The Silencing of God (Session 5) - Dr. Dave Miller Last Video 52 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqxrmatR_Uk 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Was Jesus Married?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Deity of ChristDivine Life and DoctrineHistoricity

The parade of alleged gospels that purport to alter the foundational doctrines of the Christian religion is endless. Most recently, a papyrus fragment written in Coptic that dates to the fourth century has created a stir. Among its eight badly faded lines are two phrases, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife…’” and a second provocative clause that is believed to say, “she will be able to be my disciple” (Goodstein, 2012). No matter how tentative and flimsy the evidence, liberal scholars and atheists glory in any item that might discredit Christ and Christianity. Yet, even the lead expert on the fragment, historian at the Harvard Divinity School, Karen King, repeatedly cautioned that it “should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question” (Goodstein, emp. added).

Many Christians and non-Christians fail to grasp the fact that the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity does not finally depend on archaeological discovery. If the Bible can be proven to possess the attributes of inspiration, demonstrating its divine origin, then no artifact will ever be discovered that will contradict that truth. If any manuscript or artifact appears to do so, it is being misinterpreted and misconstrued. Since we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (based on a careful and thorough analysis of its internal attributes—see the category “Inspiration of the Bible” at apologeticspress.org), then we know that Jesus never married just as the New Testament represents. [NOTE: That is not to say that the Catholic notion of celibacy finds biblical support—it does not. See Pinedo, 2008, pp. 60ff.]

Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the textual basis of the New Testament was settled and fully authenticated many years ago. The longstanding discipline of Textual Criticism has yielded abundant evidence for the trustworthiness of the text of the New Testament. Over the last two centuries, the manuscript evidence has been thoroughly examined, resulting in complete exoneration for the integrity, genuineness, and accuracy of the Bible. Prejudiced university professors refrain from divulging to their students that the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect salvation nor alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved (e.g., Metzger, 1978, p. 185). One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the Bible as God intended.

The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, 1940, p. 288). The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1960, pp. 19-20). J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Times to be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth” (Brigance, 1870, p. 4), conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1956, p. 17). And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:

Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed (1964, p. 564, emp. added).

Noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament” (p. 565, emp. added).

Think of it. Men who literally spent their lives poring over ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, devoting their lives to meticulous, tedious analysis of the evidence, conversant with the original languages, without peer in their expertise and qualifications, have concluded that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. No scrap of papyrus written 200+ years after the fact can overturn the last two centuries of scholarly investigation and validation—let alone the Bible’s own inspired testimony to the contrary.

REFERENCES

Brigance, L.L. (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. McGarvey (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications, 1962 reprint).

Bruce, F.F. (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Goodstein, Laurie (2012), “A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife,” The New York Times, September 18, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120919&moc.semityn.www.

Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York, NY: Harper).

McGarvey, J.W. (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1978 reprint), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), second edition.

Pinedo, Moises (2008), What the Bible says about the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf.

Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York, NY: MacMillan).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed

Why Was Jesus Never Called Immanuel? Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/why-was-jesus-never-called-immanuel/ 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Can God Be Omniscient if He Regretted Making Man? Video 10 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/can-god-be-omniscient-if-he-regretted-making-man/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided

 

Does Methodological Naturalism Nullify Evidence for Christianity?

Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersExistence of GodFaith and Reason

Skeptics of the Bible sometimes suggest that the claims of Christianity (e.g., the creation of the Universe, the resurrection of Jesus) cannot be supported by any facts from the historical record or by any scientific data, because these disciplines operate on the basis of methodological naturalism.1 Allegedly, any scholarly discipline that is methodologically naturalistic can provide no support for a claim that a miracle occurred. Is this the case?

Defining Methodological Naturalism

Methodological naturalism is the practice of seeking only natural causes of scientific phenomena.2 Admittedly, some disciplines typically are defined by the quest to provide and understand explanations in terms of natural regularities. In this regard they are religiously neutral. And, in certain circumstances, it is reasonable to suggest that 
“[w]ithin science, we should adopt methodological naturalism, according to which answers to questions are sought within nature, within the contingent created order. For example, in describing how two charged electrodes separate hydrogen and oxygen gas when placed in water, the ‘God hypothesis’ is both unnecessary and out of place.”3

The degree to which methodological naturalism is used varies from field to field and from one practitioner to another. Many scientists allow the possibility of supernatural explanations and even operate professionally as theists or “Creation scientists.” And, many historians publicly support the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection. But insofar as miracles are not currently observed, many natural scientists in their professional capacity do not engage with the possibility that there is a supernatural realm.4 Similarly, many historians operate in the context of professional standards that restrict them from reaching conclusions that any supernatural event is a fact of history.

