Home » Posts tagged 'worship' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: worship
John 20:28 and the Watchtower Society
John 20:28 is a very difficult passage for the Watchtower Society or so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to explain away. The Watchtower, in its New World “Translation” that was made by seven “translators” who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, and only one of which had ever taken a single course in New Testament Greek in his life, egregiously mistranslates John 1:1 to affirm that the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, was “a god,” supporting a form of polytheism in the Watchtower, where their god Jehovah, who is different than the true Jehovah God of the Bible, is allegedly the Almighty God while Christ is a secondary true god, a “mighty god.” The Watchtower Society claims that their deity is “the God,” and only the true God is called “the God,” while Christ is merely “a god,” a secondary true god. Their mistranslation of John 1:1 is awful, but, in my opinion, is not the first place to go to in order to show members of the cult their error. While the facts are not at all on their side in John 1:1, it is too complicated in Greek for them to believe you; they will believe their cult over what you say.
However, their misinterpretation of John 1:1 leaves them with a huge problem in John 20:28. In John 20:28–the climax of John’s Gospel–we read the following. Notice John 20:28:
John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
In Greek, the Apostle Thomas calls Christ “the Lord of me and the God of me”–so Christ is called “the God” in the climactic section of the gospel of John! Christ then says that Thomas is “blessed” for having confessed the Lord Jesus as “the God” (v. 29), and then the Apostle John explains that this confession is involved in believing on Christ to receive life in His name (vv. 30-31).
Here are pictures of John 20:28 from an interlinear Greek New Testament. I recommend that you download or take a picture of these pics and keep them on your phone or other electronic device. Then, when you run into a member of the Watchtower Society, you can tell him that you noticed this in the Bible and would like to get his explanation.
The interlinear here is J. P. Green’s Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, 4 vol. ed., the volume on the New Testament. I believe Green’s interlinear, based on the Textus Receptus, is the best interlinear that is out there. I personally do not need to use an interlinear because my Greek has passed that stage, but on whatever occasions I would need to use one, I use Green’s (I have a leather-bound version of the NT portion of his interlinear and a big one-volume work that has the OT and NT. I am not sure if the leather-bound version is still in print.) If you want an interlinear, here are (affiliate) links to where you can get it on Amazon:
New Testament:
One volume edition Old and New Testament (bigger book and smaller print):
Four volume set:
Usually people in the Watchtower will refuse to talk to you if they are aware that you know what you are talking about–they seek to prey on the Biblically ignorant, not show their (alleged) truth to those who know God’s Word, because once you know the Bible well you are not going to get sucked into their cult. So it is wise to ask questions of members of the Watchtower when you seek to evangelize them, because as soon as they know you understand Scripture, they probably will not want to talk to you any more.
So what can you ask a member of the Watchtower? Something like the following (which also includes their very feeble attempts to explain the text away):
In John 20:28, at the climax of John’s Gospel, the point to which the whole Gospel has been building after the prologue of 1:1-18 and before the epilogue of chapter 21, Thomas answers and says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me” O Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou (John 20:28), addressing Jesus Christ as “the” God. Christ commends Thomas for this statement, saying he was blessed, and that those who similarly confess and believe that Jesus is “the God of me” are blessed (20:29). Why do you think Thomas calls Christ “the God of me”?
The only explanations from members of the Watchtower that I have heard are the following:
1.) Thomas was taking God’s name in vain, like people who say “Oh my G**,” because the Apostle was surprised at Christ’s resurrection appearance. However, Christ would not have commended the Apostle for taking God’s name in vain. One of the Apostles taking God’s name in vain is the climactic confession of the whole Gospel of John? That “explanation” is ridiculous.
2.) Thomas was not really speaking to Christ when the Bible says Thomas “answered and said unto him.” But that also is to read into the Bible what it does not say, rather than drawing from the text what it does say. The “him” in 20:28 refers to Christ in 20:27. That is simply what the grammar requires. Thomas “answered” and “said unto” Christ, “him” of 20:28 who had appeared to Thomas. It cannot possibly be speaking about God the Father.
