator for the people of God.  They had to come to you in order to have you make sacrifices to Him, to speak to Him, and it gave you great power.  Now, One has come who is greater than you.” 

It was an amazing confession and pronouncement of judgment upon them.

I think this story begs a few questions from us:

1.  What trials have you faced or are you facing as a direct result of your walk with Christ?   Have you faced any?  What does your abundance or lack of trials say to you this morning?  It's something to think long and hard about.

2.  Are you able to use Scripture to demonstrate your faith to others?  To help you in times of persecution?  Many of us know Scripture but are unable to quote it when put on the spot.  Why is this?  What prevents us from doing that?

3.  What are you building your life upon?  Is it your own knowledge or wisdom?  Is it Science and Technology?  Is it the wisdom of others?  It’s a question we must all answer.  It’s a question that we each do answer throughout the course of our lives.

4.  What are you placing your assurance of salvation upon?  Do you rest upon the laurels of your parents?  Friends?  Other believers?  Maybe you have never even thought through your own actions and what they say about who you serve.  Maybe you have not even considered the question or have never been confronted with the reality of your sin and the need for a Savior.

So, as I process this story I am confronted with a question, "Who do you and I relate to most in this story?"  Do I relate to Peter or to the Priests?  Am I willing to standing upon my own convictions and claim the exclusivity of Christ?  Or do I think that there are many pathways to God?  Where do I stand with regard to this all important issue.

Remember that it was Peter who repeated the Good Confession in Matthew 16:16 when he said “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”  It was also Peter who had failed Jesus by denying Him three times prior to His death and then had to be restored to Jesus in John 21.

Maybe you can relate to him in this way?  You’ve fallen away from your faith and need to recommit yourself to Christ.  You’ve removed your firm foundation and replaced it with something else.  If that’s you today, speak to someone about it.  Recommit yourself to Christ and His Kingdom. 

Maybe God has been speaking to you and you’ve realized that you relate more to the Priests than to Peter.  You’ve never accepted Jesus, never made a decision to follow Him, and have chosen time and time again to reject Him.  What’s holding you back from changing that right now?  What’s holding you back from not just making Jesus your Savior but recognizing Him as Lord and living a spirit-filled life like Peter’s? 

A life full of trials and hardships but a life built upon the firm foundation of Jesus Christ.

Destiny

This morning I want to begin by asking you a question. What is your destiny? What is it that you were made for? What is it that you were born to do? Can you remember a time in your life when you experienced something in which you said, "This is me. This is exactly what I am supposed to do. This is exactly what I was born to do."

Maybe its your career. You were in your teen years or early twenties and you found something that you were really good at. That interest grew and grew until you reached a point in which you said something to yourself that you had never thought before, "I think I could do this with my life."

Maybe it was more of an experience. You experienced an adventure or a person and you just knew that you wanted to follow that dream or become like that person.

Whatever that experience was in your life I want you to think back upon it. Remember what it was like the very first time you realized that you were destined for something. You were destined for somewhere. You were destined to become. Can you remember it? Keep that thought in your brain and process what that felt like as we take a look at this morning's passage.

It's found in John 18:12-14 where the apostle John writes:

"So the Roman cohort and the commander and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him, and led Him to Annas first; for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people." (NASB)

This is a strange passage. Admittedly, this is the type of passage that I typically overlook and read right through it without giving it much thought. Yet, recently as I read this passage of Scripture I was mesmorized for several days thinking about it. I could hardly work. I couldn't wait to talk about it to a friend. So, I emailed him right away. I told my wife about it when I got home from work. I simply could not stop thinking about it. It grabbed ahold of me and said something to me that I had never thought about before.

So, that's what I want to examine this morning. I want us to process these 3 verses of Scripture which lead up to the crucifixion of Jesus. So, let's set the stage. It is the final week of Jesus' life. More precisely, it’s the final few hours of the final week of His life. He has told His disciples that He would be arrested and crucified. He has been betrayed by one whom He had cared greatly for. A close friend. He has been taken away from His friends, bound up in chains. He is being taken to a group of people whom have been looking for a reason to kill Him for a long, long time.

He's taken first to a man by the name of Annas. Annas, we discover from outside texts, was the previous High Priest of Israel. He was the former leader of the Jewish religious party. He had been the highest ruling authority in their religion but now his son-in-law Caiaphas has taken over. Therefore, although he is no longer the "official" ruler he still has a great deal of power.

What caught my attention though, as I began to process these three verses, was verse 14. It stated that Caiaphas was the one to advise the Jews that they should kill one man each year during the Passover feast. This man was to die on "behalf of all of the people." Now, think with me for a moment.

At the outset this is a strange idea to use this festival to execute a criminal but the idea of sins being laid upon another was not strange at all. In fact, the Passover feast was a reminder of how God had passed over them and punished another - namely the nation of Egypt. There was also the practice of a scape goat in which was let out into the wilderness after having placed the sins of the people upon it. Therefore, the practice itself, although odd, didn’t strike me. What did was the timeframe in which it had started.