That said, the religiously neutral data of the natural sciences can be marshaled to support premises in an argument that leads to a theological conclusion, such as the historical event of a miracle. Consider some examples:

• Natural science has provided rich evidence to support the premise that the Universe began to exist, to the degree that the beginning of the Universe is taken as a datum by practically all concerned.5 The premise that the Universe began to exist supplies a step in an argument to the conclusion that God exists.6
• The behavior of electrodes is not a directly theological question, but why there are electrodes, oxygen, or water, or any matter or energy at all, is a question that introduces a supernatural explanation.
• The statement, “Dead bodies do not rise naturally from the dead,” is confirmed by natural science,  and also is a necessary premise (even if taken for granted and left implicit) in any argument for the resurrection of Jesus as a miraculous event.7

Whatever the professional standards of any academic discipline may be, each person still is faced with the question of whether it is reasonable to believe the supernatural claims of Christianity. What a historian or scientist is allowed to publish or discuss in a professional society is one thing; what he believes on the basis of the evidence provided by his discipline is another.

Methodological Naturalism Does Not Imply Metaphysical Naturalism

Unfortunately, some have taken the fact that methodological naturalism governs certain disciplines as evidence that metaphysical naturalism (sometimes called philosophical or ontological naturalism) is true. Metaphysical naturalism is the view that nature, meaning “physical reality” or “spatiotemporal reality,” is all that exists (thus God, angels, demons, heaven, hell, and human spirits do not exist).8 For example, the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman cited methodological naturalism in the current practice of history as evidence that historical data cannot support Jesus’ resurrection in any way.9 The claim that metaphysical naturalism is true begs the question: What evidence is there that naturalism is true? In the discipline of philosophy, for example, the non-existence of God is not merely assumed prima facie, but rather the question of God’s existence has been one of the major topics of philosophy ever since Socrates.10 (Thankfully, the last 60 years or so have seen a blossoming of theism in many philosophy departments.)11 

Methodological Naturalism Does Not Imply Epistemological Naturalism

Unfortunately, some have taken the fact that methodological naturalism governs certain disciplines as evidence that epistemological naturalism is true. Epistemological naturalism (or “scientism”) is the view that science is the only source of knowledge. As an example of epistemological naturalism, consider the words of Jerry A. Coyne, the biologist from the University of Chicago who has published widely in support of organic evolution:

[T]ruth is simply what is: what exists in reality and can be verified by rational and independent observers. It is true that DNA is a double helix, that the continents move, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is not true, at least in the dictionary sense, that somebody had a revelation from God. The scientific claims can be corroborated by anyone with the right tools, while a revelation, though perhaps reflecting someone’s real perception, says nothing about reality, for unless that revelation has empirical content, it cannot be verified.12

Yet it is easy to see that epistemological naturalism is incorrect, for at least two reasons:13

First, because epistemological naturalism is self-refuting: The claim that science is the only source of knowledge is itself non-scientific, unverifiable by observation. Second, because epistemological naturalism is overly restrictive. It would lead to the abandonment of vast tracts of knowledge, including science itself. For science is based on non-scientific—but entirely reasonable—presuppositions: We believe in the reality of the past, the external world, and the laws of logic, but there is no observational “proof” for the reality of these things. As John C. Lennox observed, scientism leads people to think that “scientific” means the same as “rational,” but clearly such an equation is false!14 Finally, it should be noted that even the epistemological naturalist should believe in God, because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a Creator and Designer of the Universe.

Conclusion

Methodological naturalism is a practical reality in our world today, but it should not be taken to imply that the disciplines operating on this basis provide no usable data for developing apologetical arguments. And, methodological naturalism does not imply the truth of metaphysical naturalism or epistemological naturalism. Each position must be judged on its own merits, based on the evidence.

Endnotes

1 Cf. S. Joshua Swamidass (2021), “Why Methodological Naturalism?,” https://peacefulscience.org/articles/methodological-naturalism/.

2 Alvin Plaintinga (1997), “Methodological Naturalism?,” Origins and Design, 18[1]:18; Lok-Chi Chan (2021), “On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Mind, 1:222.

3 J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig (2003), Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 358.

4 On the definition of miracles and their cessation, see David L. Lipe (2022), “Miracles in the Church,” Equipping the Saints (Searcy, AR: Stewart), pp. 336-344.

5 Alexander Vilenkin (2007), Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang), p. 176.

6 E.g., Jeff Miller (2016), “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/the-cosmological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-5300/.