One Watchtower elder told me that only the “the Lord of me” was addressed to Christ while “the God of me” was addressed to the Father. However, looking at all the NT verses where the construction of John 20:28 appears, in all 61 instances, the same person gets the whole address (Matthew 11:4; 12:39, 48; 15:3, 23, 28; 16:17; 17:11; 19:4, 27; 21:21, 24, 27; 25:26, 37, 44; 26:33; Mark 6:37; 7:28; 9:12, 38; 11:14, 29; 12:17, 34; 14:48; Luke 1:19, 35; 3:11; 4:8; 7:22; 8:50; 10:41; 11:45; 13:8, 15; 17:20; 20:34; 24:18; John 2:19; 3:10; 4:10; 5:11, 19; 6:26; 7:16, 21, 52; 8:14, 33, 48; 9:20, 27, 30, 34; 10:25, 33; 12:34; 14:23; 18:5; 20:28). So this attempt to evade what sure looks like the plain sense of John 20:28 also fails badly. Thomas called Christ both “the Lord of me” and “the God of me.” Thomas answered and said to Jesus, “the Lord of me and the God of me.”
Because this text is so difficult for the Watchtower to explain away, they attempt to conceal from their members that Christ is called “the God” in John 20:28 (as He is in Hebrews 1:8). The Watchtower hopes that their “Jesus is a god, but not the God” explanation for John 1:1 works and that nobody notices that Christ is called “the God of me” in John 20:28. That is why this fact is very helpful and something worth pressing a Watchtower witness on.
The original audience who got the Gospel of John would have concluded that Thomas was “the Lord” and “the God” of Thomas, and that those who similarly believed were blessed (20:29). The Apostle Thomas was blessed when he confessed Jesus to be “the Lord of me and the God of me,” and I am blessed to make the same confession, 20:29. If members of the Watchtower repent, they also can make the same confession and receive eternal life through repentant faith alone in the one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who is in all three Persons possessed of the glorious Name “Jehovah.” (Matthew 28:19).
You can learn more about the blessed truth of the Trinity by clicking here.
–TDR
“They Will Reverence My Son”
In a story told by the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, He said in Mark 12:6:
Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.
Free sacred and classical music
If you would like beautiful sacred and classical music for free, here are some resources. Consider bookmarking this post and come back to it when you want to listen to some good music.
Sacred:
In the ecclesiology section of my website, I have a number of resources for sacred, reverent, and free conservative psalm and hymn music. Lord willing, I will keep those resources updated as links change. So for free sacred music, please click here.
Classical:
Netherlands Bach Society: They are playing everything that Bach wrote, over time, and making it available for free. Their YouTube channel has no ads in their videos (as of the time I am writing this).
So you know, I have a real soft spot for the baroque and for early classical music.
May these resources be a blessing to you, as you offer God holy praise in psalms and hymns, and enjoy the beauty of His design seen in classical music.
–TDR
Is the Trinity Practical? by Ryan McGraw
Some time ago I reviewed on this blog Ryan McGraw’s fine book Knowing the Trinity: Practical Thoughts for Daily Life.
I recommend the book highly; too many Christians think that the Trinity is just a doctrine that one holds that has no impact on his life, when, in fact, the Trinity is at the heart of all of the believer’s relationship with God and is thus at the core of the Christian’s new birth, sanctification, glorification, and eternal heavenly fellowship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
If Dr. McGraw’s book (easy to read and not especially long) book is more than one wants to read, however, he has also written a short and helpful pamphlet called “Is the Trinity Practical?” which one can read quickly in just a few minutes, and which distills the truth in his longer book (which itself was a distillation of John Owen’s Christian classic Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a great treasure which I discuss in my Trinitarianism class here for several lectures.)
I purchased a number of copies of “Is the Trinity Practical?” to share with others. While the links in this post are to Amazon as Amazon affiliate links (if you get things on Amazon, please consider using Amazon Smile as discussed here), where you can also see what other people have thought of the book in the relevant book review section at Amazon, the cheapest place that I found to get copies of McGraw’s pamphlet, at least as of writing this post, was with Reformation Heritage Books, which, at the time of my writing this, had a nice sale on McGraw’s pamphlet.