If Caiaphas was the one to begin this practice, what John is implicitly stating here is that it had not always happened. So, it begs the question "How long had Caiaphas been in office?".

Some research into his reign tells us that he was basically put in charge in 18 CE and finished in 36 CE. Therefore, his reign was about 19 years. I'm not sure about this but I did read that this was an unusually long period of time for reigning as High Priest and some think that it was because he had such a good relationship to the Roman authorities.

But what really struck me was how this played out in Jesus life. Process this with me for a moment. If Caiaphas had only been in office for 19 years then this practice began during the lifetime of Jesus. Jesus would have grown up as a boy going to the Passover feast each year. Year after year he would have gone. Then, somewhere around the age of 18-20 something different would have occurred. The Jewish authorities would have crucified a man for the very first time.

Imagine what must have been going through Jesus' mind. Whether He knew at that time or would learn about it in the future, He saw for the very first time His own destiny. Someday, He would come to Jerusalem and suffer and die on a cross! He saw in front of Him the very same thing that would happen to Him someday. He saw the pain, He saw the agony, He saw the man as He inhaled and exhaled with His body heaving up and down, He might have seen it hang limp and naked after having already died upon the cross.

He saw Himself that day and He saw His own destiny. There are a couple of things that I want you to process this morning as you think about that day. First of all, recognize God's perfect timing in all of this. It was God who had altered the course of history and known that when Caiaphas takes office that this practice will begin. It was God who knew that He must use this evil act that occurred at this specific period of time in history to bring hope to a lost world. It was God who sent His Son at the very specific time that He did in order to fulfill all prophecies including the type of death that Jesus must endure.

So, here's the first question, "What is it about the timing of God that speaks to you today?" What is He trying to do in your life in this very moment? Why has He allowed you to have the experiences you have had in order to bring you to the point in your life that you find yourself today. What is it about the here and now that God may be trying to get your attention about?

Second, and even more important, "What is Your Destiny?". Jesus came to Jerusalem on a festival week and saw the horrific crucifixion of someone whom had been ordered to die by the highest level of authority in the Jewish religion. He saw His own destiny. What is yours?

What is it that God has designed you for? What giftings has He entrusted you with? What expectations must He have for that which He has given? How does He want you to use them? We often think of this as a very hard question. Maybe youre not sure. But maybe you are and you're just not willing to deal with it.

Maybe God has given you a destiny and you have been unwilling to follow it. Today is the day to make that decision, to step out and to declare that God has given you meaning and purpose and a plan for how you are supposed to live your life.

He's given to you... a destiny.

Is God a God of 3 Persons?

Once we understand the definition of personhood (see “What is Personhood?”) we must now examine the issue of the doctrine of the Trinity.  So, does Scripture state that God is a being of three "persons"?  If so, we cannot argue against it because we would be arguing against the very definition of God Himself.  God defines who He is in Scripture.  We simply need to understand what it says.

What Does Scripture Say?

1.  God is a person.  We see throughout the OT and NT that God is a being which makes rational, intelligent, and moral decisions.  Thus, if He exists, He must be a person.

2.  Jesus was also a person.  Very few would also question this fact.  He was capable of making rational, intelligent, and moral decisions.  His words are found throughout the 4 Gospels.

3.  The Holy Spirit is a person.  Many would argue this fact.  Thus, we must examine the evidence:

- He has a name, the "Helper" (John 14:26). The same Greek word PARAKLETOS can be translated "Counselor" or "Comforter".

- He “thinks” and “knows” (1 Cor 2:10).  Thus, He has a mind and will.

- He has a specific job - "to teach" (Luke 12:12; John 14:26; John 15:26; 1 John 2:27), and to "comfort" us.  He also brings words of wisdom in times of need (John 14:26).

       
- He acts independently but according to God (John 16:13; Acts 15:28)

- He makes independent decisions according to His will (1 Cor 12:7-11).

- He is said to "hear" and then "speak" (John 16:13).  Jesus also heard and spoke according to God (John 12:48-50)

- He has emotions.  He can be grieved (Eph 4:30).

- He “intercedes” for us, or speaks on our behalf (Rom 8:26-27).

- He “inspires” (2 Pet 1:21) and sanctifies (or cleanses us) (1 Pet 1:21)

- He “strives” with men (Gen 6:3).

- He brings conviction upon all men (John 16:8).

- He distributes Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor 12:11).

- He directs church affairs (Acts 13:2).

- He “dwells” in believers (Rom 8:11).

