Dec 30
I don’t often make reviews of debates, but when I do, it’s usually when I hear a debate that was exceptionally good and is worth commenting on. Perhaps one of the best debates I’ve heard this year was the one between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde on the doctrine of the incarnation. The debate took place in Australia back in September 17 of this year. The video of the debate can be viewed below:
Dec 24
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “Christmas Bells,” The Complete Poetical Works of Longfellow (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1893).
I heard the bells on Christmas Day;
their old, familiar carols play.
And wild and sweet
the words repeat
of peace on earth, good will to men!
And thought how, as the day had come,
the belfries of all Christendom
had rolled along
the unbroken song
of peace on earth, good will to men!
Till ringing, singing on its way,
the world revolved from night to day.
A voice, a chime,
a chant sublime
of peace on earth, good will to men!
Then from each black, accursed mouth
the cannon thundered in the South;
and with the sound
the carols drowned,
of peace on earth, good will to men.
It was as if an earthquake rent
the hearth-stones of a continent,
and made forlorn
the households born
of peace on earth, good will to men.
And in despair I bowed my head;
”There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“for hate is strong,
and mocks the song
of peace on earth, good will to men.”
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep!
The wrong shall fail,
The right prevail,
with peace on earth, good will to men!”
MercyMe, “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day,” track 10, The Christmas Sessions [CD] (INO Records, 2005).
Dec 8
God does not change. His nature is the same now as it as has ever been and will ever be throughout eternity. What this means is that the God who reveals Himself in the New Testament is the same God who reveals Himself in the Old. And while the New Testament gives a fuller explanation His nature, aspects of these revelations are nonetheless present in the Old Testament. This is particularly true of God’s triune nature. Even back in the time of Moses and his contemporaries, aspects of the Trinity are already partially revealed in the pages of the Torah.
This does not mean that the Israelites in those days had the exact same understanding of God that Christians do today. The Israelites were limited to what God has chosen to reveal about Himself at that point in time. This is true even today, as even with the fullness of revelation, we continue to be limited to what God has revealed in the books that today comprise the Bible. The reason why the Trinity will always be mysterious and paradoxical to us is that God does not reveal everything that there is to know about Himself, but chooses only to give us what we need to know about Him. As the Torah states: “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29). We shall speak only where He speaks, and we shall remain silent where He remains silent.
That being said, it is worth looking at what is contained in the Torah in order to see what can be gleaned from it regarding the Triune nature of God. In doing so, it must be confessed that we are approaching it in hindsight: we are interpreting it in light of what has been revealed later on in the rest of the Bible. This is not an invalid approach, since truth is necessarily consistent, and the fact that something wasn’t noticed before doesn’t mean that it wasn’t there prior to its being noticed. What matters is that we are being true to the real meaning of the text, and are not merely attempting to import foreign concepts into it.
First of all, it must be pointed out that the Trinity has always been there from the beginning. Even in the opening chapters of Genesis, one can see that when God decrees creation, when He says “let there be” it is His Word that brings about the creative acts. Moreover, we are told that His Spirit hovers over the face of the unformed world just prior to the six days of creation (Genesis 1:2).[1] This same Spirit gives life to creation, as seen when God puts His breath in the first man, and he is said to become a living soul (Genesis 2:7).
It is interesting to note as well that in the sixth day, when God decides to create man, He says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). The usage of the first person plural here is very intriguing, and implies that personal self-distinctions exist within the Being of the Creator. Now, there are alternate ways of attempting to explain this passage. Some say that God is addressing His angels, or that He is speaking in the plural of majesty (just as how the queen of England would say “We are not amused.”) Needless to say, these explanations do not really work, as they cannot be substantiated by the rest of scripture.[2] The best explanation remains that God speaks in the first person plural because He is multi-personal in nature.
One other piece of information to take into account is the appearance of God to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1ff). As He converses with Abraham, He discusses His plans to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:17ff). In the next chapter, God walks towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and their destruction is described. Interestingly, it is written towards the end of the account that “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” (Genesis 19:24). Here, there appear to be two Yahwehs present simultaneously; one on earth and one in heaven. If we read this passage in light of the Triune nature of God, the appearance of more than one person who are both regarded by scripture as Yahweh make perfect sense.
Finally, a word must be said regarding the oneness of God, as it is always important to connect the oneness of God’s Being with the threeness of His person: Every practicing Jew is familiar with the words of the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). What is interesting is that the Hebrew language has two words for “one.” The first one is the word yakhid (יְחִֽידְ). This word is used to denote absolute oneness. In the Torah, it is used to refer to a child who has no siblings.[3] If the Hebrew author wanted to indicate that God was an absolute, homogenous unity, he would have used this term.
However, as anybody who can read the shema in Hebrew knows, the word that is used is not yakhid, but rather ekhad (אֶדחָֽ). This is a word that is used to simply mean unity, without the connotation of homogeneity or aloneness that comes with the first word. It is interesting to see how this word is used elsewhere in the Torah. For example, in Genesis 2:24, when a man leaves his parents to become joined to his wife, it is said that they become “one [אֶחָֽד] flesh.” And when the spies are sent by Moses to survey the promised land, when they come to the valley of Eshcol, it is written that “[they] cut down a branch with a single [אֶחָ֔ד] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs” (Numbers 13:23). As is clear from the way the word is used in these two instances, the word Ekhad can be used to denote a compound unity. That is exactly what the Trinity means: That God is a compound unity of three persons Who together constitute One Being.
Thus, it can be seen that belief in God as a Trinity is perfectly compatible the confession of faith found in the Shema. Furthermore, we can see how this teaching is found embedded in the pages of the Pentateuch. Although it is nowhere near as clear here as it is in the New Testament, we see that even then, God has already provided hints of His Triune nature.
Endnotes
Further Reading
Sep 1
One of the theological debates that takes place between orthodox Trinitarian Christians and heretical cultists and other non-Trinitarians of various stripes is whether the Old Testament confirms or contradicts Trinitarian doctrines such as the existence of plurality within the Godhead and the reality of the incarnation. A full treatment of this subject is outside the purview of this article, partly because there are already plenty of excellent articles that tackle this topic (Such as this and this), and partly because there are too many verses that are relevant to this, that we will only be focusing on one. In particular, there is one verse in 1 Kings that contains a statement by King Solomon which is sometimes cited by non-Trinitarians (particularly Muslims) against the idea that God could enter into His creation:
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! (1 Kings 8:27).
As the argument goes, if God cannot be contained by heaven and earth, then it is impossible for God to enter into His own creation, since that would limit Him to a specific point in time and space.
Apr 22
I have just recently finished my one year program at Toronto Baptist Seminary, and I’ve produced four essays for four different courses that I thought would be a good idea to publish online because of their value in Theology and Apologetics. I hope people find these articles useful in helping to better explain the issues at hand.
Mar 30
I’ve been listening to Mark Driscoll’s 13-part Doctrine Series.[1] In the first session Mark discusses the doctrine of the trinity. He begins by quoting Augustine, whose contention was “If you deny the trinity you lose your soul. If you try to explain it you lose your mind”. I know what he means.
Of particular interest was Driscoll’s response to the challenge that it took such a long time for the doctrine of the Trinity to develop, with the formal doctrines we use today not appearing until the 4th and 5th centuries. The inference being that the church merely decided upon (or, invented) the Trinity long after the events recorded in the New Testament.
To quote Driscoll loosely:[1]
Some say that it seems like it took a long time for the doctrine of the trinity to develop. Well, when the whole church is suffering persecution, people are being fed to lions, they’re being run through with swords, they’re being burned alive, they’re being crucified one after another, the Pastors are being beheaded, people are running for their lives … it’s really hard to crank out a lot of Systematic Theology under those cultural conditions. You’re trying to live and teach your people, but you’re burying a lot of them also, the whole church is suffering. So it would be surprising to find a robust development of any doctrine from the first three centuries of Christianity. But once persecution died down they started clarifying some of their doctrinal beliefs, including at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD where the belief of one God, three persons was clearly articulated. And that has held ever since. The doctrine of the trinity was also laid down again at the Council of Constantinople in 381AD. Then Augustine of Hippo, spent 19 years (from 400AD to 419AD) studying the doctrine of the trinity. The result was his book ‘The Treatise on the Trinity’, which has held up for more than 1500 years. The result today being that all Christians believe in the trinity [I think Driscoll means, by definition]. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans… all believe in the trinity. We all agree that there is one God, three persons, Father Son and Spirit.
Mar 1
William Lane Craig discusses an argument by the Jesus Seminar[1] for the early dating of the Gospel of Thomas,[2] (hereafter, “Thomas”) and therefore, its alleged claim as an appropriate authority on the life of Jesus to rival the accounts given in the canonical gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). I have summarized Craig’s critique of their reasoning in flowchart form.
Dr. Craig continues:
And so around and around it goes. New Testament scholar Thomas Wright says, ‘It’s like Winnie the Pooh following his own tracks in the snow around a clump of trees and every time he comes around and sees more tracks he takes this as evidence that his query is even more numerous and more real then he thought before.’ It’s no wonder that the fellows of the Jesus Seminar haven’t been able to persuade very many of their colleagues on the basis of arguments like this.
Now, I am superficially aware of other reasons that are promoted to try and validate the early dating of Thomas and I am willing to consider them in greater detail. But upon reflection, I think there is an inherent problem in any reasoning that attempts to elevate the relevance of Thomas (or any account of Jesus’ life written after the first century) and similarly play down the four canonical gospels. It’s the same kind of problem that would exist if someone from the 20th century were to write an account of the life of, say, Charles Darwin. While it may be quite appropriate to place a certain amount of trust in an account of Darwin written in the 20th century, we would be quite justified in placing more confidence in those writings from the 19th century. Especially those written by Darwin himself or by those close to him, or those who were his contemporaries. Indeed, we might even use the 19th century writings as a check against the 20th century account.
Similarly then, if Thomas is an early primary source as the Jesus Seminar claim, then how much more do the four canonical gospels qualify for such an honour, which are contemporaneous accounts. And this is sometimes the problem with insisting on extra-biblical sources for the life of Jesus. As Gary Habermas has pointed out, the four canonical gospels are the only ones written around the time of Christ. I should think that counts for something in one’s assessment of the facts. “There certainly were more than four [gospels] but you have to go to the second, third and fourth centuries for most of them. It’s not our fault that there were only four gospels by 100AD and we took all four of them.”[3]
In other words, if you are going to insist – in discussing the life of Jesus – on leaving the canonical stuff off the table, you are basically tossing out the best sources we have before the discussion even begins.[4] You are welcome to do so of course, but you should not expect reasonable people to think that any conclusions you draw from later sources provide more certainty than can be gained from the canonical sources.
References & Notes:
Dec 8
Lord, Saviour, God and King … Jesus Christ. Do you know Him?
That is the question being asked in this monologue by Shadrach Meshach Lockridge (or S.M. Lockridge) – son of a preacher, do you think? 
Born March 7, 1913 and died April 4, 2000, Lockridge’s short inspirational spiel is available (so I discovered) in various edited forms, one of which appears below. This is the first I have heard of him. But his passion for Jesus certainly shines through in this brief monologue.
For a more complete version of the monologue, but without the fancy backing track, see this YouTube clip. With a quick search I was also able to locate various bloggers who have published the transcript of the monologue, but cannot verify the accuracy.
[HT: Thanks to my friend Bo-Young who sent me the original email about S.M. Lockridge.]
Oct 15
Every once in a while, those who deny the biblical witness concerning the nature of Jesus Christ (especially Liberals and Muslims) will try to appeal to the theory that the four Gospels reflect an evolution in the understanding of who Jesus was, and their authors did not view Him the same way. As the theory goes, Mark’s gospel, being the earliest, presents Jesus as a mere human being. Later authors embellish His story until we finally arrive at the Gospel of John, which affirms the full deity of Christ.
While this theory sounds neat at first glance, it misses the mark at various points. First of all, there is an inherent anti-supernatural bias in its explanation. It denies the possibility that there is progressive revelation involved in the increasing understanding of who Jesus was, and reduces the progression of revelation to mere legendary development. It is particularly telling that some Muslims have actually latched on to this theory. The ones who do so do not seem to realize that they are borrowing a theory that was produced by liberal scholars who deny the possibility of supernatural revelation. If the progressive revelation in the Gospels can be explained away naturalistically, what is to stop the proponents of this theory from applying the exact same standards to the Qur’an?
Be that as it may, it is not even true that Mark regarded Jesus as a mere human being. Sure, he does not emphasize that aspect of Jesus’ person as much as the other biblical authors, but that does not mean, however, that the doctrine was totally absent from Mark’s gospel. To demonstrate this, we must go through the relevant sections of Mark to see what kind of Christology is presented in his account. The first section to go through is the story of the healing of the paralytic in the second chapter. It begins thus:
A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(Mark 2:1-7)
The scribes knew what was going on here. Jesus was claiming to have the power to forgive sins; something that only God can do. Now what is Jesus reaction to this? He does another thing that only God can do! Moving on:
Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . .” He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
(Mark 2:8-12)
Pay close attention to what the eighth verse says about Jesus: He perceived the thoughts of the scribes. Those who read the Old Testament would know that only Yahweh is capable of doing that (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Kings 8:39, Jeremiah 20:12). Clearly, if Jesus was a mere human being, He would not be capable of doing these things.
The next relevant passage comes later on in the same chapter, when the disciples are picking grain in the fields:
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
(Mark 2:23-28)
Here is one example of an idea that is implicit in Mark but becomes more explicit later on. Those who have read the story of Jesus healing on the Sabbath in the Gospel of John would know that for Jesus to call Himself Lord of the Sabbath would be considered blasphemous because Yahweh was the Lord of the Sabbath: Yahweh was exempt from having to rest on that day because He was upholding the universe even on Sabbath day (John 5:17-18). Incidentally, this fits in well with the author of Hebrews’ understanding of Jesus as the One who “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3, NASB). It is clear here that for Jesus to claim to be the Lord of the Sabbath is tantamount to blasphemy unless He was actually Yahweh incarnate.
And then there is the episode in the country of the Gerasenes where Jesus encounters the demoniac. As Mark reports, “[w]hen he [the demoniac] saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped [προσεκύνησεν] Him” (Mark 5:6, NKJV). Some translations water down this particular verse by saying the demoniac merely “fell down” or “bowed down” at Jesus’ feet. Such a watered-down translation is unnecessary and unhelpful, though, since the same Greek word (προσκυνέω) is used by the other three Gospel writers to refer to the worship of God (cf. Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8 and John 4:20-24). The KJV and NKJV are the most consistent in rendering προσκυνέω as worship here. Thus, the conclusion that we get from this verse is unavoidable: Jesus accepted worship, and Mark affirms this.
And then there is a passage which Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims try to twist in order to make it seem that Jesus is denying His divinity. In Mark 10:18, we find Jesus questioning the rich young man who walked up to Him:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.
(Mark 10:17-18)
Jesus is not, at this point, denying the man’s description of Him as good. What He is doing, rather, is that He is trying to get the man to realize what he is just saying. In effect, He is telling the man, “Do you understand what you are calling Me? Or are you just calling me good to get closer to Me?” In an attempted response, it has been claimed (and by no less a debater than Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi) that since the rich young man stopped calling Jesus “good” afterwards, that can’t be what He meant. If anything, this is just grasping at straws. The rich young man had only one other line after this (Mark 10:20), so this is too weak a case to stand on such limited evidence. Besides, Jesus affirms His goodness elsewhere. For example, when He is accused by the Jews, He asks them rhetorically in John 8:46, “Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?” There is also the fact that Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd (cf. John 10:11,14). The fact that those who deny the deity of Christ appeal to this passage is somewhat humorous, given that many of them would contend that Jesus is indeed good!