I believe McGraw’s pamphlet could be very helpful for practically all church members. Perhaps you should consider getting some copies and sharing them with others in your congregation? The only warning I would make is that as an orthodox Presbyterian with Puritan leanings McGraw uses the word “sacrament” a few times instead of the better Biblical term “ordinance.” for baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But his Trinitarianism is completely orthodox, and other than the word “sacrament” there is nothing that points to Presbyterian ecclesiology in his pamphlet. Dr. McGraw is to be commended for summarizing in short compass what far too many who have even graduated from Bible colleges do not know in our theologically loose day–that the Trinity is central to everything in the Christian life, and is therefore most eminently practical.
–TDR
Binding and Loosing–What Are They? Matthew 16:19; 18:18; Catholic, Pentecostal, Keswick, and Bible Views
Do you know what it means that the church can bind and loose? The Bible reads:
Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that binding and loosing are associated with an infallible power their religious organization, led by the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, from the chair of the (alleged) first Pope, Peter, to supposedly infallibly determine doctrine. Pentecostal, charismatic, Word of Faith and Keswick proponents claim to have the authority to bind Satan. What does Scripture teach?
I discussed this question in a Greek class I taught going through William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek, from 5:56-19:23 into the class video. Click here to watch the video on YouTube (and please feel free to subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube channel, post a comment or “like” the video)
or watch the video embedded below:
Learn what Scripture teaches about binding and loosing!
–TDR
Sermons on the Sabbath & Lord’s Day: Old and New Testament Evidence, and Seventh-Day Adventism Examined
I have had the privilege of preaching a series on the Sabbath and its relationship to the Lord’s Day. Topics covered include the Sabbath as Israel’s sign of creation and redemption; the way the Sabbath points forward to redemptive rest in the Lord Jesus Christ; Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, Puritan, and dispensational Baptist views of the Sabbath; the question of whether churches in the New Testament era need to meet for worship on the Sabbath or on the Lord’s Day; and a careful study of the heresies, not just on the Sabbath, but on the doctrines of Scripture, God, Trinitarianism, Christ, salvation, last things, and many other areas of Seventh-Day Adventism, as explained in “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends.”
To listen to the sermons and/or watch the preaching, please:
Click here to watch the series on the Sabbath
and feel free to add a comment, “like” the videos, and/or subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube channel if you have not already do so.
There is probably one more message on the Sabbath coming, so feel free to check back. You can’t end a series with six messages instead of seven anyway, can you?
–TDR
The Psalter Headings–Infallibly Accurate Scripture, Correctly Ascribing Authorship to David, etc.
Many today question whether the headings of the Psalms are inspired Scripture, and whether they accurately ascribe authorship to David, Asaph, and so on. The headings to the psalms are inspired, just like the rest of the Bible, and when they say that a psalm was composed by David, Asaph, Heman, or Moses, they record God’s inspired truth. A “Psalm of David” was actually written by David. A “Psalm of Asaph” was actually written by Asaph.
Here are some reasons why the psalm headings should be trusted:
[Theological liberal] Brevard Childs says, “A wide consensus has been reached among critical scholars for over a hundred years that the titles are secondary additions, which can afford no reliable information toward establishing the genuine historical setting of the Psalms.”5 As a result, psalm studies for more than a century have been adrift in conflicting opinions about their dates and meaning[.] … Fortunately, the tide of academic opinion concerning the antiquity and reliability of the superscriptions is slowly changing under the gravity of evidence. … Sumerian and Akkadian ritual texts dating from the third millennium contain rubrics corresponding to elements in the superscription,8 and so do Egyptian hymns from the Eighteenth Dynasty and later.9 Some psalms ascribed to David contain words, images, and parallelism now attested in the Ugaritic texts (ca. 1400 BC).10 Though many technical terms in the superscriptions were obscure to the Greek and Aramaic translators (which suggests a loss of a living tradition and an extended gap of time between their composition and the Tannaitic period, 70–200 AD), they neither alter nor omit them. No ancient version or Hebrew manuscript omits them. With regard to the antiquity of some psalms, there can scarcely be a question. … Linguistic, stylistic, structural, thematic, and theological differences are so great between the Psalter and its imitative thanksgiving psalm at Qumran as to leave no doubt of the far greater antiquity of the Psalter. … Authorship of the Psalms and of their historical backgrounds depends in part on the meaning of the Hebrew preposition le with a proper name, usually David.11 Though le can mean “belonging to a series,”12 it commonly denotes authorship in the Semitic languages.13 Within other literary genres le in superscriptions signifies “by” (cf. Isa. 38:9; Hab. 3:1). In the Old Testament as in other ancient Near Eastern literature, poets, unlike narrators, are not anonymous (cf. Exod. 15:1; Judg. 5:1). The meaning “by” is certain in the synoptic superscriptions of 2 Samuel 22:1 and Psalm 18:[1].