7 Cf. William Lane Craig and James Crossley (2007), “Was Jesus Bodily Raised from the Dead?,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/was-jesus-bodily-raised-from-the-dead-debate.

8 Chan, “On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism.”

9 Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig (2006), “Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman.

10 Plato (1997), Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett), note the dialogues Euthyphro; Apology; Republic.

11 William Wood (2021), “Philosophy and Christian Theology,” Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/.

12 Jerry A. Coyne (2015),Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible (New York: Penguin), p. 29.

13 These are adapted from William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg (2013), “Is Faith in God Reasonable?,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-faith-in-god-reasonable.

14 John C. Lennox (2019), Can Science Explain Everything? (Oxford: The Good Book), p. 23.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The Godhead

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Existence of GodNature of God

In some ways, the nature and essence of divinity is unfathomable—precisely what one would expect when conceptualizing an eternal, infinite Being. Nevertheless, the Bible plainly alludes to deity in terms of three divine Persons Who form a single God. The Bible uses three closely-related terms—essentially synonyms—to identify the notion of divinity, rendered “Godhead” or “Divine Nature” in most English translations:

• Θεότης is defined as “the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for Qeov$.”1 It occurs in Colossians 2:9—“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” This verse plainly declares that the fullness of divinity resides in Jesus, that He is fully deity, and fully God.
• A second term, θειότης, is defined as “the quality or characteristic(s) pert[aining] to deity, divinity, divine nature, divineness.”2 Paul used the term in his condemnation of the Gentiles and their inexcusable rejection of God: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
• A third term, Θεῖον, is defined as “pert[aining] to that which belongs to the nature or status of deity, divine.”3 This term was used by Paul when he addressed the Athenian philosophers: “Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising” (Acts 17:29; see also 2 Peter 1:3-4—“divine power” and “divine nature”).

These three terms confirm the deity of Christ. Look carefully at the contextual indicators in Acts 17 in which Paul addressed the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill. Some of those present assessed Paul as being “a proclaimer of foreign gods, because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18). Noting one of their idols which bore the inscription “To the unknown god,” Paul immediately directed their attention to the one true God by stating specifically that it was He “who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts 17:24; cf. Revelation 4:11). This declaration concerning the true God and “Lord” (vss. 24 and 27) most certainly did not exclude Jesus since the New Testament repeatedly pinpoints Jesus’ direct, divine involvement in doing that very thing. He is repeatedly declared to be the Creator. Consider the following listing:

John 1:3—“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

John 1:10—“the world was made through Him.”

Ephesians 3:9—“…God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:16—“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.”

Hebrews 1:2—“…through whom also He made the worlds.”

Hebrews 1:10-12—“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.”

Hebrews 2:10—“For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things.”

In Malachi’s stirring rebuke of his post-exilic contemporaries for their disobedience, he asked them, “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10). As Creator, Jesus is declared to be “God” (John 1:1). God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead—the one God.

Further, the word “God” is also used synonymously with “Godhead” in the context of Romans 1:20 in close affiliation with Jesus. The entire purpose of the book of Romans is to expound the fact that the means by which deity/God can save human beings is via what Jesus did on the cross. The word “Christ” is used very specifically and directly to refer to His inner nature as associated with the Godhead in Colossians 2:9. So the three occurrences of the term “Godhead” in the New Testament are used to include all three Persons of the one God. In all three of these contexts, divinity is depicted as existing as a collective whole. Jesus is clearly included in the Bible’s attribution of deity to His Person.

Summary Observations

The reader is urged to keep in mind that, as is frequently the case, the Bible interchanges the terms that apply to the Godhead—as if anticipating the various attempts to isolate them from each other by relegating one to a status of lesser divinity.4 When the Bible states that one of the members of the Godhead possesses an attribute, the same may be said of the other two members of the Godhead. If Jesus is “only Potentate” (1 Timothy 6:15), the same may be said of the Father and the Holy Spirit. If God is “love” (1 John 4:8,16), all three Persons of the Godhead possess that perfect, infinite love. Each member of the Godhead is co-equal, sharing divinity, eternality, and infinitude. All three Persons of the Godhead are infinite in all of their attributes. The Father is not more loving than the Son. The Son is not more righteous than the Holy Spirit. They differ only in the specific roles they play in the divine scheme of redemption. Hence, God is the “head” of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:3) only in the sense that Jesus submitted Himself to the particular role/responsibility of temporarily relinquishing His eternal state in order to come to Earth in human form to die as a human to achieve atonement.