- Additionally:

1.  4 times in John 14:17 it refers to the Holy Spirit as a "He" or "Him".  The Greek word is AUTOS and is only translated as "it" in the NWT.  The Greek word for Spirit is a neuter noun.  A neuter noun is simply one without gender connotation.  Thus, the NWT translators have chosen to use the pronoun "it".  However, later in John 16:13 they change to "he".  This is because the Greek text requires it.  Thus, personhood is implied and in the English language we refer to persons with the pronouns "he" and "she".

2.  7 times in John 16:13 it refers to the Holy Spirit as "He" or "Him".  Notice here that the NWT does refer to the Holy Spirit here as a "he".

Are All Three Persons the Same?

Yet, if all three are persons are they all the same?  The following is evidence that supports the fact that they are all three separate but the same:

Evidence for Jesus as God:

        1.  God never changes (Mal 3:6) and Jesus never changes (Heb 13:8).

2.  God is the only Savior (Isa 43:11; Jude 1:12; Titus 2:10; 1 Tim 4:10) and Jesus is the only Savior (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:4; 2 Pet 1:1; 3:18; 1 John 4:14; Heb 2:10; 5:9)

3.  God created the Universe and Earth by Himself (Isa 44:24; Gen 1:1) and Jesus created the Universe and Earth (Heb 1:10; Col 1:16; John 1:3)

4.  God is the first and the last (Isa 41:4) and Jesus is the first and the last (Rev 1:17).

               
5.  God forgives sins (Psa 103:2-3; Mark 2:7) and Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:5).
               

6.  God is our redeemer (Isa 63:16) and Jesus redeemed us (Titus 2:13-14).

7.  God is the Holy One (Psa 16:10; 71:22; 78:14; 89:18; Isa 10:20) and Jesus is the Holy One (Acts 3:13-14; 13:34-35).

               
8.  Only God is worshipped (Matt 4:10) and Jesus is worshipped (Matt 9:18).
               

9.  God is Messiah (Isa 9:6) and Jesus is Messiah (John 4:25-26).

10.  God is from everlasting (Psa 93:1-2) and Jesus is from everlasting (Micah 5:2).

               

11.  Only God is glorified (Isa 42:8) and God glorified Jesus (John 5:23; Heb 1:8).

               
12.  God is I AM (Exo 3:14) and Jesus is I AM (John 8:58).
               

13.  God heals all diseases (Psa 103:2) and Jesus heals all diseases (Matt 8:16).

               

14.  God is the Judge of the whole Earth (Gen 18:25; Psa 94:1-2) and Jesus is the Judge of the whole Earth (John 5:22).

               
15.  God has life in Himself (John 5:26) and Jesus has life in Himself (John 1:4).
               

16.  God raises the dead (John 5:21) and Jesus raises the dead (John 5:21).

               
17.  Additionally:
                - Jesus was One in the Father (John 10:30)

- Jesus was in the form of God and equal to God (prior to incarnation) (Phil 2:5-8)

                - God called Jesus "God" (Heb 1:8, 10)
                - God is said to have killed "Himself" at the cross (Acts 20:28)
                - God is said to have "laid down His life for us" (1 John 3:16)

- God is said to have manifested in the flesh as Jesus, believed upon, and received up in glory (1 Tim 3:16)
- Stephen as he is stoned calls out to God by calling Him the "Lord Jesus" (Acts 7:59)

                - Thomas confessed that Jesus is both Lord and God (John 20:28)
                - Seeing Jesus is seeing God (John 14:8-9)
                - Jesus is called "Emmannuel" which means "God with us" (Matt 1:23)

- John tells us explicitly that the people did not believe that Jesus was God (John 10:33).  Thus, they crucified Him because He "made Himself God".

                       

Evidence for the Holy Spirit as God:
       

1.  God is love and the Holy Spirit is love (Rom 15:30).

2.  God is life and the Holy Spirit is life (Rom 8:2).

3.  God is truth and the Holy Spirit is truth (John 16:13).

4.  God is forever and the Holy Spirit is forever (John 14:16).

5.  God is Creator and the Holy Spirit is Creator (Gen 1:2; Job 33:4; Psa 104:30)

6.  God is Omnipotent and the Holy Spirit is Omnipotent (all-powerful) (1 Cor 12:11) 

7.  God is Omnipresent and the Holy Spirit is Omnipresent (everywhere) (Psa 139:7-8).

8.  God is Omniscient and the Holy Spirit is Omniscient (knows everything) (1 Cor 2:10).

Additionally, the promise of the Holy Spirit is at the heart of the New Covenant that God promised (Eze 36:26-27).  Thus, when He came at Pentecost He was viewed as God.  The early Church, then, went on to view Him as God (Acts 5:3-4).

Are All Three Ever Mentioned Together?

All 3 Persons are referred to together in several verses.  Some of these verses are as follows:  Gen 1:1-3; Isa 48:16; Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14.

Conclusion

Thus, we can conclude that the definition of the Trinity, though difficult if not impossible to understand, is true.  It is not true because the concepts are logically true but because God has defined Himself as such.  He is, by His own definition, three persons in one.