Other Scriptures abundantly testify that David was a musician and writer of sacred poetry. Saul discovered him in a talent hunt for a harpist (1 Sam. 16:14–23). Amos (6:5) associates his name with temple music. The Chronicler says that David and his officers assigned the inspired musical service to various guilds and that musicians were led under his hands (i.e., he led them by cheironomy—hand gestures indicating the rise and fall of the melody—as pictured in Egyptian iconography already in the Old Kingdom; 1 Chron. 23:5; 2 Chron. 29:26; Neh. 12:36).14 The Chronicler also represents King Hezekiah as renewing the Davidic appointments of psalmody. Hezekiah directed the sacrifices and accompanying praises in which the compositions of David and his assistant Asaph were prominent (2 Chron. 29:25–30). J. F. A. Sawyer says, “In the Chronicler’s day … it can scarcely be doubted that the meaning was ‘by David.’ ”15 This was the interpretation of Ben Sirach (47:8–10), the Qumran scrolls (11QPsa), Josephus,16 and the rabbis.17 The interpretation is foundational for the New Testament’s interpretation of the Psalter as testimony to Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 22:43–45; Mark 12:36–37; Luke 20:42–44; Acts 1:16; 2:25, 34–35; 4:25–26; Rom. 4:6; 11:9–10; Heb. 4:7). …
This royal interpretation of the Psalter affects biblical theology in several ways. (1) It allows the reader to hear the most intimate thoughts of Israel’s greatest king. (2) It validates the New Testament attribution of select psalms to David as their author. And (3) it provides the firm basis of the grammatico-historical method of interpretation for the New Testament’s messianic interpretation of the Psalter. …
According to their superscriptions, Psalms 34, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 142 date from the time of David’s exile (1 Sam. 16–31); 18 and 60, from the time he is under blessing (2 Sam. 1–10); and 3, 51, 63, from when he is under wrath (2 Sam. 11–20). Psalms 7 and 30 are unclassified as to their precise dates (cf. 2 Sam. 21–24; for this threefold division of David’s career, see chaps. 22–23). In addition to the arguments given above for the credibility of the superscriptions, we ask, Why, if they are secondary additions, are the remaining fifty-nine Davidic psalms left without historical notices, especially when many of them easily could have been ascribed to some event in David’s life?22 Also, why would later editors introduce materials in the superscriptions of Psalms 7, 30, and 60 that are not found in historical books and not readily inferred from the Psalms themselves? Finally, why should it be allowed that psalms in the historical books contain superscriptions with historical notices (see Exod. 15:1; Deut. 31:30 [cf. 32:44]; Judg. 5:1; 2 Sam. 22:1; Jonah 2; Isa. 38:9) but those in the Psalter do not, even though the syntax is sometimes similar? (Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007] 871–874).
So don’t doubt the psalm inscriptions. Receive them as infallible truth, just like you do the rest of the Bible.
–TDR
5 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 520.
8 Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 13–24.
9 ANET, 365–81.
10 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1:1–50, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1995), xxix–xxx.
11 Moses (Ps. 90), David (73 times), Solomon (Pss. 72, 127), Korah, 42–49, 84–87), Asaph (50, 73–83), Heman (88), and Ethan (89).
12 BDB, 513, entry 5b.
13 GKC, 129c.
14 J. Wheeler, “Music of the Temple,” Archaeology and Biblical Research 2 (1989).
15 J. F. A. Sawyer, “An Analysis of the Context and Meaning of the Psalm,” Transactions 22 (1970): 6.
16 Josephus, Antiquities, 9.13.3.
17 Charles A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (New York: Scribner, 1906–7), liv.
22 Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), 28.
