Lecture 10.docx

Let\'s pick up on this more seriously under demonology. Okay, if you turn a couple of pages, we come to the wrong views, wrong attitudes. We\'ve looked at a number of consequences and results of death, resurrection, and ascension. I probably should give you this sheet as well right now because it fi...

Let\'s pick up on this more seriously under demonology. Okay, if you turn a couple of pages, we come to the wrong views, wrong attitudes. We\'ve looked at a number of consequences and results of death, resurrection, and ascension. I probably should give you this sheet as well right now because it fits in at this point. I actually combined two pages into one for you. It\'s not on the list, so I\'m not going to ask anything from it. Titled it, Scholars Agree Ten Times Over. It\'s from an interesting article by Habermas. Does that mean anything to you? If I say the name Habermas, it should ring a bell because he\'s the guy that wrote the book on the Shard of Turin, and has become something of a self-taught expert on the resurrection and the literature concerning the resurrection. So I thought I\'d let you become aware of it. I was going to put this into the syllabus and was ready to do it with some small changes when I had to get it onto the web for the semester. Scholars Agree. He points out in this article from Criswell Theological Review that it\'s quite amazing how for quite a long period of time, up until very recently, liberal scholars and non-evangelical scholars pretty much agreed that Christ had indeed been crucified, had been put in the tomb, and that there was some explanation that was going to have to be sought to explain the revelation about his resurrection. It\'s very interesting. It\'s okay to have him die on a cross and say that\'s an indisputable fact of history, or relatively indisputable, but it\'s not so easy to acknowledge the resurrection. That he died is fine. That he rose again depends on my definition of the supernatural. And I found it really interesting because he points to ten agreements or elements that you can talk about, that the scholars apparently agree on. The disciples experiences. They all agree that the disciples really did believe they\'d seen the risen Christ. That was an experience they\'d had. The experience cannot be denied. And as a matter of fact, a number of them, and he lists them in the article, do not find any naturalistic explanation satisfying. They\'re having to acknowledge there\'s really no adequate explanation for these experiences. It is obvious that the disciples understood that something had happened. And they had these experiences. Alongside of that, and arising out of that experience, they\'ve had to acknowledge that the disciples were transformed into bold witnesses for Christ Jesus, willing to suffer loss and hardship and death for their faith and for the message they preached of the risen Christ. But I want to point out something. It was not a transformation from an internal realization or an awakening or a conviction that they had an experience. It was a conviction that something had happened to Christ himself. It is more than just them being reassured by God. I want you to catch this for sure. It was not, we have been reassured by God that he\'s in heaven. It is, we know that God has raised him from the death. It\'s first God raising and then the conviction that they continue to preach. The empty tomb is acknowledged because historically it\'s a little difficult to just throw it out and say there was no such thing as an empty tomb. It\'s there. There\'s enough historical evidence in support of that, so it can\'t be denied. Fourthly, there is the resurrection message. What\'s key in what we\'ve said so far that you would add to this resurrection message? Put it in a sentence. The message couldn\'t be stopped. There was a frequent proclamation in the message of the early church. Central, core. They preached Christ risen again. Can\'t get away from that. The striking thing they point out as well is that the disciples proclaimed this message in Jerusalem. When I first read that, I thought, sure. Then I read the rest of the sentence of the paragraph. It said you\'ve got a point. That\'s where he was tried, found guilty, crucified, buried. It seemed to be the last place where the disciples would go and proclaim the resurrection. It would be easy to go somewhere else and work your way back. But they went straight into Jerusalem. It emboldened them because they knew he was alive. Jerusalem needed to hear. The Jewish leaders could not disprove that message even though they tried despite repeated confrontations. There was no way they could do away with the message. Short reason given by Habermas and others, they can\'t deny the fact that the church came into existence and exploded in that early church years, in the initial stages. It remains with that message intact. They just simply continued to preach what the disciples preached and suffered just as much as some of the disciples suffered. Martyrdom for the ordinary believer, not just for the apostles. So you know something was taking place. Jewish leaders couldn\'t disprove it. Church surged forward. And there\'s an immediate switch to Sunday. Whatever extra explanations you may give theologically for the switching of the Sabbath to the Sunday. I don\'t know about you, but when I was growing up Sunday was our Sabbath. That\'s how we were taught. So that the Saturday, which was the seventh day, became