What is Personhood?

What is "personhood"? What is it that makes a person a "person"? Is it the clothes they wear? Is it the physical characteristics of him or her? Is a person a person because they look different from another person? Are they a person because they may act or behave differently? Is it the actions of a person that "personifies" them?

What is it exactly that makes a person a person?

Maybe you've never actually thought about this before. Dictionaries define persons as "humans" or "individuals". Is this true? Does a dog or a cat have personhood? Does a lion or tiger have personality?

To examine the idea of personhood, we must begin with a definition of personhood. My presupposition and definition is that personhood is a label used to describe the idea of a being that is capable of making rational, intelligent, and moral decisions. Thus, to determine the validity that such beings exist, we can make the following 4 arguments:

Argument #1: Does Personhood exist?

1. If personhood exists, beings that make rational, intelligent, and moral decisions must exist.
2. Such beings do exist.
3. Thus, personhood exists.

Argument #2: Is God a person?

1. If personhood exists, beings that make rational, intelligent, and moral decisions must exist.
2. God makes such decisions.
3. Thus, God is a person.

Argument #3: Is a human being a person?

1. If personhood exists, beings that make rational, intelligent, and moral decisions must exist.
2. Humans make such decisions.
3. Thus, a human being is a person.

Argument #4: Is an animal a person?

1. If personhood exists, beings that make rational, intelligent, and moral decisions must exist.
2. Animals do not make such decisions.
3. Thus, animals are not persons.

Therefore, we conclude that God and humans are both "persons". Animals are not. The Scriptures teach us that human beings are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26). Thus, we can also conclude that the personhood that is found in God is also found in us. We can extend this logic to also say that spiritual beings capable of making rational, intelligent, and moral decisions also have personhood. Thus, angels, the Devil, and demons can also be said to have personhood.

When we apply this logic to the Trinity we run into a problem. For the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is "three persons in one". Thus, He is Triune or a unity of three "persons". Yet, in order to create such a doctrine it must be proved that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each individual persons and not simply the same being. In this sense, it is impossible to prove because you are attempting to prove something by arguing against the very definition of it. You cannot argue that a dog is a dog by stating that a dog is not a cat because by its very definition a dog is not a cat. Or suppose that you tried to argue that the color blue is blue because it is not red. By its very definition its not red so you can't argue for something by stating that it is simply not something else. You cant try to prove a thing to be something by arguing the opposite. I cannot therefore prove the Trinity by using evidence contrary to itself to prove it.

Thus, if the doctrine of the Trinity is true it must be what Philosophers describe as a "basic belief". It must be necessarily true. The color blue is blue because its blue and not red. It is a basic understanding that I start with and do not attempt to re-define it as something other than blue. By its very definition, it's blue. Thus, if the Trinity is true it must be true because God by His very definition is three in one.

Scripture cannot prove that God is Triune, it can only state it. If it states it without attempting to prove it then it is assumed to be true. It is a "basic belief" and the definition of God. If it does not state it, then it is not true. It is not a basic belief. Therefore, if we can find within the Bible evidence that each of the 3 (God, Son, Holy Spirit) are in fact persons then they must be so because God Himself is defined as three in one. The Scriptures never prove God exists. They simply state it. The same must be true with the definition of God. If Scripture states that He is Triune then the doctrine of the Trinity is true.

Is the Holy Spirit a Person?

"that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." - John 14:17 (NASB)

"the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither beholds it nor knows it. YOU know it, because it remains with YOU and is in YOU." - John 14:17 (NWT - New World Translation)

Is the Holy Spirit a person?  Is it a personal being?  Some believe so and others do not.  In a recent conversation with a Jehovah's Witness follower, I was again confronted with the notion of the Trinity.  It is difficult if not impossible to explain that God is One God but that, as Scripture teaches us, He is also three in one.  How can this be?  Where do we find such a church doctrine supported in Scripture?

The Trinity is often described as God who is in 3 persons.  He is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  There are three distinct personhoods in the Godhead.  Yet, how do we come to grips with this fact?  Where else in nature do we see three in one?  Some have suggested water.  It can be liquid, solid, or a mist.  Others suggest lemonade.  It is the combination of three ingredients:  Lemon, Sugar, and Water.  Without the three, the one is not the same.

Yet, all of these analogies fail.  In this afternoon's passage of Scripture, the NASB states that the Holy Spirit is a person.  No less than four times in this one verse do we see Jeus referring to the Holy Spirit as a person.  He uses the noun "He".  No inanimate object is ever referred to with a personal pronoun. 