The link to Waltke’s OT theology is an affiliate link with Amazon.com.
Why is the Holy Spirit called the Holy “Spirit”?
Last Friday we asked some questions, including the following:
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
So what are the answers?
The third Person in the Godhead possesses a spiritual nature identical to that of the Father and the Son. He is denominated the Spirit with reference to his Person, not only with reference to His essence. He is no more or less spiritual as to his substance than is the Father or the Son, for He is one being–homoousios–with them, but is called the Spirit because of the mode in which the essence is communicated to him, namely, by procession from the Father and the Son or by the Father and the Son’s spiration: “Spirit, because spirated.” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, pg. 268) “The Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, but the Holy Spirit is emphatically the Spirit. Not that he is spirit in any higher or any different sense of the word spirit, but upon other accounts, the name of Spirit is emphatically and more peculiarly attributed to him” (Waterland, Second Defence Q. 2). The chart below comes from Bible Study #2, Who is God?, where the Scriptural evidence for it is found, as it is in the detailed study in my Trinitarianism college class:
The Father is most fundamentally Father not because in the work of God toward us–the economic Trinity–He adopts His people and make them His adopted children, but because considering God as He is in Himself–the ontological Trinity–He is eternally the Father of the eternal Son, and the Son is eternally begotten by the Father; in time the Son was sent by the Father to be born in Bethlehem because in eternity the Son’s “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2), the Father’s begetting expressing the eternal relation between the eternal Persons. The Son is eternally Son because He is eternally begotten of the Father. (Lecture #7 in the Trinitarianism course discusses the Biblical evidence that the Son’s begetting and the Spirit’s procession are eternal.) Likewise the Spirit is eternally the Spirit because He proceeds from the Father (John 15:26) and the Son (cf. John 20:22) in a manner that is comparable in an ineffably exalted way to being breathed forth, rather than the way the Son is of the Father, in an ineffably exalted way that is comparable to being begotten.
John Owen helpfully writes concerning the designation of the eternal third Person as the “Spirit,” and how this differs from the spiritual essence possessed in common by all three Trinitarian Persons:
This, then, being the name of him concerning whom we treat, some things concerning it and the use of it, as peculiarly applied unto him, are to be premised:1 for sometimes he is called the “Spirit” absolutely; sometimes the “Holy Spirit,” or, as we speak, the “Holy Ghost;” sometimes the “Spirit of God,” the “good Spirit of God,” the “Spirit of truth” and “holiness;” sometimes the “Spirit of Christ” or “of the Son.” The first absolutely used denotes his person; the additions express his properties and relation unto the other persons.
In the name Spirit two things are included;—First, His nature or essence,—namely, that he is a pure, spiritual, or immaterial substance; for neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks can express such a being in its subsistence but by ruach and pneuma, a spirit. Nor is this name, firstly, given unto the Holy Spirit in allusion unto the wind in its subtilty, agility, and efficacy; for these things have respect only unto his operations, wherein, from some general appearances, his works and effects are likened unto the wind and its effects, John 3:8. But it is his substance or being which is first intended in this name. So it is said of God, John 4:24, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός·—“God is a Spirit;” that is, he is of a pure, spiritual, immaterial nature, not confined unto any place, and so not regarding one more than another in his worship; as is the design of the place to evince. It will therefore be said, that on this account the name of “Spirit” is not peculiar unto the third person, seeing it contains the description of that nature which is the same in them all; for whereas it is said, “God is a Spirit,” it is not spoken of this or that person, but of the nature of God abstractedly. I grant that so it is; and therefore the name “Spirit” is not, in the first place, characteristical of the third person in the Trinity, but denotes that nature whereof each person is partaker.