the first day. But on that first day, everything shut down. When I was a little boy, nothing was open on Sunday. Nothing. You could go to a hotel. That was all. But there was no restaurants, no cinemas, no sports because it was the Sabbath. But leaving that aside, the switch to the primary day being the Sunday is accounted for primarily by the commemoration of Christ rising from there. It wasn\'t a dead Christ they were worshipping, but an alive Messiah. Catapult to them is a word I\'d like to use into the first day of the week. It seems to have taken place pretty quickly. James, something of a skeptic apparently, meets the risen Christ. He\'s converted, becomes influential amongst the apostles. And Paul meets the risen Christ. And he soundly converted and radically changed from a proud Pharisee, brutally zealous for God and for Judaism to an apostle to the Gentiles, a proclamer of Jesus as Lord and Savior. Incredible change. Ten reasons that the scholars agree on. These we can\'t ignore. And there was what was regarded as a failure of naturalistic theories. When they agreed with these ten or because of these ten reasons that they were agreeing upon, and there\'s quite a batch of scholars, it ran concurrently with the failure of the naturalistic theories. They couldn\'t find an adequate explanation for these things. But then he publishes second half of the article in Trinity Journal. And I\'ve given that to you, summarized it. 1200 publications he tracked. It\'s incredible. Between 1975 and 2001, 1200 different articles and books on the resurrection. And he has noticed in recent years, a rising of the old naturalistic theories. It\'s fascinating. He points out that it\'s fascinating because the theologians had been rejecting naturalistic theories, inadequate explanation for the reality of the resurrection. And now they\'re starting to inject these theories again. I think there\'s a spiritual answer. Since these men are not committed believers who will take the Word of God to be what it is, speaking truth. Ultimately, there\'s going to have to be another surge in hostility to push aside the testimony of scripture. David. Yeah, James and Paul believed that they had, in their experience, met the risen Christ. But they could not deny the fact that something had happened with James and Paul. And obviously, there would be some bringing it down to personal belief. They thought, but that whatever they thought, it did change. They changed them. But now adequate. The inadequacy of the naturalistic theories is no longer acknowledged. Some explanation must be found. And what is interesting is that it\'s not mere denial. This is a key point that Habermas makes. They\'re not standing up and saying, Jesus didn\'t rise from the dead. What they\'re saying is, Jesus didn\'t really rise from the dead. What actually happened was, and now you fill in the blank, it is to replace the reality of the event of the resurrection with some natural substitute. Naturalistic explanation. You have to state, this is what happened. See, if you say, I don\'t believe, I can say, I believe. And we just have affirmation and denial. And that doesn\'t mean anything. But if you go with an extra step, see how I can explain to you that there\'s an alternative explanation that allows me to say, he didn\'t really rise from the dead. This is what happened. Let me show you by extrapolation from the data and by speculation. And what has come up is subjective vision theory coming back. Not really hallucination. This is religious intoxication and enthusiasm. Some sort of stimulus. They really believe that they have subjectively experienced a meeting with Christ. Or an illumination thesis. It is described as a flash of revelatory insight that enabled, perhaps Peter first, to understand that Christ has been exalted and glorified by God. And so, it should now be proclaimed. Flash of insight. He really is in heaven. He\'s been exalted by God. He\'s glorified. Not his body, that is. Something happened to that. He died spiritually. He\'s in glory. And we now have this sudden illumination. One could put it like this. In fact, I had my wife drive in this morning so I could read this article again. Wrong one. And she said, Bubba doesn\'t say that, does it? Meaning, it doesn\'t. And I said, well, yeah, you know that, but these guys, that\'s their problem. There it is. John Shelby Spong. He has writings on the subject have created quite an uproar. Peter is the key individual. Listen. It was he, Peter, not Jesus, who is resurrected to new life and new being. Ever heard that? It\'s incredible. Standing as if in a trance, Peter was suddenly aglow with life. There were no visions, hallucinations, or anything to do with the real world. No one else in the room really saw Jesus. He then helped to open the eyes of the other followers of Jesus. He was raised. It refers to his awakening. And then he taught his followers. You know what that is? That\'s garbage. And in fact, I can\'t believe there is a publisher who said, glad to put your stuff in writing, because I would be worried. It\'s in the Trinity Journal. No, this is Habermas\'s article and he\'s reporting on Spong. This is one of the guys that created an uproar. It\'s from the Easter moment, Harper and Rowe, 1987. Harper and Rowe must have figured they\'d get some money out of it. But it\'s incredible. I don\'t want to waste our time here, but I figured we should just remind ourselves again. We gladly declare the risen Christ. We