The Role of Jesus

Christ’s redemptive activity is clearly the primary role He performed. Referring to Jesus, John said “the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (John 10:36). So from within the Godhead, Jesus was “set apart” to go to the cross. As previously noted, He is repeatedly identified as the “Savior.” And, also as previously noted, He is said to be involved in the Creation of the physical realm and the ongoing sustaining of the created order.5 And we’ve seen that He will also be heavily involved in the Judgment:

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him…. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:31-34).

The Role of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit was also sent from within the Godhead for His unique work.6 He is variously referred to in Scripture as “the Spirit of God” (Genesis 1:2), “the Holy Spirit of God” (Ephesians 4:30), “the Holy Spirit” (John 14:26), “the Spirit” (1 Timothy 4:1), “the Spirit of the LORD” (Micah 3:8; 2 Corinthians 3:17), “the Spirit of the living God” (2 Corinthians 3:3), “the Spirit of your Father” (Matthew 10:20), “the Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7), “the Spirit of Christ” (1 Peter 1:11), “the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19), “the Spirit of glory” (1 Peter 4:14), “the Spirit of truth (John 16:13), the Spirit of holiness” (Romans 1:4). Examine the following graphic:

Observe that these are all equivalent expressions referring to the same Person of the Godhead. He is even referred to in the same verse as “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9). Jesus explained: “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).

The Holy Spirit’s primary7 task was to bring into existence all divine revelation over a 1600-year period via the human speakers and writers that He inspired. Peter said the prophets engaged in “searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow” (1 Peter 1:11). Micah and Ezekiel are examples of prophets to whom the Holy Spirit spoke directly in the Old Testament (Micah 3:8; Ezekiel 2:2; 3:24).

His revelatory role continued into the New Testament period during which time He revealed information “which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 3:5). Hence, Paul could declare: “For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 1:5). The Spirit spoke directly to Phillip (Acts 8:29), Peter (Acts 10:19; 11:12), and Agabus (Acts 11:28). His involvement in the inauguration and implementation of the new covenant was so conspicuous that it is described as the “ministry of the Spirit” being administered by “the Spirit of the living God” (2 Corinthians 3:3,8). And the initial human participants were prepared for their work by being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5). Perhaps a good summary observation of the Spirit’s primary role is seen in the book of Revelation where the Holy Spirit communicated His words to the seven churches of Asia Minor. Each time He concluded His remarks with the same refrain: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (2:7,11,17,29; 3:6,13,22).

Though that task has been completed—with no new revelation being dispensed by Deity since the first century8—the Holy Spirit appears now to be involved primarily in using that completely revealed revelation to impact human minds. Written divine revelation, i.e., the Bible, is said to be His “sword” which He wields on the human heart (Ephesians 6:17). What’s more, the Holy Spirit is “the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory” (Ephesians 1:14).

The Role of the Father

While the three members of the Godhead are completely equal in their divine essence, nevertheless, the Father seems to function somewhat as the “coordinator” or “initiator” of the Godhead, orchestrating the functioning of the respective Persons in their unique capacities. Rex Turner referred to God the Father as the “designer and supreme lawgiver” as well as the “director” in “the order of the creation.”9 Since the Creation, the Father has been heavily concerned with dispensing His providential care to the entire human race. He watches over His creation, monitoring the created order (even feeding the birds—Matthew 6:26), and actively “rules in the kingdom of men” (Daniel 4:17).

It appears that sometimes the word “Jehovah” is intended to be understood in a generic sense as a title/name for Deity in general—equally applicable individually to all three Persons of the Godhead, even as “God” can be used to refer to all three collectively or individually. The words “Father” and “Son” are usually used to distinguish two of the members of the Godhead to accentuate their respective roles in the scheme of redemption—although even that delineation is not firm since Isaiah clearly used the term “Father” to refer to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6.10

To summarize, it is very difficult—and caution should certainly be exercised—in attempting to distinguish between and even isolate the various aspects of the roles of the Members of the Godhead. All three are separately said to be “God” and “Jehovah.” Context must determine which Member is being noted. And “God” often refers to the Godhead—all three members of the Trinity as a collective whole, as in Revelation 22:9 where the angel instructed John to “Worship God.” As previously noted, being Deity, and being one God, one divine essence, and one Mind, they are so “blended” in their Beings that they cannot be isolated from each other. They are so closely aligned and allied in their Persons that what One is said to do may be said to be done by the Other. For example, Jesus said the Father would send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Yet Jesus said that he, Himself, would send the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). Obviously, the Holy Spirit had an equal “say” in the sending of Himself. Another example is seen in the fact that all three Members of the Godhead are said to give eternal life to humans—Jesus (John 4:14; 6:33; 10:28), the Father (John 3:16; 17:2; Romans 2:7; 6:23), and the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6; Galatians 6:8). Hence, the three members of the Godhead may be distinguished only in those actions that were mutually assigned by the collective whole to one Person to perform. Yet, even these distinctions can overlap and appear indistinguishable.