Jehovah's Witnesses define God's Holy Spirit as His "active force in the universe".  They believe that God acts through this force but that it is not separate from God Himself.  It has no identity and can do nothing on its own.  Therefore, they do not see the Holy Spirit as a person.  It is not a "He" but rather an "it" (see the bolded words above).  Thus, the New World Translation is purposefully mistranslating the original Greek in order to maintain its theological bias.  It has to translate the Greek Word AUTOS to be "it". 

Yet, the word literally means "he, same, or self".  The English word "automobile" means a "self-propelling vehicle".  It is a distinct thing used to carry passengers.  It is an individual, unique, and separate vehicle.

The Greek word AUTOS is similar but refers to a unique individual person.  Thus, this word refers to a "He" - a distinct person.  When the meaning of "same" is used, it implies that the two are one in the same.  Thus, it implies that Jesus and God are the "same" in essence.  When used to mean "self", it is a way of emphasizing such as saying "I myself".  This same word is used in John 16:27 when it says "the Father Himself (autos) loves you".  Thus, it is an emphatic expression of identity.

The point here is that it is uncommon if ever translated as "it".  Nor should it be.  The normal and most common translation is "He".  Therefore, Jesus is referring to a He.

Moreover, we can conclude that in fact the Holy Spirit is a person and that the doctrine of the Trinity is correct - even if we don’t quite understand it fully.

Joshua
 

What is Perfection?

The concept of perfection is a difficult one. As humans, we often speak of perfection in the sense that "Last night's dinner was perfect" or "my summer vacation was just perfect". Yet, of course, we don’t mean such statements literally. Perfection is a concept that all people understand and believe to be true. We all strive for perfection. We all seek to achieve something greater and more perfect.

Yet, how is it that we even know what the concept of perfection is? Some might argue that perfection is known because imperfection is seen. There is a sense in which this is true. We see children born with birth defects and know that they were born with an imperfection. We answered 9 of 10 right on a spelling bee or math test and realize that we were almost perfect. Perfection could be defined as achievement of expectation as in the case of birth defects or mathematically by equating it to 100%.

However, this can also be just a matter of semantics or definition. If we define perfection in the human body as being a person born with two arms and two legs with five fingers and toes respectively then by definition those born with these features were born "perfectly". However, if we change the definition then we can allow others who were born without five fingers or perhaps with six fingers to become our new definition of perfection.

Perfection, therefore, can become for us a moving target. It can become only what we have defined it to be. Why is it, then, that everyone seems to have a certain definition of perfection that so often agrees? While not all will attest to the fact that a perfect human body has four limbs, most will. While not all will say that 100% accuracy is perfection, most will. Why do most people agree upon the definition if by that very definition perfection is defined?

Why am I willing to admit to the fact that my eyes are not perfect because I need contacts or glasses to see? Why don’t I just change the definition and claim perfection? Why don’t others as well claim to be perfect, unflawed, and as designed?

Why don’t I also apply this to my own actions? I could just as easily say that although I lied to my friend that its o.k. because my definition of perfection allows for it. Yet, I do not use this standard and neither do so many others.

When Jesus was asked by His disciples why the man was born blind, He replied that it was in order that the works of God might be revealed within him (Jn 9:1-3). What did that mean? Was Jesus saying that this man was born perfectly or flawed? I don’t think that Jesus was implying this at all. He was not saying that this man was ordinary or typical. He was instead saying that the imperfection in him pointed to what true perfection really was. By seeing the flaw, we come to know the ideal. Thus, Jesus restores His vision to what was the norm. Moreover, God is revealed to us through the imperfections of those born with such defects.

Maybe stranger still is that the Scriptures teach us to be perfect. Yet, how do they expect us to know what "perfection" is? In Matthew 5:48, Jesus said "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Jesus expects perfection. He also expects us to know what perfection is by knowing that God is perfect. Thus, God, by His very definition, is perfect. Yet, how am I supposed to know what perfection is? I cannot see God. I cannot reach out and touch Him.

An illustration of this I believe is helpful. Suppose that I were to hand you a set of pencils. This set included only pencils. There were red ones, green ones, number 2 and number 7 lead pencils, but all pencils. Then, suppose that I were to hand you a pen. How would you know that the pen was not to be apart of the set of pencils? You might say that "its because the pen is not a pencil". But how do you know that the pen is not a pencil?

You might then reply, "Because a pencil must have lead and an eraser. Pens do not have these. They use ink to write. Therefore, they are not apart of the set of pencils." I might reply, "Yes, but both are used to write. They might write differently but they both are used to write on paper. Therefore, anything that writes should be included in that set of pencils."

Your reply should then attack my definition of a pencil. For any set of something, must have at the very least one perfected example. A set of pencils must have an ideal pencil. A set of horses must have an ideal horse. A set of Ford Thunderbird cars must have an ideal one. This necessitates that an ideal pencil is not a pen. The definition of a pencil does not permit the ability to have ink.