stand up and boldly preach at Easter time so that the world may hear exactly again what happened so many years ago. But this is an illustration of a hostile sinful world that says we will not accept that testimony. But the striking thing is just that they are actually guys who will sit down and read the New Testament in order to find the data that they can then use to extrapolate to this stuff. I don\'t know what book you read. In fact, some of them are even better at Greek and Greek grammar than we will ever be, or Hebrew scholars. But there\'s something else going on behind the eyes than faith. Swin theory, you\'ve heard that since you were a kid. He lost consciousness and revived in the coolness of the tomb and survived. And whatever was seen afterwards was perceptions, not reality. Or his body was left in the tomb or buried in a shallow grave, and this is John Dominic Crossan. Came up with that again, got to explain some reason for the absence of the body. You deny the literal resurrection, you got to do something about the body. So he was actually buried in a shallow grave or left in the tomb or left on the cross. And then he makes a comment, something like the fact that the dogs got them. The dogs got it. Scavengers. So there\'s nothing left. Body stolen from the tomb, not necessarily by the disciples. This is that defense attorney trick. Reasonable doubt, because others could have stolen the body, not necessarily the disciples. Or it\'s represented by a twin brother, a lookalike. You think this is like Saramassin, you know, having the lookalikes that they used in Iraq. Suggest there was either James or somebody else and they were able to pass off quite considerably well that this was the Jesus. Or appearances for political dramatization, or that he just never lived at all anyway. He was an obscure figure. This is a guy called Wells, G.A. Wells. Said Christ never lived. Used to meet regularly in Macon, France when I lived there, with an old lady who was a philosophy teacher. And she was also an expert on the life and times of John Calvin. But she was as pagan as they could be. And I remember sitting with her one day, talking to her. And she said, well, you know that Christ never lived. I said, what do you mean? Christ never lived. She said, there is no evidence for the existence of Christ on earth. And I answered as best as I could. And she went over to the shelf and she brought a little book. It wasn\'t by Wells, it was by a French renegade priest. Jésus Christ exista-t-il? Did Jesus Christ exist? And the book satisfied her, giving evidence that he never existed. There was no such person as Christ. By the way, she was a member of the radical left. And she taught philosophy in high school. I\'ve got to give you this example. I took my kids to see her during one of the school breaks. She wanted to meet our children. She wanted to meet my wife. And my son got talking to her through me. And he said to her something about the gospel. They had a little bit of a sharing there. And he said to her, why don\'t you want to believe? She said, I don\'t want to be a Catholic. I said, ma\'am, I\'m not Catholic. I know that. The message I have given to you and my son is he\'s not Catholic. Yes, I know that. So what\'s the problem about accepting Christ and believing? She said, I don\'t want to be a Catholic. I said, I don\'t get this. You know I\'m not Catholic. The message is not Catholic. You think if you accept my message, you\'re going to be Catholic. She says, I don\'t want to be a Catholic. You know what I thought of? When a rat gets trapped in the corner, it\'ll get out. Even if it has to switch to complete illogic. The sad thing is she died because he never lived. James Nesbitt used to be the head of UFM International. He had written his dissertation in French on the writings of Blaise Pascal. I took him to see her. I was sitting just listening and in their conversation he said, you know, nobody would be so stupid as to say that Christ never existed. She just got up and walked over to the shelf. It was hilarious as he tried to get out of the holy dig. She gave him the book. Or illusion theory. Everything is misinterpreted. Something did happen but it was mistakenly thought to be something else. Whatever, these are all reasons. They kind of mesh together anyway. They\'re all reasons to say I express my hostility. It can\'t be as it was said to be. I gave you the bibliography in case you want to follow up on those articles. In case you do, you don\'t have to. Okay, let\'s come to the reactions here on the ascension, on the resurrection. I mean the wrong views and theories and attitudes on the resurrection. We\'ve looked at the denial, prejudging, presupposition, just a legend. Or spiritual, would be a denial of his bodily resurrection. We mentioned something of that about Geisler\'s reaction to Murray Harris. And they\'ve had something of a battle. Murray Harris was interviewed by three men. By Mellod Erickson, Bruce Demarest and Roger Nicole in a special meeting. And they said that even he had some odd ideas about the resurrection of the believer. But basically, his understanding of the body of Christ or the nature of Christ\'s resurrected body was within the parameters of evangelical definition. Do you remember what he said? See if this\... may have a little bit of difficulty seeing that. They were comparing three views. You can scrap the bottom one. The Jehovah witness. Harris, when he\'s talking about the body before