It is important to recognize that the credibility of the Bible is not brought into question in its teaching regarding the Godhead. Dealing with a subject as incomprehensible to the human mind as an eternal Being Who is infinite in all of His attributes, one would expect to encounter perplexities—but not contradiction. The Bible’s depiction of the Godhead is internally harmonious and consistent with a logical appraisal of the subject.

Endnotes

1 Frederick Danker (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 452, italics in orig.

2 Ibid., p. 446, italics in orig.

3 Ibid., p. 446, italics in orig.

4 One example of interchange—out of a host throughout the Bible—is seen in Ezekiel 20 where “LORD” occurs 10 times, “LORD God” occurs 1 time, “LORD your God” occurs 4 times, and “Lord God” occurs 11 times. Yet all four expressions refer to Deity. The divine name (LORD/Yahweh/Jehovah), “Lord,” and “God” can be interchangeable. Recall the declaration of Thomas in his reference to Jesus: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Hence, Jesus is “Lord” and He is “God.”

5 To show, once again, the extent to which the Persons of the Godhead “merge” together in their divine activity, Elihu claimed that “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4).

6 Verses that indicate that the Holy Spirit is divine include Jesus’ declaration that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable (Matthew 12:31-32), Paul’s declaration that the church is the temple of God and that the Spirit resides there (1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:22), even as their individual human bodies constitute “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19). Indeed, to lie to the Holy Spirit is equivalent to lying to God (Acts 5:3-4). David insisted that “The Spirit of the LORD [Jehovah] spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:2). When Paul stated, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16), he alluded to the Spirit as “God.” All verses that refer to “the Spirit of God”—used some 25 times in the Bible—do not refer to the Spirit as belonging to God, but rather refer to the Spirit being God. His eternality is reflected in Hebrews 9:14 where He is referred to as “the eternal Spirit.”

7 I say “primary” because, being Deity, like the other members of the Godhead, He was involved in other activities—including participating in the Creation (Genesis 1:2). See also Psalm 104:30 and Job 33:4.

8 For a study of the cessation of the miraculous generally—and inspiration in particular—see Dave Miller (2020), Modern-Day Miracles (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

9 Rex Turner (1989), Systematic Theology (Montgomery, AL: Alabama Christian School of Religion), p. 61. A separate discussion for another time concerns the tendency to view the Father as possessing authority over the other members of the Godhead. Hence, some refer to the Members of the Godhead numerically as the “first Person of the Godhead” (i.e., God the Father), “the second Person of the Godhead” (i.e., Jesus the Son), and “the third Person of the Godhead” (i.e., the Holy Spirit). Consequently, they suggest that the Father—though the same in divinity, nature, and essence as the Son and Holy Spirit—exercises greater authority within the Godhead. Turner describes God at Creation as “the designer and supreme ruler/lawgiver” while Jesus was the creator Who executed God’s design, with the Holy Spirit serving as “the organizer, the beautifier, and the lawgiver” (pp. 57-66). See Rex Turner (1972), Fundamentals of the Faith (Montgomery, AL: Rex Turner), pp. 112ff.; Hugo McCord (1980), Great Doctrines of the Bible, ed. M.H. Tucker (Knoxville, TN: East Tennessee School of Preaching & Missions), p. 26.

10 The word “Father” is used to refer to God in the Old Testament when referring to His relationship with Israel and His earthly children (Deuteronomy 32:6; Psalm 89:26; Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Jeremiah 3:19). It is not used, as it so often is in the New Testament, as a frequent allusion to God’s relationship with Jesus—with one exception, i.e., 1 Chronicles 17:13 which is quoted in Hebrews 1:5. The word “Son” is clearly so used in prophetic form in anticipation of the arrival of Jesus on the planet to assume the posture of “Son” in His relationship with God the Father—Psalm 2:7,12—a relationship which required Him to willingly subordinate Himself and temporarily relinquish His eternal glory in order to achieve atonement for humanity. However, be reminded that 1 Chronicles 17:13 has a dual meaning to include reference to David’s physical progeny, beginning with Solomon, that occupied Israel’s throne down through the centuries, with Jesus being the ultimate “Son of David.” Therefore, the Hebrews writer’s allusion to “Father” may not be intended to refer to the Father/Son relationship between God and Christ, as reflected by the wording of the same prophecy in 2 Samuel 7:14—“I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.” Since Jesus was sinless, this portion of the Messianic prophecy must refer to Solomon and/or his successors.

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed