Deeper Waters

Hello everyone. We’re continuing our study through the Bible on the Trinity and tonight, we’re going to finish up the book of 1 Corinthians and note how Paul finishes up this book. In the last few verses, Paul refers to Christ several times in quite strong language. Rather than just merely type about it, let’s go to the text and then comment on it. Our text will be 1 Cor. 16:22-24.

²²If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!

²³The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.

²⁴My love to all of you in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Let’s begin with the first one. For Paul, all who are Christians are to love the Lord. If not, they will be anathema, which we will see is a play on words. When Paul speaks of a curse in Galatians, he is referring to the curse of death. Could he be saying the same thing here? Could he be stating that if one is not in the Lord then they are cut off from life itself? (And I mean it in a qualitative sense. I do not hold to the idea of annihiliation.)

The next verse speaks of the coming of the Lord with the word “maranatha.” Hence, we have “anathema maranatha.” Whereas some were to be cursed for not being in right relation to Jesus, others were blessed and were in fact looking forward to the coming of the Lord. The terminology used here is not to be ignored as the language itself speaks of deity, but could there be something more?

Yes! Now I’m not going to go into eschatology here as I don’t even go into my own eschatological stance, but the biblical writers of old were always looking for the day of YHWH. This was the day when YHWH would come and defeat his enemies. It was an act of deity in judging a nation that had gone against him.

Paul is using similar terminology here and is instead saying that he is looking forward to the coming of the Lord Jesus. The coming of Jesus in the New Testament is to be compared to the coming of YHWH in the Old Testament. When we go through the Old Testament and see passages where the coming of YHWH is taught, we need to consider that in the time of the New Testament, that early Christians used such terminology to speak of the coming of Jesus.

Paul closes with the love being in Christ Jesus. It is noteworthy that also in the Old Testament that believers were all joined together under the covenant of YHWH. In the New Testament, Paul doesn’t hesitate to apply the same sort of idea to Jesus. There is no mention of God here, which does not mean that Paul is disrespecting him, but rather showing the high view that Paul has of Jesus in that the love of Jesus is the love of God and being in right relation with Jesus is being in right relation with YHWH. In fact, Jesus is the last word that Paul writes in this epistle. Paul wanted to end on the best note and he did. He has spoken of a curse on those who deny the Lord, the looking for the coming of the Lord, the fellowship of believers in the Lord, and then the name of the Lord is his last word. Could Paul have been telling what the belief was about Jesus in the early church perchance?

Tomorrow, we shall begin the book of 2 Corinthians.

Hello everyone. I hope everyone has had a good Saturday night and if you’re reading this at another time, I hope things have gone well for you whatever day it was. We had a good visit with a Jehovah’s Witness today on the question of what happens when we die. Quite good. Do pray for him as I think the light is beginning to dawn and pray for us that we will have the right words of wisdom to say.

Tonight, we’re going to continue our Trinity study by going to 1 Cor. 15. This is going to be again looking at one of the supposed anti-Trinitarian passages. (No passage is anti-Trinitarian after all.) We’re going to go from verse 20-28, but we want to emphasize 28. I wish for all of you to see the surrounding context.

²⁰But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. ²²For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. ²³But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. ²⁴Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. ²⁵For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ²⁶The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ²⁷For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. ²⁸When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Then Son himself will be made subject? Leon Morris’s commentary on 1 Corinthians says that this presents a difficulty, for it seems that one person of the Trinity is inferior to another. I have a great respect for Morris as a commentator and NT scholar, but I just think he’s wrong here. Perchance he means an apparent difficulty rather than an actual one. If so, then we have no problem.

First, we’ve noted several times that submission of person does not mean inferiority of nature. We’ve already had the Son submit in the act of the incarnation. Since that has happened, why should any other submission be a problem?

However, I note that there is a problem for the Arian from the text itself. Then the Son will be made subject. Then. What does that say about the Son now? Paul is speaking of this as something unsual in fact. If the thought was that the Son was always lower than the Father by nature, then we shouldn’t have any surprise at all at this passage. There would even be no need to mention it. It would be understood. Paul makes it a point.

What is his point? His point is that this is the kingdom of Christ we’re talking about and Christ is going to present that to the Father. Some theologians have said the creation was a gift from the Father to the Son. If that’s the case, we could say that this is the Son giving the new creation to the Father. It would be like the parable of the talents where one who had the gift came back with more. That’s speculation of course, but it’s something to think about.