Another passage from Mark that opponents of biblical Christianity try to use is Mark 13:32, where Jesus says “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32). Of course, since Christianity has historically affirmed that Jesus took on a true human nature during the incarnation, it would come as no surprise to us that in His self-emptying, He would choose not to avail Himself of some of His powers. However, this does not mean that He lost them completely, but merely restrained them.
The difference is akin to the difference between a person restraining his right arm by tying it behind his back and chopping it off. In the former case, the person only temporarily restrains his usage of his arm, and can regain it at any point in time by untying his arm. In the latter case, however, he loses usage of his arm completely, and cannot get it back. Jesus’ temporary self-emptying is analogous to the former case. His temporary restraint was cast off after His resurrection, since in His glorified resurrection body, He is said to “know all things” (John 21:17).
Also telling is the verse that comes immediately before this, where Jesus says “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31). This is significant, for Whose word is it, according to the Old Testament, that will never pass away? The answer:
The grass withers and the flowers fade
beneath the breath of the Lord.
And so it is with people.
The grass withers and the flowers fade,
but the word of our God stands forever.
(Isaiah 40:7-8)
So once again, we have here another prerogative of Yahweh that Jesus is claiming for Himself. Surely it is becoming quite unnecessary at this point to belabour the point any further, yet there is one more significant passage that needs to be addressed, which is the dialogue between Jesus and the High priest:
Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”
They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him.
(Mark 14:60-65)
First of all, note that this is an “I Am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) statement. It is mistakenly thought by many that “I Am” statements are unique to John, yet we see that Mark has at least one as well (and it is repeated in Luke 22:70). Second, Jesus alludes to a significant messianic passage from the book of Daniel:
I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13-14, NASB)
The description given here could not be that of an ordinary person, for such a person would not have an “everlasting dominion.” Not only that, but in Jewish thinking, only one who is divine could be regarded as “sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” This is borne out by the fact that the high priest tore his robes upon Jesus saying this (something which the high priest is not allowed to do unless he is grieved from hearing a blasphemous remark), and condemned Him as deserving death. This passage could only make sense if Jesus was claiming divine prerogatives.
In conclusion, one can see that the Gospel of Mark has a high Christology, and can hardly be regarded as promoting the view that Jesus Christ was a mere human prophet. It is only by selectively using evidence and ignoring the context of the entire Gospel account that one can sustain such a questionable assertion.
Sep 16
I had a Facebook conversation with a friend of a friend, Sylwia, a while back and I thought I would share it with you. As you can see, the conversation focused mainly on love and salvation with us coming to the conclusion at the end that we are talking about different Gods. I’ll leave it up to you to decide for yourselves who you think has a more accurate portrait of the one true God.
Ashleigh: Just saw some crazy Christian guy on a street corner, yelling at people about Jesus and sin. I understand having faith – I do too and I’m thankful that Jesus died for me and my sin, but you shouldn’t yell at people who don’t and tell them they’re going to hell. It’s not really the right way to go about it..
This guy wasn’t being gentle at all. And there were 2 guys with him, holding signs and one of them actually said God HATES drunks and homosexuals. It wasn’t getting a good response from the crowd
Sylwia: God loves drunks and homosexuals the people themselves, but not the action of sin. Makes me so annoyed that people miss the point, and then others think because of it that the message contradicts itself…. Hate doesn’t make other people love, only loving others despite their failings can do that :)
Ashleigh: That’s right! It’s not a Christian’s job to judge, so I think people like that should just shut up because they make the rest of us look bad
Sylwia: Exactly :)
Adam: I thought that’s what Jesus and his apostles did…went to various town and addressed the crowds. The language used may have been different but there was still condemnation of sinners. Jesus turned almost everyone off due to his witness to the truth. Read the rest of this entry