But, moreover, as it is peculiarly and constantly ascribed unto him, it declares his especial manner and order of existence; so that wherever there is mention of the “Holy Spirit,” his relation unto the Father and Son is included therein; for he is the Spirit of God. And herein there is an allusion to somewhat created,—not, as I said, to the wind in general, unto whose agility and invisibility he is compared in his operations, but unto the breath of man; for as the vital breath of a man hath a continual emanation from him, and yet is never separated utterly from his person or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine emanation, still abiding one with them: for all those allusions are weak and imperfect wherein substantial things are compared with accidental, infinite things with finite, and those that are eternal with those that are temporary. Hence, their disagreement is infinitely more than their agreement; yet such allusions doth our weakness need instruction from and by. Thus he is called … Ps. 33:6, “The Spirit” or “breath of the mouth of the LORD,” or “of his nostrils;” as Ps. 18:15, wherein there is an eminent allusion unto the breath of a man. … And from hence, or the subsistence of the Holy Spirit in an eternal emanation from the Father and Son, as the breath of God, did our Saviour signify his communication of his gifts unto his disciples by breathing on them: John 20:22 … and because in our first creation it is said of Adam that God … “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” Gen. 2:7. He hath the same appellation with respect unto God, Ps. 18:15. Thus is he called the “Spirit.” …
Again; He is commonly called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord; so, in the first mention of him, Gen. 1:2, רוּחַ אֶלֹהִים, “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And I doubt not but that the name אֶלֹהִים, “Elohim,” which includes a plurality in the same nature, is used in the creation and the whole description of it to intimate the distinction of the divine persons; for presently upon it the name Jehovah is mentioned also, chap. 2:4, but so as Elohim is joined with it. But that name is not used in the account given us of the work of creation, because it hath respect only unto the unity of the essence of God. … Now, the Spirit is called the “Spirit of God” originally and principally, as the Son is called the “Son of God;” for the name of “God” in those enunciations is taken personally for the Father,—that is, God the Father, the Father of Christ, and our Father, John 20:17. And he is thus termed … upon the account of the order and nature of personal subsistence and distinction in the holy Trinity. The person of the Father being [the font of the Trinity], the Son is from him by eternal generation, and is therefore his Son, the Son of God; whose denomination as the Father is originally from hence, even the eternal generation of the Son. So is the person of the Holy Spirit from him by eternal procession or emanation. Hence is that relation of his to God even the Father, whence he is called the “Spirit of God.” And he is not only called … the “Spirit of God,” but … “the Spirit that is of God,” which proceedeth from him as a distinct person. This, therefore, arising from and consisting in his proceeding from him, he is called, metaphorically, “The breath of his mouth,” as proceeding from him by an eternal spiration. On this foundation and supposition he is also called, secondly, “The Spirit of God” … to difference him from all other spirits whatever; as, thirdly, also, because he is promised, given, and sent of God, for the accomplishment of his whole will and pleasure towards us. The instances hereof will be afterward considered. But these appellations of him have their foundation in his eternal relation unto the Father, before mentioned.
On the same account originally, he is also called the Spirit of the Son: “God hath sent forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts,” Gal 4:6;—and the Spirit of Christ: “What time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,” 1 Pet. 1:11. So Rom. 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The Spirit, therefore, of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same; for that hypothetical proposition, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” is an inference taken from the words foregoing, “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” And this Spirit of Christ, verse 11, is said to be the “Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead.” Look, then, in what sense he is said to be the Spirit of God,—that is, of the Father,—in the same he is said to be the Spirit of the Son. And this is because he proceedeth from the Son also; and for no other reason can he be so called, at least not without the original and formal reason of that appellation. Secondarily, I confess he is called the “Spirit of Christ” because promised by him, sent by him, and that to make effectual and accomplish his work towards the church. But this he could not be unless he had antecedently been the Spirit of the Son by his proceeding from him also: for the order of the dispensation of the divine persons towards us ariseth from the order of their own subsistence in the same divine essence; and if the Spirit did proceed only from the person of the Father, he could not be promised, sent, or given by the Son. Consider, therefore, the human nature of Christ in itself and abstractedly, and the Spirit cannot be said to be the Spirit of Christ; for it was anointed and endowed with gifts and graces by him, as we shall show. … This, therefore, is the formal reason of this appellation: The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of the Son,” and the “Spirit of Christ,” upon the account of his precession or emanation from his person also. Without respect hereunto he could not be called properly the “Spirit of Christ;” but on that supposition he may be. He is so denominated from that various relation and respect that he hath unto him in his work and operations. Thus is the Spirit called in the Scripture, these are the names whereby the essence and subsistence of the third person in the Holy Trinity are declared. How he is called on the account of his offices and operations will be manifested in our progress. (John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 3 [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.], 54-64)
So most fundamentally the Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit,” Pneuma, because He is, as it were, “breathed forth” (pneo, cf. Psalm 147:7, “he will blow his breath, pneusei to pneuma autou,” [LXX]) in an eternal procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle, while the Son, by contrast, is eternally begotten by the Father.