Such is true in human beings as well. In order to truly know perfection, we must know the ideal or perfection of the set. Jesus was the perfect example of a human being. He was God incarnate. He Himself said that in order to be perfect we must know perfection. We must know God the Father. We come to know God explicitly through Jesus. While we can know about God and His perfection through nature or other means, we come to truly know the personality of God through the personality of His Son. We better understand the actions of God through understanding the actions of His Son. We see the true love of God through the love of His Son.

What is perfection? It is the ideal that is only expressed in the fullness of God the Father and the revelation of Him through His Son Jesus Christ.

God is Perfection. Therefore, "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".

Image of God

A poor widow, a worthless soul,
What value can she achieve?
She cannot contribute significance
To modern society.

An evil man, a blood stained hand,
Why do we allow to live?
He chose to break the rules
And thus hath nothing to give.

A woman for sale, fresh out of jail,
What value can she derive?
Her lot in life is hopelessness,
That is if she stays alive.

An unwanted sperm, close to full term,
Why do we allow remain?
He will grow up to be fatherless,
And search for his namesake in vain.

Unwanted life, of pain and strife,
What glory can you truly bring?
Yet, you are the image of God Himself,
Bringing glory and praises sing.

Joshua

Was King David Gay?

"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women." - 2 Samuel 1:26 (NASB)

Was King David gay? Some seem to think so. The Jesus Metropolitan Community Church has developed an ad campaign attempting to prove that this is indeed the case. Their argument from Scripture is simple. King David, in 2 Samuel 1:26, clearly states that Johnathan's love to him was more pleasant than women. We should treat "love" as referring to sexual love. He does compare Johnathan's love to the love he has received from women. Therefore, it must refer to sexual intimacy. King David was a homosexual.

This church attempts to demonstrate this on the basis of the following arguments:

1. Johnathan was in love with David. (1 Sam 18:1-4)

This argument is that Johnathan loved David as he would have loved any other woman. He was drawn to David. He had seen David's heroism and he was attracted to this man. He was knit together through attraction. Therefore, he was sexually attracted to David. We do not see this type of love toward other men in our own society. This type of "brotherly love toward one another", it is argued, cannot refer to anything other than the sexual attraction of two men toward one another.

2. Saul disapproved of Johnathan's love for David. (1 Sam 20:30)

In this verse, Saul speaks out toward Johnathan, his son, about how David will someday take over the throne. Thus, Johnathan has no future as the king of Israel. Yet, Johnathan seems not to care. Why? Because he was attracted to him. His sexual attraction was such that it overshadowed the fact that he was going to lose his place in history. This love for David, it is argued, was seen by Saul and disapproved. Thus, it was as common an experience for homosexual men then as it is today.

3. David made it clear that he too loved Johnathan. (1 Sam 20:41-42)

Although he was unable to continue in his relationship to Johnathan, David made it clear that he loved Johnathan. These two verses demonstrate that David was so attracted to Johnathan that he was willing to make a covenant between the two men in order to take care of Johnathan's family no matter what happened. Therefore, David expressed the fact that he too was in love with Johnathan.

4. The love David experienced by Johnathan was greater than that of women. (2 Sam 1:23; 26-27)

Here, in the final verses of a song written by David to commemorate the life of his beloved Johnathan, David writes about how the love he experienced with Johnathan was greater than that of women. Therefore, it is argued, that the sexual intimacy that David experienced with Johnathan was greater than what he had experienced with men.

These three arguments are the basis for this church's assessment of David and Johnathan's love for one another. It was not merely a love for another man but a sexual attraction to one another that was an indication of their homosexuality.

However, let's make some observations about David himself. First of all, David was regarded as a man after God's own heart (1 Sam 13:14). Second, God had stated in no uncertain terms that a man ought not lie with another man (Lev 18:22). It is an abomination. Therefore, the first statement cannot be true if David was in fact homosexual. Obedience to God is a sign of our love toward Him. Disobedience certainly is not.

Yet, let's examine each of these arguments. What we will discover is that context is very important. Examining Scripture and reading into it what we want to see is always dangerous. These four arguments are a result of the perversion that can result.

Response to #1: Johnathan was in love with David.

The basis for this argument is that the love Johnathan had for David was sexual in nature. The word for love here is expressing the simple idea that Johnathan loved David as much as he loved himself. Thus, it was a self-less love. There is no sexual connotation here. You have to read into the text a meaning that is simply not there. These two souls were knit together. This describes their kindred spirits. They each thought so highly of one another that they were "brothers". Though not related in blood, they nonetheless had a connection to one another. Each of us has felt this about our closest friend or friends. This love for another of the same sex is not physical in nature.

Response to #2: Saul disapproved of Johnathan's love.

It is true that these verses show us that Saul was disapproving of Johnathan's attitude toward David but it had nothing to do with an attraction toward him. In fact, the very verse referred to expresses this thought gives the explanation for it. It clearly states that Johnathan's refusal to fight David is a denial of his claim to the kingdom. Saul is saying to Johnathan, "Son, by your actions, you are denying your birth right and what has been given to you. You are dishonoring me and your mother!" Read verses 30 and 31. Yet, Johnathan didn’t care. It was not because of a sexual attraction but an attempt to protect him, as clearly demonstrated in verses 28 and 29. Context clearly speaks to Johnathan's protection of David, not his sexual attraction toward him.

Response to #3: David made it clear that he too loved Johnathan.

David kissed Johnathan and wept together. Yet, why did he do this? Was it because he realized the two "star-crossed lovers could never be together"? Was this an ancient version of Romeo and Juliet? Hardly. David had just been told that Saul would continue to kill him. Johnathan was upset that his father was apart of such an evil plan. Johnathan understood that God was giving the kingdom over to David. Johnathan, like David, loved God. His relationship to God superseded any desire for personal glorification. There is not a hint here of anything more than mutual affection for one another. Anything more is perversion. Thus, such an argument is a perverted attempt to read into the text something that is clearly not here.

Response to #4: The love David experienced by Johnathan was greater than that of women.

Can men experience love toward one another that is not sexual? I would sure hope so. A father can love his son and a son can love his brother without needing for something more to be implied. Friends can have a love for one another that is unique and different from the love of a spouse. This is especially true for people whom were there in their darkest of days. Men who fought together in war have a special bond to one another. It is unique but it is not sexual. This is the lament that David expresses in this song. He had had a special relationship to Johnathan. He knew it. Johnathan could not be easily replaced. He had several wives and no doubt loved them very much. Yet, Johnathan was special. His friendship was one that David cherished. The expression that the love he had was "greater than that of women" is simply an exaggerated expression intended to describe the depth of such appreciation. If I said that my love for my wife was as "deep as the ocean", is it? What if I said that I would "climb the highest mountain and swim across any ocean just to see her". Is that literally true? The point is that this is an hyperbole. Its an overstatement meant to make a point. It is not an expression of sexual love toward another. Rather, it is a comparison to sexual love that is used to express something that is hard to say in words.

Each of these arguments are easily refuted in context. What true Christians need to know is how to read and study their Bibles correctly. We need to learn how to correctly interpret passages and pull out the author's intended meaning. We need to exegete the passage correctly.

Was King David gay? No, he was not. Those who want to claim he was are looking for proof of an already immoral lifestyle. It has been said that "a man's morality dictates his theology". This is certainly the case here.

Don't be fooled by misinterpretations of Scripture. God will not contradict Himself.

He has not and will not ever approve of homosexuality.

Atheism

The madman thinks he’s reasoned well,
When evil seems to him to swell,
The truth that none exists beyond,
The here and now and he so fond.

The madman thinks he’s reasoned well,
When morals seem to be for sale,
The “relative” be his reply,
The opposite he must deny.

The madman thinks he’s reasoned well,
When logic seems to help dispel,
The theory that he must contrive,
The notion that the best survive.

The madman thinks he’s reasoned well,
When Science seems to speak and tell,
The points in which he hoped to prove,
The God in which he must remove.

Joshua

Prepared to Die

Twas January 13^th of 91,
When I prepared to die,
I gave up all my foolishness,
And instead chose to try.

To seek my God in humbleness,
And call upon the Lord,
I gave up all my worldliness,
And chose to draw a sword.

It did not happen easily,
Nor appear by sign in sky,
Yet, the day I accepted Jesus Christ
Was the day I prepared to die.

Joshua

Regret

Where did the years of pleasure go,
Where days of lust did never slow,
And selfishness was often spent,
On youthful pride and discontent.

Where foolishness was often seen,
Where drunkenness seemed always green,
And wastefulness was ever spent,
On sinful gain and discontent.

Where did the friends formed long ago,
Where did they end, where did they go?
And did they find that they had spent,
A life of waste and discontent?

Where are those guys who oft gave in,
Where are those gals who often sinned,
And found that pleasure came and went,
On days spent searching, discontent.

Where are they now, did ere they find,
Where are they now, didst change their mind?
And come to see that time well spent,
Is time with Jesus, without regret.

Where He is King and sin is seen,
Where He is Lord and sin is cleaned,
And love is found and time is spent,
On faithfulness and sure assent.

Where are those ones who found it so,
Where are they now, did learn to grow?
And find, like I, that Christ was sent,
For sinners save if just repent.

Joshua

A Woman's Place

An attempt at poetry…

A woman's place is in the home,
A place she ought to be,
A place where children run and play,
And where she is most free.

A woman's place is in the home,
She should not seek to change,
A simple choice, a higher call,
She should not find it strange.

A woman's place is in the home,
I wish that men might give,
A loving smile, an appreciative note,
To express a life well-lived.

Joshua

Learning to Pray

Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, 'Give me legal protection from my opponent.'

"For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, 'Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.'" And the Lord said, "Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" - Luke 18:1-8 (NASB)

During the final few days before Jesus entered into Jerusalem and prepared for His death and crucifixion, He made it a priority to prepare His disciples. We see in the Scriptural account how He took the time to explain what was going to happen to Him and what their response should be. Three times He told them about how he would be spit upon, mocked, scouraged, killed and three days later rise again (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34). Yet, they did not understand what was about to happen.

Maybe it was because they could not comprehend it. Maybe it was because it was too painful and they simply denied it. Yet, none of these seem completely plausible. Luke answers our question. In Luke 18:34 he states that they did not understand because "the meaning of this statement was hidden from them." Still, Jesus found in necessary to teach them some very important principles on prayer to prepare them for this time. He knew that if they were going to remain faithful to Him through the difficult times ahead, they were going to have to go to God over and over again seeking strength and wisdom.

As He typically did, Jesus taught them the principles of prayer through a parable. He will use an analogy of a worthless judge to demonstrate through contradiction how God will listen to the prayers of the righteous. In the parable, the unrighteous judge, not desiring to help the widow because she is in need or feeling pity upon her nevertheless does help the woman just to get her to stop begging for help.

His motives were completely impure but he still made the right decision to help the woman in distress. The paradox should be obvious. If an unrighteous judge would be willing to do something kind to a widow how much more a righteous judge? How much more willing is a person who loves and cares for the widow going to do whatever possible to help? More still, how much more does God Himself desire and want to help you in your time of need if you would only turn to Him and ask?

Why did the unrighteous judge finally cave in? The woman was persistent. This teaches us about our own prayer life.

1. Pray constantly.

The woman continually went to the judge seeking help. She would not take no for answer. How often do we do this in our prayer life? If I desire for God to do something that is righteous and holy in my life how often do I pray for it? Will I ask Him for a week, a month, a year? How long will it take to demonstrate to God that our desire is for this to be accomplished? In the OT, people often fasted, prayed, and put on sackcloth and ashes to demonstrate their desire for an answer. Are you and I willing to fast and pray? To seek an answer in such a way that by our actions as well as words we demonstrate to God a desire for a response.

2. Pray consistently.

The woman's message didn’t change. She daily asked for the very same thing. It wasn’t as if she came to the judge asking for one thing and then when he said no she stated, "Well, o.k. can you give me this instead?" No. She asked consistently for the very same thing. Her petition did not change. Yet, sometimes ours does. We may ask God to give us a desire to hear His voice and understand it. Yet, when we don’t feel as if our answer has come we may lessen our request to simply hearing it one time or the answer to one question. When we ask God for the things we know He wants to give us, things that will draw us closer to Him and conform us more into the image of His Son, we can ask knowing that God wants to answer these requests. We need to understand that our timing is not always His and to pray consistently.

3. Pray confidently.

Finally, we need to see the confidence that this widow displayed. She knew that the judge was the only one who could give her the legal protection that she needed. She didn’t seek help from an attorney. She didn’t hire a bodygaurd. She sought legal protection from the one whom could provide it. We need to do the same. When we pray to God, we need to express to Him that our trust and dependence is completely upon Him. "I can't do it Lord. You alone are the only One who can help me." Such an attitude is an admittance of inferiority. It’s a humbling response. Its an honest response. God desires to know that you truly understand that when your prayer is answered it will not be because of anything you were able to accomplish but rather that He is the One who has provided the answer. He may use you or someone else in the process but Only God should rightfully receive the glory. He alone is capable of bringing about such a response.

4. Pray correctly.

Maybe the most important part of the parable is not only how the widow prayed but what she prayed for. She sought justice. She sought protection. Remember that these disciples are about to be placed into the most intense and confusing week of their lives. All will scatter. All will question their loyalty to Jesus and ultimately turn from Him at some point. Each will be faced with the same Adversary that we are faced with today.

Satan. The Bible uses a word for Satan called SANATAS. It is simply means "an adversary". It has the connotation of a legal prosecutor. Satan is the one who brings accusations upon God's chosen people. He continually seeks to accuse God's people as being false. They are liars. They don't live up to God's character. "They are not who they say they are" is his constant plea. Yet, it is Jesus who is our Defendant. He is the One who stands in as our representative. He has paid the price and we rest upon His character and not our own. Therefore, in this parable, Jesus is not only teaching his listeners how to pray but also showing what to pray. Just like the widow, they need to be reminded to pray for that which is most important. They need to pray correctly.

When we learn to pray constantly, consistently, confidently, and correctly we can be assured that God will not be slow in His response to us. In verse 7, Jesus stated that God will not "delay" in His answer to those who "cry to Him day and night".

The question is: "Do you pray in this same manner?"

Learn to pray in the same manner this widow sought justice. Learn to pray as Jesus taught us to pray.