And what would be the point of this? That God would be all in all. In other words, that the Father would be supreme. Mankind and the rest of creation fell away. This is going to be their restoration. This is going to be their glory. The Son will himself submit, but he will not lose his nature. This passage says nothing about the nature of the Son, only that he submits. We’ve already seen that that is not a problem.

We shall continue our study tomorrow.

I hope everyone enjoyed our discussion of the visit to the Kingdom Hall. I thank Fred for his comments and I thank JB for putting a link up to the article from his own blog and from his great comments on it. I think it would benefit Christians who do know their Scriptures and want to minister to Jehovah’s Witnesses to go to a Kingdom Hall meeting and see what goes on. (And if you could record one, it’d be great for curing insomnia.)

We’ve been going through the New Testament to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Our quest has brought us now to 1 Cor. 13, which is known as the love chapter. I won’t quote it as it is a lengthy one. I wish to simply address the concept it speaks about. For those interested, I think the Holman translation does an excellent job of putting it in poetic language. This is shown in a Bible that uses that translation, such as the Apologetics Study Bible.

With the JWs that have been visting us, we were discussing the doctrine of God one day and they asked us what our favorite attribute of God is. Now that’s not a question that I really like to answer, but my roommate decided it’d be good to give some answer so he brought up love. They asked us then how we would define love. I began pondering it and realizing “This is my chance to give a definition that will lead to the Trinity.” However, I could not be overtly Trinitarian. How could I do so and yet capture the beauty of what I believe love is?

I ended up saying “Love is the singular reaching beyond itself into the relational.”

I know it went well because the Witnesses asked me to repeat that and then told me that they thought it was beautiful. I smiled realizing that they had also fallen into a little trap I had set for them and sometime in the future, this could be a reminder. (This is my technique with Witnesses. Get them to agree to something and then later point out “But you yourselves agreed to this.”)

Love was an illustration of the Trinity that goes all the way back to Augustine. In order to have love, you have to have one who is loving, a beloved, and the love between them. This would correspond to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. In our world, we see this expressed in the family. (God presents himself to us as male, but Scripture says male and female are both in his image. Femininity is perfected in God just as much as masculinity is.)

What happens in the family with a lover, a beloved, and then the love between them that even results in new life, is what happens in the Trinity. The difference is that for the Trinity, this love is an eternal relationship whereas for us, it happens temporally. The Father has always loved the Son and the Son has always loved the Father and the Spirit has always proceeded from both of them. It is not even accurate to say always for that itself seems to imply temporality. This is the problem not of the concept but of our language being inadequate to fully describe the concept.

The question that can be asked of a monad concept of God is to ask who it was he was loving before he created. If there is no one, then the Father creates out of need for someone to love, which makes him needy which is enough problem, but also makes him temporal as he goes from not having someone to love to having someone to love and to not loving someone to loving someone and not receiving love to receiving love.

This Trinitarian concept also tells us how we are to love one another. We are to love seeking the good of the other above ourselves. Each person in the Trinity loves the other person for who that person is and loves them fully. It was an ancient Celtic tradition that the Trinity was in a dance of love for all eternity and we are created that we might join in the dance. Since we are to have that kind of love in the future, ought we not to practice that kind of love now? Should we not live love that is other-focused, which is Trinitarian, rather than a love simply to meet our own need, an Arian love?

Hello everyone. We’re going to continue again our study through the book of 1 Corinthians in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity. Tomorrow night, I have a little adventure planned and it is in relation to anti-Trinitarians so hopefully if that gets pulled off okay, I’ll be writing about that so expect something interesting. We’re in the 12th chapter of the book tonight and we’re going to be looking at verses 1-6.

¹Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. ²You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.³Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.⁴There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. ⁶There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

The first point to speak about is the affirmation that Jesus is Lord. This can be seen in contrast to saying “Jesus be cursed.” What could be in mind? Possibly the situation in the Galatian churches that Paul spoke of in Galatians 3. Either Jesus is cursed due to hanging on a tree, or he is the sovereign Lord due to his resurrection.

It is either one of the two. You cannot say by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is still in the tomb under the curse of God. You also cannot say that he is the sovereign Lord of the universe unless you happen to have the Holy Spirit. Of course, this is more than mere affirmation. This is a lifestyle. The demons believe there is one Lord, and they tremble.

