How the Doctrines of the Triune God
Affect the Content and Character of Worship

Bradley Robert Berglund

Chapter 1 - Why Another Book on Worship?
Chapter 2 - How Did Worship Become Divisive?
Chapter 3 - Is Worship an Essential Doctrine (or Are We Majoring on Minors)?
Chapter 4 – The Rudiments of Acceptable Worship

Section A: Theology Proper -The Object of Worship 

Chapter 5 – Knowing the God of Worship
Chapter 6 – The Awesome Qualities of God
Chapter 7 – The Moral Perfections of God

Section B: Christology - The Incarnation of Worship

Chapter 8 – The God-given Image of Worship
Chapter 9 – From Eternity to Galilee
Chapter 10 - From the Cross to the Sky
Chapter 11 - From Today to Eternity
Chapter 12 - The Christ of Worship 

Section C: Pneumatology - The Vitality of Worship

Chapter 13 - The Enigmatic Person
Chapter 14 - The Person of the Holy Spirit
Chapter 15 - The Activity of the Holy Spirit
Chapter 16 - The Acceptable Response to the Holy Spirit
Chapter 17 – The Trustworthy Spirit of Worship

Chapter 18 – Summary

Chapter 1 - Why Another Book on Worship?

While much is being written and promoted regarding the “practice” of worship, the theological foundation for worship has received little attention.  Most worship today is patterned after two role models: one imitates the historic practices of the congregation (traditional) and the other imitates the society (contemporary).  If worship is merely subjective, there is no sense in examining its theological basis, for whatever atmosphere satisfies the individual’s need to acknowledge God is the right worship for that individual.

Nevertheless, the Bible makes it clear that not everything that claims to be worship is acceptable to God (Matthew 15:9; Genesis 4; Luke 18:9-14).  Worship is more than a Sunday ritual.  It is a command to participate with others in the loving adoration of the God of heaven.  It is clear that both content and character must be factored in whenever one participates in worship.  It is not an overstatement to say the Bible treats the content and the character of worship as matters of life and death.

If worship is both vital and precise, it is critical that the believer understands what God expects from worship.  God’s communicated expectations are of far greater concern than asking what the participant expects to derive from worship.  Only by mastering His word is man able to truly comprehend worship’s identity and to truly determine how worship should be implemented in twenty-first century churches.

Defining Worship - One of the great difficulties with the task at hand is defining worship.  Most definitions accurately portray the general term.  For example, the present English term derives from an Old English one which ascribes “worth-ship” to God.  The Hebrew and Greek words swell with a recognition of who God is and how He alone is worthy of praise.

The problem with the general term of worship is that its definition is too broad for the purposes of determining that type of worship which is acceptable to God.  Jesus spoke of a group that worshiped God “in vain (Mark 7:7).”  In part, this was due to a disconnection between heart and lips.  Yet it went deeper, for this people established patterns of worship built upon man-made commandments.  They had a monopoly upon the worship of the true God, and the richness of their tradition unambiguously declared that they were God’s covenant people and the tools of worship were God-ordained and filled.  Still, Jesus says of them that their worship is in vain.

The Bible teaches that some acts of worship are accepted by God and that others are unacceptable.  Cain was the first recorded person to have an act of worship that was disregarded by God.  Many acts of worship may take of the content and character accepted by men, but a critical question must be asked.  Does the worship activity and content make up a sacrifice that is acceptable to God?  We need a definition that transcends the general concepts of worship and reflects what would be called “acceptable worship” to the God of the Bible.

Few have defined acceptable worship better than David Peterson.  “The worship of the living and true God is essentially an engagement with him on the terms that he proposes and in the way that he alone makes possible.”[1]  Worship is all about God.

Much of worship is acceptable today based upon three extra-biblical authorities.  Pragmatism measures the acceptability of worship based upon the observable outcomes.  Experience will focus on the transcendent character of the worship.  If the activity lifts the spirit of a man to feel the presence of God it is acceptable.  Tradition cherishes a historical connection with God.  The more one’s worship identifies with those whom God has used in the past the more genuine it is.  While each of these authorities has a rightful place in Scriptures, none has the ability to equal or usurp the revelation of God.  Whenever, these authorities become the benchmark for acceptable worship, they fail according to God’s holy word.

What Not To Expect - The goal of this work is to explore the biblical foundations for worship.  This is merely the first step of a lengthy process.  The theological foundation for worship is often neglected because its value and practical benefits are not readily apparent.  It is natural for people to spend more time and heap more praises upon a building’s vaulted ceilings than upon its cement footings.  The foundation is not individually suited to shelter a person from the storms, but its existence and maintenance is critical if the superstructure is to stand.  While most worship books invest their energies in remodeling the superstructure, this work will test the foundations of worship.  While other books provide quick answers, this work probes the Biblical basis from which true Christian liberty springs.  For this reason, the chosen course of this book is the road less taken.  Even though the applications are more abundant than the answer books, they require both scriptural diligence and prayerful meditation to implement.  Implementation is as critical to worship as are the foundational doctrines, but this work will focus on the long-neglected foundation of worship.

Because it is not a manual of implementation, this work will not primarily deal with music and music styles.  The matters surrounding music are critical, but they are not addressed here. 

In addition, while its impact upon worship is real, this work will not focus heavily upon the market-driven models being promoted heavily today among Evangelical churches.  Their foundations and pillars will be challenged, but detailed analysis of the men and its movements is beyond the scope of this work.

Why Bother with Theology? - In the introduction to Systematic Theology Syllabus of Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary in Newington, Connecticut, the second main heading asks, “Why is Systematic Theology an Important Study?”  The very first answer illustrates the reason for this work.  “It keeps pragmatism in proper balance.”  Theology does not deny the reality of outcomes, for man is called upon to “taste and see that the Lord is good!”  Theology does deny that outcomes are an authoritative measure for success or failure.

Many contemporary works on worship today are related to church growth.  The aim is to use worship as a tool to evangelize the contemporary American.  Techniques and styles of worship that fill church services ought to be imitated.  These authors concentrate on the techniques and styles that are most effective in “churching” the “unchurched” American society. 

Many today assume that worship is purely subjective, and that no pastor has any right to deny any individual expression of worship in the local church.  Is there but one exclusive way to worship God?  If someone’s heart is in the right place, does it matter (within reason, of course) how he expresses himself in worship?  If the Bible did not preserve any musical notation with the Psalms, is it not safe to assume that all musical forms are acceptable in worship? 

If, on the other hand, there are biblical parameters, the pastor not only has the right, but he also possesses the obligation to correct the misguided practices that are identified by contemporary man as worship.  Although he is wrong to interfere with any genuine, spiritual expression of praise to God, he is also wrong to gullibly and uncritically believe every spirit claiming to be acceptable worship.  The pressure to conform to the market-driven model is great.  Pragmatic worship is being sold as the answer to society’s secular indifference toward Jesus Christ.  How is a pastor supposed to determine the true from the false?  The goal of this work is to establish the foundation of truth from which the practice of genuine and acceptable worship can spring. 