the resurrection, and the common Western is the fact that the Western church said, I believe in the resurrection of the flesh, fleshly body, taken as being standard traditional. Harris did see flesh and bones and a visible body. They could see him. They could handle him. This was real man. Common Western was exactly the same. Jehovah witness would be the same. After the resurrection, how do you explain or how do you define the nature of the resurrected body? Reanimated and transformed, says Harris. Yes, there was the giving back of life. It would be the union. This is how we should express it. The union of the immaterial and the material. But Harris says customarily emphasized immaterial. And that\'s the difficult word right there because it gives the impression of no parameters. Retains his human nature, so there\'s no loss of that. Resumes pre-resurrection flesh and bones during the appearances. Do you understand what\'s happening? When he appeared to the disciples, it was from glory where he is in an immaterial spiritual body appearing in the flesh. So it\'s not a Christophany. He has rematerialized himself as flesh and blood, eaten, drank. They could touch him, handle him. They could see that he had flesh and bones. He was demonstrating to them that the one they knew was indeed alive. That\'s all that it was for. And then he would zip back to the other world and then appear before them. For the most part, he would be invisible to our world altogether. The Western view says reanimated and transformed the flesh and bones body. So it\'s material. Retains the human nature. Retains pre-resurrection flesh and bones during the appearances. So it was a bodily raising from the dead, transformation of his physical body and his appearances to them was not from invisibility because of immateriality, but he\'s coming into their presence in a glorified state. Actually, the committee that was looking at it, and J.I. Packer looking at it as well, finally concluded that Gagasla and Harris were both Orthodox because Harris insists that he has not done away with the reality of the body of Christ and that if he was to change anything, he would not use the word immaterial because it\'s too easy to be misunderstood. He says, don\'t think of the body as being ethereal and insubstantial. I\'ll say this and we\'ll take a break. Obviously, there was a change so that the body would be made suitable for the new realm. No time restriction anymore. I don\'t know where he was when he wasn\'t appearing to the disciples. I do know that he spent a lot of time teaching them things they needed to know. I don\'t want to suggest that his body went through a two-fold change. It came from the grave, joined with the spirit, physically resurrected to be on this earth for that short period of time, and then had another change that took it into glory. Two steps in the resurrection. Okay, let\'s take a break. Ten minutes. All right, obviously there are rejections that have occurred and wrong theories that have arisen. I\'ll let you read this. The denial of the spiritual body. The effect is serious. If there\'s a denial, if he\'s not risen from the dead, then what? And the consequences are there in 1 Corinthians 15. You have a handout on that. He is risen from the dead and he is the That is our proclamation. The ascension was not just the end of human life, that was it, with nothing further happening, nor is it just his spirit ascending and his body did not. He, before them, have improved his bodily resurrection, his bodily assumed into heaven. Last paragraph, statement by C.F.D. Mool, a Greek scholar. It is questionable whether even Luke himself, for all he\'s known, tendency to materialize, was so literal-minded as to imagine that Jesus went up vertically and sat down a few miles above the visible sky. Little sarcastic. I understand what he\'s saying, which is what? If you can strip away the sarcasm, why is he trying to say? It\'s a reaction on the part of some that you really can\'t say heaven is up, because we say heaven\'s up and that\'s up there, but the guy on the other side of the globe says heaven\'s up and it\'s in the opposite direction to me. So where\'s heaven? Traditionally it is understood as up in heaven. I don\'t have a problem with it, I\'m not sure why we have to make it an issue, but the comment is just a little sarcastic and a thought uncalled for, especially on the part of a scholar who doesn\'t reject the ascension or the resurrection. He went up from before them, caught up into the clouds, moved from one realm to another, went from earth to heaven, saw him go, and will see him come back. And when will his exaltation be complete? And this is a little note you can put to finish everything off. When is his exaltation really fully done? When every knee shall bow to him on earth, when he rules in his kingdom as well. Second Advent will bring about the finality of the exaltation and fulfilling God\'s plan for him. Third member of the Trinity, go back to your theology one notes, but we have to deal with the Holy Spirit a little separately in order to focus upon things that concern the Spirit in particular. Obviously any denial of the Spirit, making him just a force or a mode of God\'s manifested presence, would be a denial of the Trinity. You know there are some men that have lamented the fact that the Spirit doesn\'t appear to have been dealt with, but the fact of the matter is there\'s a lot of literature on the Holy Spirit. It\'s quite voluminous. And in our day of charismatic chaos, doctrine experientially based and derived, that is basically whatever occurs on the pages of scripture can occur today. Whatever happened in the Old Testament can happen today. But we do want to study what God\'s revelation says about his Spirit. I\'ve given you a little if and then so and you must know this little, it\'s not a syllogism, I don\'t know what it is, this little if and but statement. Neon lights. If the Spirit can be shown to be directly linked with terms descriptive of personality, and you should be able to get the proof for that from the sections that follow, and can be shown to act as a person would act, not acting instinctively or just as an impersonal force, and can be shown to be a separate identifiable person in relation with other persons, and the if is carrying through of course, if he can be shown to be clearly possessing divine attributes, then there\'s only one conclusion. He\'s a very important person, and not merely an impersonal force. We talk in VIP, very important person. And all the information, all the cross references for the if and the three ands come from the following pages that allows you to draw that conclusion. So if he is a person possessing divine attributes, then you must expect an identification with God in the text, and the doing of divine work is also expected. So take a look at the marks, actions, and relations of personality. I\'ve done this the same way as we did it for Christ, it\'s something we can ride through pretty quickly. There is a linkage with terms of personality. What you would normally associate thinking, intellect, emotion, will that is. There\'s life. Read these verses, you realize you\'re speaking about that which is of the living God, gives life, life in Christ, linkage of the spirit with the term life in Isaiah 11, in Isaiah 40, clearly with intelligence, of wisdom, understanding, who\'s counseled him, who\'s taught him, who has directed him or given him knowledge, would be seen in Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 40. Intellect, freedom and purpose, acting according to his will. It\'s the divine will. It\'s in perfect harmony with the will of the second person and the father. It\'s spirit distributing as he wills, which means there\'s a self-consciousness or a self-awareness that this is to be done, that task is to be accomplished. It\'s associated with freedom and purpose. Freedom doesn\'t mean that he just goes off and does his own thing without regard to the rest of the Trinity, you understand that. There\'s nothing that restrains the Godhead. Free to do, God is free to do what he wants to do, wherever he wants to do it. He has his purpose and his plan. Spirit is vitally rolled. You remember the triangle. God the Father, the agency, through the Son, by the Spirit, back to the Father, acting in perfect harmony. 2 Corinthians 3, 17 will be given by most of your systematic theologies. Now the Lord is Spirit. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. It\'s talking about the veil that he\'s taken away, just pointing again to the purpose, freedom to act. Romans 15, 30 speaking about through the love. You get the rest of the wording there. Go on read it. Romans 15, 30. You got Bible works, you probably got it up on the screen already. But by his doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Through the love, God the Father and Christ Jesus, and you can\'t ignore the third person of the Trinity. 1 Corinthians 2, 11. Some of these are a little indirect. Knowledge, he knows the things of God. Certainly the Spirit knows the things of God, knows the mind of Christ. Those are part of the marks of personality. You\'d use these to show the linkage, direct or indirect. It\'s there. They\'re actions of personality. And I thought again and again, how do I do this? Decided to crunch it into three or four lines. You will find lists. You can find a chart in some books. Grudem packs it into a page. Speaking, interceding, commanding, teaching, testifying, approving, guiding, praying are all the terms that are used and the references that are in parentheses. They follow those words in exact order. Acts 829 is a reference to speaking, 826 interceding and so on. Spirit is presented as doing that. This is what persons do. Testifying to us. He reproves. He guides. Helps in prayer. He\'s presented as having acts done towards him too. There\'s two categories here. As doing that which persons do and as having done to him what is done to persons. So he can be obeyed. That\'s the reference there in Acts 10, 19 through 21. We can be lied to. Acts 5 comes to mind immediately. Or resisted, which you can pick up from the testimony of Stephen. Isaiah 63 verse 10 is an Old Testament reference to speak about rebelling against and grieving the Spirit of God. Has anything to do with the consequences of removal of blessing? Ephesians 430 talks about grieved, grieving the Spirit. It\'s emotion. It\'s an impersonal force. Doesn\'t feel grief. Understand? Doesn\'t give an order expecting obedience. Matthew 12 verse 31 talks about him being blasphemed. In Hebrews 10 verse 29, outraged or insulted. Those are easy to get down. They fit into the chart. The if and but, if and then statement. You can take the linkage with terms of personality and put that with the first line. You can take the second, the actions of personality, both what he does and what is done to him, and put that against the second line. So it\'s obvious what I\'m going to ask you to do. Supply the evidence that fits the if and then so and. There are relations and associations indicative of personality which would fit with the third line, part of the third line. Separately identifiable as a person. Acts 15-28 seem good to the Spirit and to us. Obvious. Set apart. There\'s a different person, John 16-13, when he or Echinus, that one, talking about the Spirit of truth and their numar is neuter, but Echinus is used, characteristically using the masculine in John\'s Gospel. John 16-14 talks about glorify, he will glorify me and take of mine and disclose it to you. Spirit separate from Christ and God the Father with a particular task. He is an alos paracletos. He\'s another. Now how would you translate, stick it in your mind, alos paracletos. I didn\'t say heteros paracletos. Case where the alos is probably significant. To fit it in, I mean another is fine if you\'re doing it into English, but to fit it into your mind I would say, as I\'ve put in a little paragraph there for you, another of the same kind helper, another of the same kind comforter. Little bigger, little awkward, but that\'s good. Sticks. It is an awkward, it doesn\'t stick in your mind. He\'s going to be the same kind of comfort and helper to them as Christ was. He would take Christ\'s place. I can think of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, about eight or nine words that can be used to describe what Christ was to the disciples that obviously the Spirit would be to them, including him disclosing to them the truth of God that they would reveal and bringing back to their remembrance all the things that they needed to recall. But other words, Christ taught his disciples so will the Spirit. He counseled them so will the Spirit. He rebuked them so will the Spirit. He protected them so will the Spirit. He empowered them. He gave them authority. He revealed God to them, encouraged them, and you can add more. I\'d put it like this, he was a very real friend to the disciples. That\'s where you can describe it. He does, I\'m just trying to describe a relationship with terms that express some intimacy. He\'s a very real close friend to the disciples. And they was their Lord and Master, not denying that. Spirit, they have a similar relationship. Another helper, another comforter. Parakleitos you mean, Urias means to come alongside of, to be called alongside of one, stand next to, take by the elbow, move along. Distinguish from his own power. This would also fit into that line three. Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee. A person has power, a person is not power. He returned in the power of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is only a power, a force, an emanation. Then the question that people would ask is how can I get more of this power? But since the Spirit is a person, how would you reword that question if he was just force, power? What do I do to get more power? But if I\'m talking about the person of the Holy Spirit who is guiding, teaching, comforting, counselling, protecting, revealing. Since the Spirit is a person, I\'m going to have to reword it. I can\'t have more. Him in the same sense. Think. It\'s your mind\'s late in the afternoon. Person has power, is not power. Jeff? Okay, how do I take advantage of? Yeah. They would be using that in a good sense. Okay, that\'s also good. How do I get help from the Spirit? Thinking in terms of a person now. Okay, welcome him, having him take over more, yielding in other words, being submitted to. Tom? Yeah, how do I place myself under his control? But it\'s, let\'s even give it a little bit more of a twist. I place myself under his control so that I could be a vehicle for his power and influence. It\'s the Lord\'s working. I\'m the servant. So what do I do to yield, to be filled with, to submit to, to be under his control so that I\'m a vehicle for his power and influence working through me, working with me, on me, in me. I have to deal with that under baptism and filling of the Spirit. Let me read this to you if this was just impersonal. Then Jesus returned in the power of a force. Jesus returned in the influence. It doesn\'t make any sense. It reads awkward. It\'s a joss. It says there\'s something wrong. The power of the Spirit. He is also associated very equally with Father and Son, the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, all linked together on an equal level. Same thing in 2 Corinthians 13. All these verses here actually probably you have under the study of the Spirit in the Trinity dealing with his deity, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit with the other two members also mentioned in the same verse. Both Father and Son send the Spirit. John 14, 15, 16, easy to remember. John 14, 15, 16 talk about the sending of the Spirit. Psalm 104 speaks about you send forth your Spirit. Now you\'ll remember, I put this in here just to kind of jolt your memory of the Philly Oak Clause controversy that has divided the Western Eastern Church to this day. Council of Toledo. Father sends the Son only would be the Eastern Church. Western Churches traditionally defined it as Father and Son. It\'s interesting. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Church in the East are very different. Set them off on different paths. Also talked about spiration or procession or promenation. You don\'t need to know those terms. That\'s the place of generation to describe the Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son. He proceeds from, he spirates from, he promains from. It\'s taking a verse again and making it say more than what it said. It\'s an inverted triangle. Different expressions are used though. Spirit is given in order that he may be with the disciples. Spirit is sent to teach and to bring remembrance of all things. Sent proceeds to testify Jesus and the disciples. So both Father and Son are involved in sending the Spirit on his mission. But just because the word ekporiomai is used, or pimpo, to send doesn\'t mean that that must now be taken to become the defining word for the relationship of Spirit to Father and Son. It\'s only a descriptive of one element. He is specifically sent on a mission after Christ descends into heaven. Placed a lot of emphasis on that term for whatever reason. But there is obviously an intimate connection between the Spirit, the Father, and the Son. It\'s part of the Trinity. Eternal mutual relationships and go back to theology one and pick up on that. So there\'s a linkage with divine names. It\'s called the Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of your Father, of Jesus Christ, of Jesus, of our God, of the living God, of his Son. That\'s quite a variety of linkages with the divine names. Again the references are in title order. Double association in Romans 8 and 9. Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ. Cross identification, obvious. Such linkage shows deity. Now one of the things that confuses sometimes the actions and indications of personality is because of the metaphors that are used to describe the symbols, the pictures, the metaphors describing the Spirit in the Word of God. Wind, order, dove, for example. But they just, they\'re exactly what they are. They\'re descriptive of what he does. They don\'t need to blow anything at all. You may add to the section on linked with divine names. Nehemiah 9 verse 20, actually it can fit in any one of these categories. Nehemiah 9 20, you gave also your good spirit to instruct them. Nehemiah 9 20, you gave your good spirit, obviously distinct from God, or Numbers 11 17. I will take of the Spirit, put it upon. Or you can add to 2 Samuel 23 verses 2 and 3. It\'s easy to remember 2 Samuel 23, 2, 3. Spirit of the Lord spoke by me. The God of Israel said, obvious cross identification, direct link, the divine name and divine personality. Isaiah 48 16, I\'ll give you all the references again. Isaiah 48 16, the Lord God and his Spirit sent me, servant. Haggai 2 4 and 5. Haggai 2 4 and 5. I am with you, the Lord said, and then a little later my spirit remains among you. So I gave you Nehemiah 9 20, Numbers 11 17, 2 Samuel 23 2 3, that\'s one you should remember. Isaiah 48 16, Haggai 2 4 and 5. All suggesting from the Old Testament links to deity. Yes Jeff. Isaiah 48. Isaiah, Isaiah. I\'ve been, I\'ve been acculturalizing. 2 Samuel 23 2, 3. That\'s why I said 23 2 3. Summary on personality then. Easy to draw. Fundamental revelation of scripture says, Walvoe, the Holy Spirit is a person in the same sense as the Father and the Son are persons. Yes, evidence is there and there\'s more than just those verses that we looked at. In fact, possessive adjective is used in a number of places in the Old Testament referring to the Lord, talking to the Lord and saying your spirit and your good spirit, his Holy Spirit, person separate from him. Leon Morris makes this comment also in his commentary on John, but in his little booklet, I think it\'s long out of Prince Spirit of the Living God, talks about the masculine pronoun used by John in his Gospel and says the explanation is this and you notice it as soon as you, if you know anything about Greek grammar and you start reading. John habitually thought of the Spirit in personal terms as a he rather than an it. Now that doesn\'t sound very significant perhaps to any of you, but stop and listen sometimes to the way people pray. You may be a little surprised to find how often it is used as a pronoun for the Spirit in the next sentence in somebody\'s prayer. You notice that before you\'ve been alert enough to that? I have because I\'ve done it myself a couple of times. It\'s something you just do grammatically I guess, but I won\'t now, don\'t do it anymore. Try to stay alert when I\'m praying. Have heard it. It\'s he, not it. If we refer to the Spirit as it, makes him a force, an influence, an impersonal thing. Jeff? The Holy Spirit as like using terms like wind and\... Yeah those are metaphors to describe his actions. Would you say that would be similar to anthropomorphic terms that we use for the Father? Or was that a different kind of category? Yeah it would be metaphorical. Anthropomorphic would be to talk about the hand of God, the eye of God, the ear of God. We realize we\'re using anthropological terms to describe God hearing my cry. His ear is attuned to my cry. That\'s anthropomorphism. Here oil, wind, water is used to describe activity or influence of the Spirit. It is metaphorical. It doesn\'t say he is wind or he is water. It\'s figurative, descriptive. Yeah and then Dennis? Might be a more appropriate question for next hour, but I was wondering what your take was on the charismatic movements, their conception of the Holy Spirit in terms of whether they lean more towards a person or a force, since they so often speak of the Spirit and his activity in their lives. Yeah I think you can just sum that up in\... there is somewhat of confusion the way they speak, but you realize as well as I do that there\'s a real emphasis on the Holy Ghost. Yeah and the emphasis that perhaps we would want to see which is the Spirit revealing Christ seems to have been turned around a little bit. It will be not in the next hour, but in the next one and it will probably come up again here. Dennis? The idea in Genesis that God breathed the breath of life and we know that\'s just a wordplay for giving the Spirit in. I\'d always seen that as a literal\... God breathes, that would be an anthropomorphic expression. It\'s God\'s action. But it is a giving of the Holy Spirit. It\'s actually a giving of the immaterial part to Adam. You\'re talking about Genesis too? Yeah. That\'s when the immaterial and this life was bestowed upon Adam. But it\'s not the Holy Spirit then? Not in that person I think. That\'s part of the understanding and the makeup of Adam. What God did as he took mud, water, soil or whatever, molded it with his fingers. He actually uses the word mold or build and then breathed into his nostrils. Gave him life. But it\'s a graphic picture. And he is now constituted a material immaterial being. Otherwise he\'d be a lump of clay. It says he became a nephesh. A living being. A nephesh-he. And we assume that that\'s the time when the immaterial part was given to make him that nephesh. Okay, somebody else said Hannah? No. Same as Christ, there\'s possession of the divine attributes. You need to get copies of what they are. If you want to know where the references are, you can look for a copy that has that done. You can take Grudem, you can take Mlodiriksen, you can take Buzvol, Berkoff, Thiessen, whichever one you want to use. And they\'ll give you the list in terms of whatever breakdown of attributes they choose to use. Attributes can be broken down in several different ways. As you know, I\'m using terms of greatness and terms of goodness. You can associate him with eternality, omnipresence, omniscience, and power. There would be divine power. You can recall the use of terms that speak, direct your attention to the goodness of God, describing his character as good and perfect. Emphasis on holy in both Old and New Testaments, spirit of truth, truth or being true belonging to goodness. I am the way, the truth, and the life, Jesus said. You can recall that. He\'s the spirit of truth, intimate linkage. Reflect on the truth and Jesus going and the spirit coming, and the disciples remaining behind. Any significance? We\'ve actually already mentioned that the answer is already there. Spirit has been sent to take the place of Christ and to give them the revelation they needed for the change of dispensation that was occurring. And to help them understand what they had already forgotten. Three years they\'d heard a lot of teaching, preaching. There needed to be a perfect presentation of those three years. Without the Holy Spirit\'s help, they would not recall the details exactly. They would be just like witnesses today who have different opinions of what took place. If you\'ve ever been, if you\'ve ever had to speak to witnesses of an event, you can bet, sorry, I shouldn\'t say bet your bottom dollar. You can be certain that you will get, if there\'s five witnesses, you\'ll have five little differences or even more differences in the story. There\'ll be enough commonality, but then people looking from, remember different things look from different angles. They don\'t record it accurately. This is an accurate record because of the spirit\'s involvement being sent for that purpose. Jesus is going, the spirit is coming and he reveals the truth to them. He takes that of Christ and gives it to the disciples. Bound up with truth. Identification with God, you can again cross identify in a number of verses. Acts 28 and Isaiah 6, Hebrews 10, Jeremiah 31. You\'ll find cross identification of the spirit with Yahweh, with the Lord in the Old Testament, just like you did with Christ and Yahweh in the Old Testament and the New. The work of the spirit, we\'ll pick up on in some detail. I think we can probably call it a day. You\'ll notice that I\'ve summarized very concisely the spirit\'s relation to the material world. I\'ve given a direct assertion of involvement in creation. Spirit was hovering over the waters. It tells you that God was involved. This is not a judgment that\'s involved there at all. God said in the beginning, in the beginning God created and the spirit was hovering over. Traditional statements of involvement, Job 26, 13, we\'ll pick up there next week a little bit. Awkward translation, immediately. Same with Job 33, 4, but there is a parallelism there. Their spirit and your spirit mentioned in Psalm 104. The problem is that we\'re not sure exactly when the ruach means breath, should be translated spirit. In most cases you can tell right away by context. Some verses could be spirit, could be breath. For example, coming back to your comment, Job 33, spirit of God, the breath of the Almighty. Is that an exact parallelism or is that the spirit of God and then another statement of the work of the Almighty Father? It\'s not a significant difference. We\'ll pick up on relation to the scriptures, which we can do quickly because I know you\'ve done that in theology one. We look at some terminology here, dealing with spirit in relation to the word and Christ Jesus. And then we\'ll come back to dealing with baptism, filling, sealing, so on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.