Note how Trinitarian this whole passage is however. The Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are equated. When we get to the next section, what do we see? We see the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God. Paul is thinking in a Trinitarian way.

Paul cannot separate these, but at the same time, he does see a distinction between them. Each person is working in his own way to bring about the process of sanctification. As we see throughout the whole of 1 Cor. 12, it is all centered on Christ as we are his body.

The emphasis then Paul places on Christ gives him the high ranking in his worldview. It all begins with the Spirit working and this is the Spirit of truth that causes us to say that Jesus is Lord. You can recognize someone who is of the church by the way they speak and then their actions matching up with what they speak.

In conclusion, Paul’s argument gives us more evidence of how he saw Christ and once again, we realize that we are confronted with a Trinitarian passage of Scripture. How many more have there been that we just haven’t taken the time to see?

Hello everyone. We are still continuing our study of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. Last night, we were in 1 Cor. 8 countering an argument of the anti-Trinitarians and saw how it got turned on its head. Tonight, we’re going to be looking at another passage that anti-Trinitarians use, which is 1 Cor. 11:3. Let’s look at the verse:

³Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

The argument in this passage is that God is the head of Christ. Since that is the case, then it is obvious that Christ is not God. I am hoping by this point that long-time readers who might never have encountered this argument can already see the problem.

The first mistake is the one that I stated at the beginning of this series. It is the assumption of unipersonalism. In this case, the assumption is being made that God is one person and since Christ submits to God, well he can’t be that one person who is God.

This is also why I’ve stated that the New Testament is often precise in its terminology to refer to the Father and the Son. The Father is most often referred to as God and the Son is referred to as Lord, which is what we saw in the passage that we looked at last night.

So, when I read a passage and I see a person spoken of as God and see Christ juxtaposed with him, it does not trouble my Trinitarian faith. It’s also why I told an anti-Trinitarian recently that I wouldn’t be surprised if the term “God” in the New Testament did not ever refer to the Trinity as a whole.  Of course, I’m not ruling that out. I’m just saying that my position would not be damaged either way.

Another idea presented is that of submission, but what does that prove? We’re talking about ontology, what the Son is, and not how he functions. If the person wishes to put forward this argument seriously, then there are going to be several feminists who will be very upset with him.

Why? Look at what the text says. It says the man is the head of the woman. Now because this is the case and the woman functionally submits to the man, does that mean that the woman is inferior in her nature to the man? Is the woman less human than the man?

Not at all. However, if the anti-Trinitarian argument is to hold, it will need to be that way. Why is it that the woman and man can be equal in nature and one submit to the other and that’s okay, but the Father and Son cannot be equal in nature and one submit to the other? The reason is because of a conclusion that has been reached prior to coming to the text.

Now some might say “Well if all we had was this text you might not say the Son is God.” However, we do have much more information on the Son. If all we knew about the Son was that he submitted to the Father, we might think he was just like the angels. We know from other texts that he is not however.

Can an anti-Trinitarian use this verse? Of course they can try. Let’s just see how long they last if they’re a guy who uses this in the presence of a woman.

Hello everyone. We’re continuing our walk through the Bible here at Deeper Waters. We’ve been studying the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re in the New Testament now and we’re going through the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. We’re going to move ahead a good distance now and go to 1 Cor. 8. This is one of the favorite passages of anti-Trinitarians to use, which is ironic because it’s one of the best passages to use to defend the Trinity. We’re looking at verses 4-6 tonight:

⁴So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. ⁵For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), ⁶yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Paul is here talking about idols and why it’s okay to eat meat offered to them because the idols are essentially nothing. Now I’m not saying an idol isn’t a real object, but an idol is to be a symbol of a god of some sort, but that god doesn’t really exist. There’s nothing evil in the object itself. It’s just a chunk of metal of some kind.

He points out that for many people there are many gods and there are many lords, but for us, Christians, there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Of course, I am abbreviating what he says so I recommend seeing the entire text.

First off, Mormons use this passage to teach their doctrine that there are many gods. However, who is Paul writing to? He’s writing to Christians and saying “To us, there is but one God.” This isn’t relativistic truth, whatever that would be.

Paul is saying Christians are believers in one God. Now a Mormon can claim that they’re monotheists, but they are at best henotheists. Mormonism teaches a doctrine of many gods, particularly through the first principles of the “gospel” as Joseph Smith said in the King Follett Discourse.

How about Jehovah’s Witnesses? They say that the one God is said to be the Father. If that’s the case, then Jesus can’t be God. The argument however would assume too much. If that is the case, then the Father cannot be the Lord for Jesus is said to be the one Lord. What exactly is going on in this passage?

Richard Bauckham in “God Crucified” makes the case that what is going on is that Paul is Christianizing the Shema. Remember that passage? It’s Deuteronomy 6:4

⁴ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

If any verse encapsulated Jewish belief, it was this one. Notice the use of God and Lord both. Also the reference to One. Paul is taking this and he’s putting Jesus into the Shema, which actually shows the high view that Paul had of Jesus in that he took Israel’s defining statement of faith and made a Christian version out of it.

Also, notice the way this is worded. Creation is by the Father and through the Son. This is fitting in exactly with the Wisdom motif that we’ve seen so often. The Father is the agent of creation and the Son is the one by whom all things are created.

Thus, in conclusion, we see that the argument of the anti-Trinitarian just doesn’t hold water, and in fact, this passage is a great statement of Trinitarian belief.

Greetings to all readers! We’re going to be continuing on this fine Sunday our study on the doctrine of the Trinity. We’re in the New Testament now and in the Pauline epistles and namely, the first epistle to the Corinthians. Many of our passages focus on the deity of Christ, but today, we’re going to be looking at the deity of the Holy Spirit mainly. I want to touch briefly on another passage before that, but then we go to the main text. We’re going to be reading 1 Corinthians 2:9-11.

⁹However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him” ¹⁰but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. ¹¹For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

First, let’s say something about verse 9. How many people have heard this passage and said that this is talking about Heaven? Now I agree on an applicational basis, this could very well apply to Heaven, however, as the apostle is writing it at this point, he is not talking about Heaven. Instead, he is talking about the incarnation.

This should be something that brings joy to us. In Paul’s mind, the incarnation gets the description of what we would use to describe Heaven. Paul is telling us that the love and grace of God is so amazing that we could not even begin to think about what he did for us, and that was sending his Son to die for us. If the revelation of the Son is that good on this Earth, think about how the revelation of the Son will be in eternity.

However, verse 11 is the main focus of what we wish to speak about and that is the Spirit searching the deep things of God. Paul is using this argument to point to the knowledge of the Spirit and how the Spirit knows the deep things of God. He uses an analogy in relation to the spirit of a man.

Who knows a man? It is only the spirit of the man that knows the man. The spirit of the man is nothing external to the man. You have a spirit within you. It is that spirit that knows what is within you and is probably the same spirit that Paul refers to in Romans 8:26-27.

God’s spirit is also not external to him. It is his Spirit that knows his very being from the inside-out as it were. (This is the best way I can express it. I in no way wish to apply corporeality to the very nature of God nor do I wish to say the Spirit is a part of God.) The only way the Spirit can know all that there is of God is if that Spirit has the full nature of God. In this passage then, Paul is ascribing full deity to the Spirit.

I would recommend using this passage on Jehovah’s Witnesses if the opportunity ever came up. Most of us turn to passages like Acts 5 and 13 which have been used earlier and are good passages. My preference however is to go where I don’t think my opponent is expecting and use that passage. This is one that would fit within that criteria as while Witnesses know many verses, they tend to not have a systematic theology.

We shall continue our study further tomorrow.

Hello everyone. We’re back to continue our study on the doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures. Last night, we started going through the book of 1 Corinthians. We’re going to continue that tonight looking at verse 8 mainly. We’re going to start at verse 6 to make sure we get all of the surrounding context:

⁶We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. ⁷No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. ⁸None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The Lord of Glory. It has been said to be the most exalted term that Paul ever uses to describe Christ. This is in the context of God using that which the world despises to shame it. He who the world despised as shameful was actually the Lord of Glory.

This term shows up a few times in the Book of Enoch. Let’s see what it says. (The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal book not included in the canon.)

22:14

14 Then I blessed the Lord of glory and said: ‘Blessed be my Lord, the Lord of righteousness, who ruleth for ever.’

25:1-5

1 And he said unto me: ‘Enoch, why dost thou ask me regarding the fragrance of the tree,
2 and why dost thou wish to learn the truth?’ Then I answered him saying: ‘I wish to
3 know about everything, but especially about this tree.’ And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit
4 the earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgement, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation
5 for ever. It shall then be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King.