That is why the Holy Spirit is most fundamentally designated the “Spirit”; it is because of His eternal relation to the Father and the Son. Why is He so frequently called “Holy”? Stay tuned–that will be the subject of an upcoming post (although it may not be next Friday; I’m thinking October 15th’s blogpost, probably).
–TDR
Why is the third Person in the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
Why is the third Person of the Trinity named “the Holy Spirit”?
After all, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), so the Father and the Son both possess the attribute of spirituality, of being a “Spirit,” equally with the third Person. So what is the distinction?
Also, the Father is the “holy Father” (John 17:11), and the Son is the “Holy One” (Acts 3:14). The Holy Spirit is not in a higher degree morally pure or righteous than the Father or the Son–Father, Son, and Spirit are all infinitely righteous, possessing equal, immeasurable, infinite holiness.
So why “the Holy Spirit”?
What do you think?
It would seem like we would want to know why God has the names that He possesses, and being able to explain why the Persons of the Godhead possess the names that they do would be extremely important for our fellowship with Him, for our knowing God, which is experiencing eternal life (John 17:3). So why “the Holy Spirit”?
Lord willing, I’ll tell you what I think next Friday in my post then. But you can share your thoughts now in the comment section.
Here’s a clue–why is the “Father” the “Father” and the “Son” the “Son”?
By the way, for a simple overview of the Biblical teaching on the Trinity, see Bible study #2 here; for something with more depth, see the college class here.
–TDR
Are Christian Ministers “Reverend”?
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox religious organizations call their priests “reverend,” or “reverend Fathers.” So do the large majority of Protestants, and a surprising number of Baptists, even fundamental, independent Baptists. Are Catholic priests “reverend”? How about Christian ministers–are they the “Reverend John Doe” and the like?
There is only one verse in the King James Bible where the word “reverend” appears:
Psa. 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.
In this passage Jehovah’s name is “holy and reverend,” because He is the Almighty Redeemer, who in faithfulness to His holy covenant promises, redeems His people by His power, chooses and sets them apart to Himself, and makes them like Himself, until He brings them to eternally be with Him in His holy presence. Truly, Jehovah’s name is holy and reverend!
But “Rev. Mr. Jones” does not do any of that. Mr. Jones does not have an infinitely holy name or character; Mr. Jones does not redeem God’s people by an almighty arm and by the blood of Jesus Christ. Simply looking at the English word, one would conclude that a minister calling himself “Rev.” is a form of blasphemy, taking the honor due to Jehovah’s name alone.
What about the Hebrew translated “reverend” in Psalm 111:9? The form is the Niphal (generally passive) participle of the verb “to fear,” nôrāʾ, hence, “to be feared.” Jehovah’s name is “to be feared” and it is holy.
The Niphal participle appears in 34 verses in the Old Testament. Significant examples include:
Ex. 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
Deut. 7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
Deut. 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;
Mal. 1:14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the LORD of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.
Psa. 47:2 For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.
Psa. 66:3 Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee.
Psa. 66:5 Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.
Psa. 68:35 O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places: the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.
Psa. 76:7 Thou, even thou, art to be feared: and who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry?
Psa. 76:12 He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.
Psa. 89:7 God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
Psa. 96:4 For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.
Psa. 99:3 Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.
Job 37:22 Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty.
Dan. 9:4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
Neh. 1:5 And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:
Neh. 4:14 And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.
Neh. 9:32 Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.
1Chr. 16:25 For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods.
The strong majority of uses refers to Jehovah as the One who is to be feared / reverenced. An examination of the complete list of texts (Gen. 28:17; Ex. 15:11; 34:10; Deut. 1:19; 7:21; 8:15; 10:17; 28:58; Judg. 13:6; Is. 18:2, 7; Ezek. 1:22; Joel 2:11; 3:4; Hab. 1:7; Zeph. 2:11; Mal. 1:14; 3:23; Psa. 47:3; 66:3, 5; 68:36; 76:8, 13; 89:8; 96:4; 99:3; 111:9; Job 37:22; Dan. 9:4; Neh. 1:5; 4:8; 9:32; 1 Chr. 16:25; note that the Hebrew versification is sometime slightly different than the English) reveals not a solitary text where a godly person, or a priest, or a minister, or anyone of the sort is called “reverend.”
Jehovah is reverend. If you are a Christian minister, you are not reverend.
What about a Catholic priest? There are a small number of texts where “to be feared” or “terrible” has the sense of desolate judgment. Thus, in Habakkuk 1:7 the evil, pagan Babylonians, who come to lay waste, kill, and destroy the Lord’s people, are called “terrible” (Hab 1:7). Likewise, a desolate, life-destroying desert is called a “terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents, and scorpions, and drought, where there was no water” (Deut 8:15). So Catholic priests, as representatives of their pagan and Satanic false religion, in the sense that they are pagan, evil, destroyers of God’s people, are “reverend” in the sense that they are actually terrible, are life-destroying like a desolate desert full of serpents and scorpions, and are soul-murderers the way that the pagan Babylonians were “terrible.” After all, the pagan Baylonians are their ancestors as they are part of that great harlot sitting on many waters, the future one-world religion centered in Rome, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth (Revelation 17).
So let Catholic priests call themselves “reverend” or “terrible” if they wish–it is true, albeit not in the way that they intend, but in the same sort of way as when the Pope calls himself “vicar of Christ” he employs a title equivalent in Greek to “anti-Christ” (Latin vicarius = Greek anti).
So if you are a Baptist or a Protestant who claims to fear the true God, don’t call yourself reverend. In the good sense, it is true for the one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, alone–He alone is holy and reverend. In the bad sense, of something genuinely terrible and destructive, it is true of pagan murderers of God’s people, and so, in that sense, an appropriate title for a Roman Catholic priest or of other servants of religions that are drunk “with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6). You are unworthy of “reverend” in the good sense, and I rather think you don’t want to be called “reverend” or “terrible” in the bad sense.
So Jehovah is “reverend”–Hallelujah–and Catholic priests are “terrible/reverend”–to their everlasting shame. If you preach the true gospel and are a servant of Christ, you are emphatically not “reverend.” So stop calling yourself or others “Rev.” The title is either blasphemy, if intended as a compliment, or a statement that they are pagan enemies of God, in the bad sense.
Spurgeon well commented on Psalm 111:9:
“He sent redemption unto his people.” When they were in Egypt he sent not only a deliverer, but an actual deliverance; not only a redeemer, but complete redemption. He has done the like spiritually for all his people, having first by blood purchased them out of the hand of the enemy, and then by power rescued them from the bondage of their sins. Redemption we can sing of as an accomplished act: it has been wrought for us, sent to us, and enjoyed by us, and we are in very deed the Lord’s redeemed. “He hath commanded his covenant for ever.” His divine decree has made the covenant of his grace a settled and eternal institution: redemption by blood proves that the covenant cannot be altered, for it ratifies and establishes it beyond all recall. This, too, is reason for the loudest praise. Redemption is a fit theme for the heartiest music, and when it is seen to be connected with gracious engagements from which the Lord’s truth cannot swerve, it becomes a subject fitted to arouse the soul to an ecstacy of gratitude. Redemption and the covenant are enough to make the tongue of the dumb sing. “Holy and reverend is his name.” Well may he say this. The whole name or character of God is worthy of profoundest awe, for it is perfect and complete, whole or holy. It ought not to be spoken without solemn thought, and never heard without profound homage. His name is to be trembled at, it is something terrible; even those who know him best rejoice with trembling before him. How good men can endure to be called “reverend” we know not. Being unable to discover any reason why our fellow-men should reverence us, we half suspect that in other men there is not very much which can entitle them to be called reverend, very reverend, right reverend, and so on … we would urge that the foolish custom should be allowed to fall into disuse.
C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 111-119, vol. 5 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 4.
–TDR
Recent Comments