Chapter 27:

1 Then said I: ‘For what object is this blessed land, which is entirely filled with trees, and this
2 accursed valley between?’ Then Uriel, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered and said: ‘This accursed valley is for those who are accursed for ever: Here shall all the accursed be gathered together who utter with their lips against the Lord unseemly words and of His glory speak hard things. Here shall they be gathered together, and here
3 shall be their place of judgement. In the last days there shall be upon them the spectacle of righteous judgement in the presence of the righteous for ever: here shall the merciful bless the Lord of glory, the Eternal King.
4 In the days of judgement over the former, they shall bless Him for the mercy in accordance with
5 which He has assigned them (their lot).’ Then I blessed the Lord of Glory and set forth His glory and lauded Him gloriously.

Chapter 36:

1 And from thence I went to the south to the ends of the earth, and saw there three open portals
2 of the heaven: and thence there come dew, rain, and wind. And from thence I went to the east to the ends of the heaven, and saw here the three eastern portals of heaven open and small portals
3 above them. Through each of these small portals pass the stars of heaven and run their course to the west on the path which is shown to them. And as often as I saw I blessed always the Lord of Glory, and I continued to bless the Lord of Glory who has wrought great and glorious wonders, to show the greatness of His work to the angels and to spirits and to men, that they might praise His work and all His creation: that they might see the work of His might and praise the great work of His hands and bless Him for ever.

Paul, a good rabbinical Jew trained in the finest education of his religion would have known about these passages. However, he did not hesitate to use the terminology used in them for YHWH and apply that terminology to Jesus.

What does that tell us about Paul’s view of Jesus? It tells us he wanted Jesus to have the highest place of all. How can this be without having a truly Trinitarian concept of Jesus being fully God and fully man?

Hello everyone. We’re getting ready tonight to continue our walk through the Scriptures with the doctrine of the Trinity. Tonight, we start going through the book of 1 Corinthians. Last night, I left us with an argument that God is the only wise God as Scripture says and that he has never been without his Wisdom. I also pointed out that Jehovah’s Witnesses do often point to Proverbs 8 and say that that refers to Jesus when it speaks of Wisdom creating. I happen to agree with them. Tonight, we’re going to see why that’s a problem for them. Our main verse will be 1 Corinthians 1:24, but I will get verses 20-25 to make sure I have the surrounding context for you:

²⁰Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ²²Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

For the early Christians spreading their message, it was a shameful one. People would say “You want me to follow that man? You think he was a king? You think he is God? Are you serious? He was crucified. That’s no place for God to be and that’s no place for a king to be.”

It’s worth noting that the Christians never changed this stance. It would have been beneficial to them, but Christians throughout the ages have stuck to the historical facts as they were in regards to their faith. Jesus was crucified. It was never denied. Jesus did miracles. We cannot deny that either. The incarnation was a real event. The resurrection happened. Even though the world may not believe these, we must.

Yet what the world calls foolish, Paul points out was the wisdom of God at work and he could be using a pun here in that the working of the Wisdom of God was a manifestation of God’s wisdom. In other words, God was shown as wise by having his Wisdom come to Earth and atone for our sins.

Look at verse 24. Christ is called the Wisdom and the Power of God. This could work well with Power, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses are already giving us Wisdom. Let’s go with that. The syllogism will look like this.

Jesus is God’s Wisdom.

God’s Wisdom is eternal.

Jesus is eternal.

This is what is called a bulls-eye syllogism. All three propositions are A propositions. If the premises are true and the syllogism is valid, the conclusion follows. This is a valid syllogism so what we have to ask is if the premises are true.

The Witnesses have already granted us the first one and make sure they grant you that before you use this argument. That way they don’t have an escape hatch. Now we move on to the second. Is God’s Wisdom eternal?

This brings us to last night’s blog. If his Wisdom is not eternal, then we have a God who is temporal. We have a God who was unwise at one point and somehow in his lack of wisdom created wisdom and brought wisdom upon himself.

It is far easier to believe Jesus is eternal. If Jesus is eternal, then he cannot be created as the Witnesses say he was. (At least not in a temporal sense.) Granted, that might not mean they accept his deity fully, but it does mean that they need to re-examine their claim that Jesus is a temporal creation and if he’s not that, then what is he? Could he very well be one with the full nature of God eternally?

Hopefully, that’ll give them something to think about.