The Road Less Taken - Most writings occupy themselves with the practice of worship and do not start with the matter of the theology behind worship.  Whenever the theology of worship is discussed it is usually the historical development of worship from Adam to the present time.  It is extremely rare to find any reference to systematic theology and its relationship to worship.

Defining the current works on worship is difficult because most writings have multiple goals in mind.  Still, five general headings contain most of the writings on worship. 

1) Devotional - Many books begin with the premise that worship, as a general rule, is being neglected.  These books stress devotion to God, and for this reason I classify them as “devotional.”  Within this category reside a number of gems on the subject.  Near the end of his life, A. W. Tozer preached a series of messages on the matter of worship.[2]  Tozer’s work is credited with prompting Ronald Allen and Gordon Borror to release Worship: Rediscovering the Missing Jewel.[3]  Such books recognize the need for right theology in the matter of worship, but focus upon the practice of worship.

2) Administrative - Most books directed at pastors are of an administrative nature.  The are sometimes easily identified by their titles such as Reinventing Sunday[4] and The Purpose-Driven Church.[5]  This does not imply that these works are devoid of material in the other classification, but the general character of such books is anecdotal.  Each varied author was convinced to do something unusual in worship and the people responded in a positive way.  His successes become suggestions to others who lead worship.

3) Theological - To the student of Scriptures, two types of theology occupy his attention.  One is called Biblical Theology.  This discipline begins with the concept of worship and traces its development from Genesis through Revelation.  Such a study would be inductive in its approach.  Many of the works calling themselves “theologies of worship” follow this line of study.  David Peterson[6] presents a definitive work on the Biblical theology of worship from a covenant hermeneutic.  He places a great emphasis upon how the Old Testament systems impact New Testament practice.

The application of Systematic Theology is rarely noted in works on worship.  Its deductive approach asks how the facts of doctrine impact worship.  Most works on Systematic Theology tend to restrict themselves the content to the teaching of Bible doctrines.  Wayne Grudem is unique in that he pauses in the midst of his expositions to examine the worship aspect of theology.[7]

D. A. Carson’s Worship by the Book[8] endeavors to bridge the doctrinal and the practical.  He begins with an exhaustive definition of worship.  This is followed by an elucidation of the components of that definition in the light of Scriptures.  His approach is neither a Biblical Theology nor a Systematic Theology.  It might be called a Practical Theology of worship.

Another category of theological works do not address worship, but are essentially expositions of theology designed to elicit worship from the reader.  Two such classic works are Tozer’s work, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life,[9] and J. I. Packer’s book, Knowing God.[10]

4) Apologetic - Many works are apologetic in nature defending the practices of the author.  The traditions of Protestantism are championed by authors such as John Frame.[11] He champions the truths proclaimed by the Westminster Confession of Faith.  The Presbyterian churches are caught in a battle between Puritan conformity and modern expression.

Jack Hayford[12] is a giant in the matter of Charismatic worship.  In one particular article, he not only defends the “freedom” of expression in his church, he actually attacks any who would question the acts of worship.  He identifies traditional critics as those who live in the line of Michal.  They will be judged by God with barrenness.

5) Issue-Driven - The modern debate on worship has produced many single-issue works.  These focus on philosophy, style, music, and art.

The market-driven model of ministry has its manuals for worship.  These are promoted in the works of Rick Warren,[13] Sally Morgenthaler,[14] and George Barna.[15]  At issue is how worship can be utilized to reach unregenerate people (known as seekers) for Jesus Christ.

The debate on worship also focuses on issues related to “style.”  Music is a key element in this debate, but style encompasses much more than this.  While most churches identify two styles: traditional and contemporary, Paul Basden[16] identifies five styles.

Music is a critical part of worship.  Often it is the most critical element and the most visible element in determining the direction of worship in a church.  Authors such as Rick Warren[17] treat music as an amoral, non-theological issue.  It is merely a matter of taste.  In contrast, authors such as John Makujina,[18] Tim Fisher,[19] Kent Brandenburg,[20] David Cloud,[21] and Leonard Payton[22] all protest this naïve characterization.

Still, artistic worshipful expressions do not stop with music.  Some authors examine the theology behind art itself.  In The Christian, the Arts, and Truth, Frank E. Gaebelein,[23] a Christian Humanist, asked if the art of man can bring glory to God.  Similarly, Francis Schaeffer has documented how art and philosophy impact theology in How Then Shall We Live?[24]  Should artistic expression have limits when it comes to the worship of God?

When first conceived, I had planned to survey the pertinent doctrines of systematic theology and derive principles of worship from this study.  I regret that the present work only explores the doctrines related to the persons and works of the Godhead: Theology proper, Christology, and Pneumatology.  If the Lord wills, I would like to finish the task.  The next logical step would be to study the created instruments of worship: natural creation, angelic creation, and man.  The final critical study would center on the tabernacles of worship: the heart of man, the home of the believer, and the local church.

The Genius of Worship

This work focuses only upon the doctrines related to God and seeks to draw from the doctrines of Theology Proper principles that impact both the character and content of worship.  It is entitled The Genius of Worship because acceptable worship originates from God.  God the Father is the producer of all praise that returns to Him.  He prepared the hall and provided the instruments for this symphony of praise.  Jesus Christ is the composer and director of the worship.  The song is His, and the authority to conduct in the world of man has been given to Him by the Heavenly Father.  The Holy Spirit serves as the musician who blows upon the instrument and quickens its tones. 

This present world (the audience of this symphony) sees only the instruments of praise; the redeemed.  The Spirit’s movement is perceptible, but the natural man does not receive this testimony.  He elevates the instruments and worships them as the genius.  Neither does he recognize the source or the authority behind the song.  He fashions the righteousness of the Son to suite his tastes and biases.  He forsakes the righteousness of the Son and establishes his own version of righteousness; borrowing from the forms of worship but denying its power.  When this happens, God ceases to be glorified.  God’s creation and the subsequent manipulation of it by man becomes the new object of worship.  In response, God gives man up to do his own thing and stray from God’s plan.  The true Genius of worship judges mankind with His silence.

God does not need the instruments in order to be whole or complete.  In eternity past, before anything was created, God was complete.  He was able to hear the symphonies of grace, holiness, love, and truth before the instruments were created.  In His genius, He heard the glorious sound and imagined it in a way that is more perfect and beautiful than any man can sing.  Few musical masterpieces are better known to humanity than Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, yet few realize that the composer was deaf when he produced the work.  Even though Beethoven attended the premier performance of the work, he never heard a single note, nor did he hear the thunderous applause of the audience.  Still, as a man who was made in the image of God, he heard every note clearly and perfectly in his mind.  If a mortal is capable of such marvelous comprehension, how much more is God capable of hearing His worship even when the instruments are silent.

It is the purpose of this work to awaken the worshipper to the true source of all acceptable worship.  Only when the three persons of the Godhead are comprehended and the instrument is placed in the hand of the divine musician, may acceptable worship begin. 

Chapter 2 - How Did Worship Become Divisive?

Baptist churches have generally neglected the study of Biblical Worship far too long because prior to the changes in the last half of the twentieth century, there was little to debate.  There was some disagreement upon the practice of the Lord’s Supper - whether it should be an open service, a closed service, or a “close” service.  Beyond this, the worship of Baptists was generally uniform with a primacy on the preaching of the Scriptures and a reverence for the holy character of God.

This uniformity would eventually be challenged by two groups: one from within and one from without.  From within would arise a pragmatic view of worship.  Churches desiring to expand needed to adapt in order to accommodate and promote growth.  At one time, Sunday night had often been the “evangelistic” service each week.  Neighbors and friends were invited to join for a service geared to reach those who had never placed their faith in Jesus Christ.  Tent revival meetings were also key tools for outreach.  Yet, the worship service on Sunday morning remained sacrosanct; it was strictly for the believer to worship his God.  The Sunday School was geared to edify and instruct the saints of every age group.

As American society wrested Sunday from sacred use by offering retail and recreation, the impact of the evening service became more directed at the “faithful” instead of at the unsaved.  In turn, evangelistic preaching became the fare for the Morning Service, and outreach became the purpose of the Sunday School.  All preaching and teaching times would be multi-purpose: to simultaneously worship God, edify the church, and present the gospel to unbelievers in the midst.  Some evangelists and preachers have gone so far as to imply that the worship of God is of secondary importance.  The logic was expressed in this way: “Because we will have all eternity to worship God, we should not waste our present time in this task.  We only have one short life to reach the lost, and this should consume our religious passions.”  Churches ceased to view their buildings as sanctuaries; they were now hospitals, open to bind up the spiritually bruised and broken.

The radical change in American society after the Second World War externally influenced the churches.  Historically, America had been a society that respected the values of Christianity.  In the name of freedom, contrary forces were at work to undermine this respect.  A cultural revolution in the 1960’s and 1970’s did for America what the French Revolution did for France.  A moral compass was lost, and a respect for authority was renounced.  A youth culture founded on the principles of rebellion broke out, trashing morality and decency.  The use of hallucinogenic drugs became prominent on high school and college campuses, eastern mysticism became the new religion, and rock-and-roll music became the new artistic expression of the societal revolution.

To respond to this culture, a movement arose called the “Jesus People.”  It was their goal to use contemporary, rebellious culture to lead people back to Christianity.  Critical to reaching the rebels of society was the expression of rebellion toward “the organized church.”

Disenchantment with the established church is, as we have noted, a hallmark of the Jesus Movement.  … All Jesus People share the feeling that the established churches have lost significant contact with the Jesus of the New Testament, or at least have failed to communicate the gospel, especially to the young.[25]

Initially, fundamental Baptist churches rejected this pattern as a legitimate tool for evangelism.  The lines of demarcation were clear.  Conformity to the culture of the “hippie” movement in dress and music was denounced as worldly.  Fundamental churches offered a clean-cut alternative, free of association with rebellion.

Today, the counter-culture is the establishment.  The effects of the licentious youth culture in the past have crippled the moral resolve of America as it enters the twenty-first century.  Today, the gospel of the Bible stands in stark contrast to its society which seeks to eliminate God from all aspects of public and civic life.  Nothing is sacred, not even marriage.

If society has lost interest in and respect for the church, what does one do?  One of the more common responses is to make the worship of the church more “user friendly” to the average person in society.  The question is not one of apostasy but of adaptation.  The message of old must not change, but it must be communicated in terms and with vehicles that are familiar to this society.  As Hudson Taylor laid aside his British way of doing things to reach the Chinese, the churches today must lay aside the worn out expressions, practices, and mores of the past.

Such a challenge is predictably met with resistance from those who believe that there is godly merit to the patterns of old.  Adaptation is no excuse for disobedience or apostasy.  The fact that fewer are seeking the truth is not evidence of the failure of “old methods;” it is evidence of moral hardness.

Who is right?  Could it be possible that each in his unique way is right?  Some churches have structured themselves with two morning worship services.  One appeals to the “traditional” member while the other appeals to the “contemporary” member.  Others are offering a “blended” approach designed to satisfy both groups.  Yet there is also a real possibility that both are wrong.

The goal of this work is not to defend my personal worship preferences.  Instead, it is to establish what God’s word teaches about worship in the New Testament age.  What are the unalterable elements of acceptable worship and how do they apply today?

In light of all the books on the topic of worship, such a task might appear to be redundant.  Many works include words such as “real,” “true,” and “biblical” in their titles.  To view the task anew threatens the conclusions of past studies, smacking of arrogance.  Still, it is my conviction that many works fail to treat God’s word as the only infallible authority for faith and practice.  Few have examined the topic of worship in its integral relationship to the rest of theology.

This will not be the last word on this vast topic.  Worship, like love, will last into eternity.  Finite man will have an eternity not only to grow in his love for the infinite God, but also to express that love in a fresh and meaningful way. 

The Impact of Extra-Biblical Criteria

Before assessing the biblical teachings on worship, one must grasp the influence that other elements have upon the topic.  All voices in the debate today claim Scriptural support for their various positions – citing abundant references from the Bible to legitimize their own practices and demonize the practices of others.  The differences are not usually driven by Bible exposition; they are driven by outside criteria.  While the Bible may be evident in the various presentations, it may not be preeminent.  Each of the three criteria listed below has its own unique and proper place under the authority of God’s word.  Whenever man elevates the criterion to the place of authority, the integrity of the Bible is placed in jeopardy.

Pragmatism is an outcome-based philosophy.  A practice is declared worthy by the results it produces.  Through worship, the pragmatist acts as a tactician, engaging those who are unattached to God.  The worship leader wants to know what moves people and how can he exploit it for the sake of the gospel.

Experience is a second criterion.  The goal of worship is to experience the supernatural in a meaningful way.  When it comes to worship this philosophy is consumer-sensitive.  The worship leader endeavors to be a facilitator, succeeding whenever he enraptures the unenthused.

Tradition stands in contrast to both.  In its most natural state, this philosophy seeks to connect the present with the past in a meaningful way.  The past provides the patterns for today.  The traditionalist treats worship as a purist, enforcing the unalterable standards.  The worship leader acts as a curator, guiding the ignorant to appreciate the masterpieces of the past.

The application of these authorities is not mutually exclusive.  In fact, most non-doctrinal practices are a blend of the three authorities above.  While pragmatism dominates the methods of Rick Warren and Sally Morgenthaler, it is wrong to assume that they support a shallow worship experience.  Tradition demands fidelity, but it does not deny all manifestations of enthusiasm.  The lines of demarcation among the groups are blurry.  Anyone who addresses these issues must use caution before drawing absolute conclusions about the groups cited.

Pragmatism - The Market-Driven Model - In the late 1980’s, I had the privilege of attending a conference on Sunday School revitalization taught by Elmer Towns.  Upon arrival, I discovered that the topic was of interest to many religious groups, not just gospel-preaching churches.  The seminar was all about successful tools of administration.  Its models were Jack Hyles, Jerry Falwell, and Paul Yonggi Cho.

A few years later, I received a follow-up invitation to another conference held by the Church Growth Institute entitled, “Designing a Worship Serviced to Reach the Unchurched.”  Its objectives were clearly spelled out.

At this seminar:

Don’t Expect to …

- Decide on the right form and style of worship.

- Develop a comprehensive theology of worship.

- Discover a “quick fix” for your church.

Expect to …

- Explore American culture and its relationship to worship.

- Examine ways to attract the unchurched.

- Express ways to get visitors to come back a second time.

- Experience a forum for questions and answers.

Pragmatic worship declares, “If God wants us to reach the lost and we can use His worship to do so, this is a win / win situation.”  What soul-winning Baptist would ever object to this?  Churches who have adopted this philosophy have seen dramatic increases in their attendance.  What has worked elsewhere can work in any location.

Of current interest is the work of a Southern Baptist preacher, blessed by the hands of W. A. Criswell, named Rick Warren.  In planting and pastoring the Saddleback Church he has become a role model for many.  His philosophies and methodologies are precisely delivered in his book The Purpose-Driven Church.  He believes that his goal to attract “unchurched” people into a worship service is a biblical goal that is patterned after Jesus.  “A Christlike ministry still attracts crowds.”[26]  He is unapologetic in his practices.

I realize that there are some Christians who will disagree with the thesis of this chapter.  The controversy over attracting a crowd boils down to two issues.  The first has to do with the legitimacy of what is called “attraction evangelism,” and the other has to do with how the church should relate to the culture it seeks to evangelize.[27]

Regarding the church’s relationship to the world, Warren condemns the two polar responses of churches which he calls “imitation” and “isolation.”  He has adopted a moderating position which is called “infiltration.”  Jesus was “sinner-sensitive.”[28]  Those who are more concerned for the purity of their church than for the perishing souls outside of their church are, in Warren’s estimation, modern-day Pharisees.  “It takes unselfish, mature believers to offer a seeker-sensitive service.”[29]

If you are serious about ministering to people the way Jesus did, don’t be surprised if some of today’s religious establishment accuse you of selling out to culture and breaking traditions.  You will be criticized!  Sadly, some isolationists have been extremely judgmental of seeker-sensitive churches in books and articles.  Most of these criticisms are unfair characterizations made out of ignorance and do not represent what actually happens in seeker-sensitive churches.

Trailblazers always get arrows shot at them.  Translating truth into contemporary terms is dangerous business.  Remember, they burned Wycliffe at the stake for doing it.  But criticism by other Christians should never keep you from ministering the way Christ did.  Jesus should be our ultimate model for ministry, not anyone else.[30]

The Purpose-Driven Church details the twelve convictions that guide the worship of the Saddleback Church.  It is clear that the expressions on any given Sunday are not void of real substance and meaning.  This is not just an attempt to keep up with Hollywood, as some who criticize his activity allege.  Nevertheless, worship at Saddleback is equally as sensitive to its visitors as it is to God.  “God expects us to be sensitive to the fears, hang-ups and needs of unbelievers when they are present in our worship services.”[31] 

Another prominent voice is George Barna; the Christian behavioral scientist who is often cited for his polling data.  He determines what people are thinking so that the consumer-sensitive preacher can tailor his presentation.  The preacher who knows the mind of the unchurched man is able to, “exploit the inner yearnings that millions possess to be intimately connected with their Father in heaven through genuine, authentic, consistent, purposeful, loving, and pleasing expressions of worship.”[32]

To some, marketing the gospel in the way one would market a politician seems profane.  Yet to others, it is seen as an effective tool to promote God’s work within a gospel-resistant society.  They believe the marketing of God’s work does not diminish His glory.

Key to this paradigm is the concept of the “Seeker-Sensitive” service.

A seeker service is a toned-down, upbeat evangelistic service for “seekers,” that is, for non-Christians who are seeking God but who have not yet made a personal commitment to Christ.  It is not a service of worship designed for Christians.  Rather, its purpose is to present and explain the gospel in nonreligious terms and in nontraditional ways to unbelievers.  Seekers are given the best time to meet (Sunday morning), their own music to hear (in contemporary style) and answers to their deepest questions (“felt needs”).  Church members are expected to bring their non-Christian friends to these services, which are specifically designed to communicate the Christian message in ways that do not threaten or scare off unbelievers.  In other words, the “target audience” of a seeker service is non-Christians.[33]

Within the market-driven apologists, there is dispute over propriety of calling such events “worship.”  Willow Creek rightly denies that a seeker service is a worship service, but its imitators do not seem to grasp this nuance.  “It is becoming more and more difficult for seeker-driven churches … to establish or maintain worship as their number one priority. … There is now a widespread tendency within evangelicalism to equate seeker events with worship.”[34]

Even though the literature tends to be intensely practical, there are true philosophical concepts that guide this movement.  In a recent thesis on the Church Marketing Movement, Joe Zichterman identified six pillars of the market-driven model.[35] 

1) The Preeminence of Evangelism.  Without controversy, a key purpose of the church is to evangelize the lost, both at home and abroad.  The call of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is to “make disciples,” but this activity must never compromise the church’s need to be a depository of Divine truth and a chosen vehicle for genuine worship. 

Unbelievers (including those who are churched and unchurched) will draw lasting conclusions about the veracity and uniqueness of our God based on what they see or do not see happening in our weekly church services.  Do they detect something supernatural and life-changing going on?  Can they sense God’s presence and work among us?  Are they experiencing something in our midst they have never seen before?[36]

Still, in this model, success demands silence from the critics.  Godly people don’t snipe at godly results; instead, they embrace them.

(On February 15, 1999, Jerry Falwell said at the Midwinter Meeting of the Baptist Bible Fellowship in San Diego) “You're not gonna reach the youth of today - and I'm not talking about noise - but I'm talking about praise and worship. And you'd better decide to change or the world's gonna leave you behind in the dust and forget your name.”...  "These kids have got something going out there, so hold your nose and let 'em do it!"[37]

2) The Necessity of Numeric Growth.  Critical to success is an accurate and available tool for measurement.  In the market-driven model, success and failure is in the numbers.  Since faithfulness cannot be quantified, it is cast aside as a trustworthy tool. 

Considering the Great Commission that Jesus gave to the church, I believe that the definition of fruitfulness for a local church must include growth by the conversion of unbelievers. … Numerical results are no justification for being unfaithful to the message, but neither can we use faithfulness as an excuse for being ineffective! … Faithfulness is accomplishing as much as possible with the resources and talents God has given you.[38]

3) Target People-group Evangelism.  Marketers call this “demographics.”  Instead of trying to reach everybody, a church should concentrate on one specific group.  The spokesmen for market-driven ministries believe that this is consistent with the activity in Acts.  Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and Peter was sent to the Jews.  In Rick Warren’s church, they have focused their efforts on reaching “Saddleback Sam.”[39]  If one knows who he is trying to reach, he can use better bait to catch his fish.

4) Removal of Extra-Biblical Barriers.  While no one denies that the Bible itself establishes some restrictions, the market-driven church believes that most church barriers today are unbiblical.  Generational changes mandate that some “traditions” be abandoned.  These “barriers” usually find their root in language, dress, and music.  If pews and stained-glass make people uncomfortable, it is time to build auditorium stages with theater seating.  The market-driven ministry welcomes a radical application of Paul’s principle of deference in 1 Corinthians 9:20-22.

5) Audience-Centered Presentation of the Truth.  Specifically, this pillar focuses on the seeker-sensitive service.  It endeavors to make every Sunday morning service an evangelistic outreach.  Rick Warren relates how he, as a preacher’s kid, was frustrated whenever the message preached on a given Sunday had no relevance toward his unsaved visitor friends.  “Eventually, I gave up inviting nonbelievers to church.  It wasn’t a conscious decision – I just got tired of getting ‘burned.’”[40]  In Warren’s estimation, there are three reasons why church members do not invite unsaved people out to church.

First, as I mentioned, the target of the messages is unpredictable.  Members don’t know from week to week if the pastor will be preaching an evangelistic message or an edification message.  Second, the services are not designed for unbelievers; so much of what goes on in them would not be understandable to an unchurched friend.  Third, members may be embarrassed by the quality of the service.[41]

Without apology, the market-driven Sunday morning worship service is structured for but one reason - to draw a crowd.  From that crowd, individuals are drawn to faith in Jesus Christ.  Salvation leads to membership, membership to discipleship, and discipleship to service.  If one sows sparingly at the top, he will reap little at the bottom.  The seeker-service therefore asks, “What will people come to hear?”

Human persuasion is a key to market-driven success.  No one suggests that persuasion is superior to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but they do seek to prove spiritual truth while honoring the biases of the unbeliever.  To the unbeliever, the Bible is not authoritative.  He needs to be moved by the things he accepts as true.  It is perceived that Paul’s message on Mars Hill is an example of extra-biblical persuasion.  Materialism and human experience are sovereign to the unbeliever.  Thus, the experiences of other humans validate the Scriptures.  While man believes his problem with God is a communication breakdown, the Bible teaches otherwise (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

6) Decentralization of Leadership.  The final pillar of the market-driven ministry is structural.  The church is led by a singular shepherd who administrates not from the top, but by a federation of ministers - a grass-roots effort.  The pastor’s role is to be the supreme motivator in the church, possessing both the vision and the courage to take risks.  He is responsible for identifying the traditions that no longer work and then courageously fighting for their elimination.

Regarding these six pillars, Joe Zichterman concludes:

The real question regards what the Bible says about church growth.  Even though at times it may be difficult to put one’s finger on what is un-biblical regarding the methodology of the church-marketing movement, because there is a lack of New Testament precedent for what its advocates are teaching, the fact should cause conscientious Christians to seriously question whether or not God would be in favor of church-marketing methodology.  The arguments of the church-marketers are basically pragmatic: that they see their church have numeric success is what matters most.[42] 

It would be wrong to say that the leadership of the church-marketing philosophy has replaced the Bible with pragmatism, but the authority given to pragmatism appears to be equal with the authority of Scripture.  “The basic root problem with the church-marketing movement is that its advocates demonstrate a lack of dependence on the power of Scripture as the primary instrument through which the Holy Spirit will build the church of Jesus Christ.”[43] 

This is parallel to an incident in the story of David and Goliath.  Today, we face a mighty giant of humanism.  Both that giant and those who fight him pride themselves in the mastery of the natural armor of warfare, and the bigger and more intimidating the fleshly armor may be - the better.  In contrast, the weapons of a shepherd evoke no fear from the giants of unbelief.  In fact, Goliath was insulted that he was considered no more of an adversary than a dog.  David laid aside the armor of Saul, picked up the tools of his trade and faced Goliath in the name of the Lord.  When Goliath cries out for a champion to face him, God sends little more than a shepherd who is fully surrendered to Himself who have mastery over little more than shepherd’s tools.

The market-driven model is not new.  In the past, the goal was to reach the unregenerate rather than the “unchurched.”  Although the terminology has changed, the opposition to the market-driven model has expressed itself for nearly a century.  Even though he wrote this over one hundred years ago, the words of C. H. Spurgeon sound as if they were written in condemnation of the present pragmatic practices.

The new plan is to assimilate the Church to the world and so include a larger area within its bounds. By semi-dramatic performances they make houses of prayer to approximate to the theater; they turn their services into musical displays, and their sermons into political harangues or philosophical essays—in fact, they exchange the temple for the theater, and turn the ministers of God into actors, whose business it is to amuse men. Is it not so, that the Lord’s day is becoming more and more a day of recreation or of idleness and the Lord’s house either a joss-house full of idols, or a political club, where there is more enthusiasm for a party than zeal for God?[44]

Experience - The Moment-Driven Model - The market-driven model works on the basis that the end result justifies the means used to achieve that result.  The end result is that people who would never darken the door of a traditional service have responded to the gospel of grace and have been added to the church.  One would then think that those deferred standards could now be replaced with sound practices.  Step two should introduce this newborn child of God to expressions of worship that have sustained Christians throughout time.  Such is rarely the case.

It is time to expose the hypocrisy of those church leaders who justify CCM by claiming they use it for evangelistic purposes in their seeker services.  Nonsense!  The truth is, these churches use it in their services for the ‘saints’ as well.[45]

Morgenthaler recognizes this weakness.  “New believers are inclined to ‘hot-house’ in the nonworship setting where they were planted. … Believers who come to Christ through a seeker [event] have the tendency to make that event ‘home.’”[46]

Additionally, that which is often sold to churches as a “bridge” to bring society to righteousness rarely has sentries posted to prevent the church from entering into the world.  Rock music was initially rejected by Bible-believing churches.  Rock-and-roll’s greatest advocates in the days of Woodstock identified it by their own unholy trinity: drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll.  What changed?  Simply put, American society changed.  Americans no longer gasp when God’s name is taken in vain and no longer blush when women dress provocatively.  Men glory in their shameful adulterous thoughts.  Moral purity before marriage is despised.  Did rock music perpetuate the change, or did change express itself in increasingly vile art?  Maybe the contemporaneous appearance is only coincidental.  One fact is indisputable; the contemporary moral character of Americans today is directly related to its rejection of God (Romans 1:21ff).  Culture has participated in this decay perhaps as a vehicle or as a mirror or as both at the same time.

It is commonly assumed that music styles are amoral, and only the written words (lyrics) determine the moral character of a song.  If this were so, a unity should exist with musical expressions in the past.  1 John 1:7 states that if we walk in the light we have fellowship.  Does it not stand to reason that faithful contemporary expressions would find themselves in harmony with faithful traditional expressions instead of being in competition with one another?

The moment-driven model of worship maintains a heroic self-image by providing deliverance from the evils of dead, traditional worship.  Contemporary worship does not just acknowledge God - it experiences God.  This takes place when the rationalistic thinking of conservatism is crucified and God is permitted to speak in explosive and spontaneous ways.

There is a gnostic-like dualism created between the intellect of man and the heart of man.  “The mind is seen as the obstacle to enlightenment.”[47]  While the theology of modern Gnosticism is antithetical to that of any conservative Charismatic, their practices are nearly identical.  “What Eastern gurus like Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh characterize as a trance state, Holy Ghost bartenders like Rodney Howard-Browne characterize as being ‘drunk in the Spirit.’”[48]

The foundational techniques of the Christian sect known as the Charismatic Movement involve trance-inducing practices such as prolonged, repetitious chorus singing, a suggestion-induced swoon known as being ‘slain in the spirit’, and ecstatic babbling mistaken for the spiritual gift of languages revealed in the Bible. … Given the attraction to trance-induced, mystical religion amongst this sect, it is not surprising to discover that leaders in this movement create an unnatural division between ‘spirit’ and ‘intellect’, advising those who attend their meetings and conferences to ‘leave their minds at the door with their shoes’, in much the same way as one would find in a darshan meeting led by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.[49]

The similarity of these practices does not alarm the Charismatic because the Hebrew and Christian believers at the birth of Christianity were more “eastern” than “western” in their expressions of worship.  In defense of the altered state of consciousness, many Charismatics also point to the testimony of the critics of the Spirit-filled believers (Acts 2:13-15).  Because the disciples were accused of being drunken and disorderly, the Charismatic believes that Holy Spirit-filling does not differ in outward appearance from intoxication.  The Jesus People spoke of “getting high” on Jesus.  John Wimber, the founder of the Vineyard Movement stated this principle eloquently in his own personal testimony.  He was a drug addict and a member of a rock-and-roll band.  Shortly after his conversion, John read of the miracles in the book of Acts.  After enduring one boring Sunday service, he asked one of the church leaders, “When do we get to do the stuff?”  When he was told that the sign gifts were no longer necessary, a frustrated John replied, “For that I gave up drugs?”[50]  People like John Wimber are looking for a Holy Spirit high.  When their heart is lifted above their mind, they believe they have truly connected with God.

In their estimation, those who remain collected are missing out on what God desires for them.  Their pride has kept them from truly worshiping God.  Jack Hayford’s exposition on David and Michal expresses this chilling conviction.  “As we observe the worship life of David, it’s impossible to avoid one powerful conclusion: Not only is God unopposed to emotional, expressive worship – he welcomes it.”[51]  The more enraptured the worship is, the more it pleases God.  In contrast, the more controlled it is, the more barren it is.

Michal’s experience tells a story that’s been told a hundred times over, … It’s a message of warning of what can happen when human tastes and agendas reject the childlike simplicity and spontaneity that pleases God in worship.  Barren, childless, fruitless, and unproductive are all adjectives that not only describe Michal, but also describe worship that’s neither pleasing to God nor obedient to his Word….. Michal’s syndrome characterizes those of us who are more preoccupied with style, dignity, sophistication, and tradition than with being childlike and expressive in praising God.  Expressiveness in worship involves openness, simplicity, spontaneity, active participation, and any other assertive display of praise.  Expressiveness in worship, however, consistently invokes strong reactions from God’s people – from wild support to angered resistance.[52]

As long as the expression of worship comes from the heart, this is deemed to be enough.  “People can worship in many ways – through prayer, sacrifice of time or money, poetry, music, dance, and so on.  Any expression of favor toward God is an act of worship.”[53]  The more unscripted an act is, the more genuine it is perceived to be.  “Because the Holy Spirit cannot be controlled, spirited worship is spontaneous and thus a point of vulnerability for a religious institution.”[54]

There is a measure of hypocrisy in these laissez-faire proclamations.  While outwardly preaching a message of acceptance, the moment-driven minister secretly harbors a critical attitude toward any who do not participate.

Let me sum up a Contemporary’s typical attitude towards any who oppose the use of CCM in the church.  ‘We need to pray for these poor, tradition-bound people who just don’t understand the heart of worship.  They are standing in the way of what God wants to do.”  I am not making this up – I once had the same attitude.[55]

It is wrong to say that such practices of worship openly reject the Bible.  However, it is clear that the criterion of experience surpasses the teachings of Scripture.  “It is a common statement of Wimber’s that ‘God is greater than His word.’ … The phenomenon experienced by the attendees of Vineyard seminars and services do not need to be validated by the Scripture.”[56]  The supporter of such a philosophy will not allow any critic to hold the experience up to the light of Scriptures.

 I have examined a wide variety of ‘Worship Philosophy’ statements from churches that use CCM in their worship services, and I have discussed this online with other Contemporary Worship leaders. … In some, the Bible is acknowledged but not followed.  In others, the Bible is used as a guideline for every area except the music style.  In all, the writers make statements that are unsupported by biblical texts yet popular across the Contemporary spectrum.  I fear that in the vast majority of Contemporary churches (and also in some Traditional churches), our worship practices have strayed far away from the true biblical heart of worship because we have failed to base our practices firmly on the Word of God.[57]

Tradition - The Precedent-Driven Model - It is assumed by many that tradition stands opposite of both pragmatism and experience.  Its authority is in its enduring nature, not in its numbers or perceived impact.  This is the faith of the fathers.  Such an assumption is naïve.

Tradition is a curious thing.  When it comes to biblical truth, tradition has been both the tool that God used to preserve His word and the tool that Satan has used to deny God’s word.  2 Timothy 2:2 states that Paul’s teachings were communicated to Timothy.  He, in turn communicated these to other faithful men who were to carry the teaching on by communicating it to the next generation.

The traditions handed to the Jews of the first century were special (Romans 3:1-2; 9:1-5).  Israel was singularly chosen as God’s depository for Old Testament truth.  The Rabbis enhanced the pure traditions of God by adding their own man-made ones, the Mishnah.  Matthew 15:1-9 recounts how these two sources of tradition came into conflict.  The tradition of the Pharisees permitted the neglect of aged parents.  The Pharisees believed their practice was justified, for they had wise teachers from the past who reinforced the legitimacy of this claim.  In their mind violating this tradition was the same as transgressing the Mosaic Law. 

By Jesus’ day, the tradition of the elders had for many years supplanted Scripture as the supreme religious authority in the minds of Jewish leaders and of most of the people. The traditions even affirmed that “the words of scribes are more lovely than the words of the law,” and it became a greater offense in Judaism to transgress the teaching of some rabbi such as the revered Hillel than to transgress the teaching of Scripture.[58]

The Westminster Confession of Faith often professes great confidence in the teachings of Scripture.  It recognizes both a general worship based upon diverse understandings of general revelation and a specific worship clearly spelled out in God’s specific revelation, His word.  That specific revelation limits the acceptable practices of worship.  Reformed divines call this “the regulative principle of worship.”  The first paragraph of chapter twenty-one states:

The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.[59]

Its modern supporters describe the principle this way:

The regulative principle of worship states that the only way to worship God is in the manner that He has commanded in the Holy Scripture; all additions to or subtractions from this manner are forbidden. This is an application of the view that the Bible is sufficient for all good works, and that it is the only judge in spiritual matters. … The regulative principle teaches that the proper way to determine God’s will concerning worship is to study the Bible to determine acts of worship God has commanded for Christians, and do only those acts.[60]

The regulative principle is in stark contrast to the principles expressed in other Protestant and Catholic traditions. 

Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans have taken the position that we may do anything in worship except what Scripture forbids. … Presbyterian and Reformed churches, however, have employed a stronger principle: whatever Scripture does not command is forbidden.[61]

The regulative principle also dismisses some “Baptist” practices such as Sunday Evening Services or altar calls, which were used by D. L. Moody or, even worse, Finney.  While the criticism might have some merit, the Baptist contends that the practice of infant baptism ought to be dismissed based on the same regulative principle.  The Reformed participant is not inclined to accept this criticism.

While the regulative principle is easy to state, its application is far from univocal among its champions.  At a time when most Evangelical churches were beginning to debate music style, certain Presbyterian churches were still debating content.  Some will restrict the content of worship to accepted English translations of the 150 Psalms.  In a similar vain, others will permit any passage of God’s inspired word to be used as text.  Still others permit songs that are based upon the clear teachings of Scriptures, while the most liberal group allows anything the “edifies” whether it has Scriptural basis or not.  The great hymns of Isaac Watts, his musical expositions of Bible texts, are meaty in doctrine and rich in praise to God, but to the most extreme traditional defenders they are unacceptable for worship.

John M. Frame wishes to retain the regulative principle while cleansing it of some of the unnecessary historical baggage.  Some have used the regulative principle to defend a minimalist Puritan practice of worship.  Puritan exposition of the Westminster Confession is argued to be worship in its purest form by some Presbyterians.  Frame argues that Puritan minimalism is not the intent of the Westminster Confession.

The principles responsible for liturgical minimalism come from Puritan and other Reformed texts that go above and beyond the confessional documents.  Yet these extraconfessional texts themselves have considerable informal authority in conservative Presbyterian churches.[62]

Traditional worship practices can be contradictory because tradition is an unreliable gauge for truth.

While fundamental Baptists tend to be anti-creedal and anti-confessional, they can be very dogmatic about a thing they call “standards.”  These are precise, extra-biblical convictions often handed down through the ages.  To those who agree with a given standard, the practice is nothing more than the common-sense application of the timeless principles of Scriptures – the caution of a wise son which excludes him from common shame of a foolish society (Proverbs 14:14-16).  Society’s “secular” customs are viewed as Trojan horses which either serve as bait for sin or as ice to moderate Christian fervency.  For instance, the practice of social dancing is promoted by a sophisticated society – the high school prom being a rite of passage.  Nonetheless, it is denied in many fundamental churches based upon the principles of chastity in the believer’s sexual conduct.  For any man to participate in an extended embrace with any woman to whom he is not married is wrong.  This has been a timeless standard.  Still, what should be a common-sense standard is laughed at by sophisticated Christians as “legalism.”

However, some “standards,” are rooted in a Biblical answer to a transitory situation – most often a matter of identification with evil.  In the 1970’s, facial hair on men in the United States was worn by the counter-culture as a symbol of rebellion against the established society.  For this reason many churches restricted men with mustaches, beards, or lamb-chop sideburns from positions of leadership in the local church.  It was a standard based upon the Biblical commands to be visibly submissive to authority, even if one did not agree with that authority.  Contemporaneously, missionaries in Latin America wore mustaches because the Hispanic culture identified a clean-shaven face with immaturity.  Few in Spurgeon’s day and few today identify neatly groomed facial hair with a rebellious counter-culture.  While the practice of wearing mustaches has remained the same, and while the principles of authority have not diminished from God’s word, the meaning of mustaches in twenty-first century American churches has changed.  This facial-hair standard is not based upon a persistent sinful activity or attitude and is therefore not a timeless standard.

This is what makes “music standards” so volatile.  Is the standard based upon a transitory problem – the identification with a rebellious counter-culture – which has passed over time?  Or is it a persistent moral problem – a medium that arouses the works of the flesh rather than the fruit of the Spirit?  The real crux rests upon whether music itself possesses moral qualities.  If it does not, then foolish traditional standards are disrupting unity in many local churches.  But if music is a moral issue, then preachers who raise the alarm are being despised as Jeremiah once was.  A secret idolatry has filled the local church, much in the same way as it did in Ezekiel’s time.  Such men are not trouble-makers, but despised servants of God sent to the vineyard He prepared to cry out, “Repent!  Remember from whence thou hast fallen!”

Traditional churches often preserve what God has used in the past.  Sometimes this is good; other times it becomes an unintended idolatry.  Few symbols from the wilderness wanderings are as treasured as the brazen serpent.  Jesus used that object as an illustration of the saving power of belief in God’s provision.  While the object was powerful in Moses’ day, it was never intended by God to become a permanent object of worship.  Nearly one thousand years after its Divine use, the serpent became an object of idolatry.  When Hezekiah destroyed it, God prospered Hezekiah for his actions.  Certain elements of Christian worship are timeless (i.e. authority of Scriptures, the faith once for all delivered to the saints, the ordinances), but others are not.  Old buildings, old songs, and old pastors might be the source of fond memories of God’s faithfulness, but none are eternal.  Wisdom recognizes which traditions have faithfully served their purpose in the past and retires them with dignity.  Foolishness ascribes to the traditions worship that belongs only to God.

The absolute authority of Scriptures is essential.  Some traditionalists teach that the Bible is their “ultimate” authority for faith and practice.  The Baptist position is that the Bible is the “sole” authority for faith and practice.  This is significant, because the former position professes the highest regard for the word of God while granting secondary documents such as the Westminster Confession a binding authority as well.  If a secondary authority is deemed to be consistent with the Bible, it can be substituted in matters of dispute for authoritative proof.  The same arguments are made with “standards.”  When a tradition becomes as authoritative as the Bible itself, especially in the matter of worship, it becomes idolatrous – the worship of the created thing rather than the worship of the Creator.  But if the tradition is constantly tried and proven by God’s word, its serves as a Biblical servant of the truth.

The three criteria have rightful places in the matter of worship.  Cain was asked to evaluate what went wrong with his sacrifice.  Had he done right, he should have expected a right outcome.  The Psalmist compares the heart of the worshiper to a deer panting for water.  Worship is intended to be experienced.  Even tradition has its place, for Paul encouraged the Corinthians to follow him as he followed Jesus Christ. 

The prominence of these three authorities in churches today is rooted in the belief that God’s revealed plan for worship is insufficient for the present task.  Today, people expect more, and if churches do not adapt, they will follow the dinosaurs into extinction.  Today, God must accept less than whole-hearted desire for Him and His kingdom.  Doctrine will drive most people away from the places of worship unless they meet the perceived need of “Saddleback Sam,” unless they provide a joyous inexplicable rush to the mystic, or unless they transport the nostalgic to a simpler and more faithful time known to his ancestors.

It is not the intention of this work to deny the validity of these criteria.  I ask only that these be set aside for a time and that the Scriptures alone be given a voice.  It does not matter what has been done in the past, and what one feels for the present is irrelevant.  Even the alleged blessed results of worship practices have no bearing on the discussion.  What God reveals in His word is the only item that is critical in this present study.

Chapter 3 - Is Worship an Essential Doctrine
(or Are We Majoring on Minors)?

If worship is so divisive, would it not be best to remain silent and let believers exercise their individual liberty and choose their own methods and styles of worship?  Augustine is attributed with the oft used maxim, “Let there be in the essentials, unity. In all non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”

Some use the five fundamentals as the standard for essential doctrines.  All else, including worship, falls into the non-essential category.  Divisions over matters such as the style of music reveal petty carnality.  “Frankly, the music style you like best says more about you – your background and personality – than it does about God.” [63]

This characterization is far from accurate.  “Worship is critical because it flows out of the character of God.”[64]  The content, style, and passion of one’s worship flow directly out of one’s theology.   “Everything we do (in worship) is a statement of our beliefs about God … we are making a statement whether we express it in words or not.”[65]

Worship Styles Can Frustrate Biblical Salvation - Few would ever consider Bible doctrines relating to salvation to be non-essential.  Those who advocated the early Christological heresies sold these variant expressions as insignificant, differing opinions about the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Some leaders, such as Origen, offered mediate positions between established truth and error.  In truth, salvation was at risk with these nuances, for if Jesus was not either fully God or fully man then salvation from sin was impossible.  So, too, biblical salvation is by grace through faith alone in the finished atoning work of Jesus Christ.  It is not by any works of self-righteousness.  Worship practices founded on faulty doctrine can lead people away from God’s gift of salvation.

1) Worship can become gnostic in character.  Transcendence is one of God’s marvelous attributes.  If worship is to be acceptable, it will praise the God who is real in spite of the fact that He is directly imperceptible by man’s five senses.  Believers are called upon to know God and Jesus Christ in a way dissimilar to all other knowledge.  Idolatry seeks to fashion God after His creation and to remove His transcendence.  The transcendent God is independent of man.  It is man’s privilege to enter into His presence, not vice versa.

The journey of transcendence into God’s presence is clear in God’s holy word. Psalm 15:1-5 describes the character of one who would enter into God’s presence.  Yet the great deceiver, Satan, provides his followers with transcendental experiences without righteousness as a prerequisite.  God’s word indicates that the tribulation period will be a time of great antichristian spirituality.  While acceptable worship will have a transcendental aspect to it, not all transcendental activity is ordained by God.  Because the spiritual journey is rife with detours and dead ends, God’s word is needed to keep the transcendental aspects of worship in line.

One transcendental group which worships the experience without acknowledging the God of the Bible is the Unitarian Universalist.  This phenomenon is rooted in the spiritual fabric of American history.  One of its earliest prophets was the famed poet, Ralph Waldo Emerson.  A contemporary, John Quincy Adams, describes Emerson’s transcendentalism:

(Emerson), after failing in the everyday avocation of a Unitarian preacher and schoolmaster, starts a new doctrine of transcendentalism, declared all the old revelations superannuated and worn out, and announces the approach of new revelations and prophecies.[66]

The modern disciples of Emerson proclaim a transcendental worship which restores wholeness to mankind without ever acknowledging God:

Worship invites us to focus on the transcendental, the intimate, and the worthy.  Worship helps us to regain our grip on the fragmented, the obsessive, and the divisive.  Worship reminds us that we – empowered by the love we receive and give – may challenge any idol of greed or violence which pollutes the human condition.  We ask that you bring to worship something of what you receive: a capacity to heal, to think both critically and poetically, and to experience a growing sense of belonging, rootedness, and blessing.  Worship helps us regain a sense of ourselves.  The slow dance of our bodily movements in daily life, the timbre of our voices when we sing together, the glint of joy in another’s eye, the smell of musk roses on the table, the taste of fresh bread – these return us to our senses in a world that often seems devoid of sensual inspiration.  For in worship, the sensual is one with the spiritual, the intellectual, and the emotional.[67]

Such transcendental activity requires neither Savior nor sacrifice.  As sinful man can boldly present himself before the throne of mysticism and not fear.  It rests in the traditions of Gnosticism.  It is critical to realize that many who claim to be “seekers” are in reality only gnostics.  They view themselves as magi, following the stars to a stage of enlightenment known only by few.  When asked if they have repented of their sin and turned to Jesus Christ, they reply that their spiritual journey has not yet led them that way.  They are ever learning, but never able to accept God’s revealed truth.  They define sin, not as a matter of transgression, but as a matter of ignorance and unenlightened thinking.  Such worship seeks answers from within their naturally depraved heart. 

“Abandon the search for God and the creation and other matters of a similar sort.  Look for him by taking yourself as the starting point.  Learn who it is within you who makes everything his own and says, ‘My God, my mind, my thought, my soul, my body.’  Learn the sources of sorrow, joy, love, hate … If you carefully investigate these matters you will find him in yourself (Hippolytus, REF 8.15.1-2).”[68]

Any spiritual journey which neglects the cross of Jesus Christ is a broad-way journey leading to destruction.  In this instance, worship is a critical matter.

2) Worship can become sacerdotal in character.  The Old Testament worship established human mediators to bring the nation of Israel into the presence of God.  One temple had but one entrance and one Holy Place into which only the chosen priests could enter.  Only the high priest was permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies on one day each year.  He was responsible to make atonement for the sins of the people.  Old Testament patterns made it clear that God’s way of salvation is singular.

The book of Hebrews presents Jesus Christ as the perfect High Priest.  His blood pays for man’s sin, once and for all, forever.  His vicarious sacrifice permits believers to have boldness to enter into the very presence of God. 

Scriptures do not provide a New Testament vicar to represent Jesus Christ to mankind.  Still some worship by choosing mediators after the order of Aaron who repeatedly sacrifice Jesus afresh.  Any worship that separates the believer from his true mediator, Jesus Christ, is wrong.  The very character of salvation is at stake.

3) Worship can become legalistic in character.  Good works will follow biblical faith, but not every good work is the product of faith.  Legalism is a pejorative term unfittingly used to describe unappreciated devotion or separation.  In reality, a legalist is one who tries to substitute fleshly works for biblical faith.  Jesus spoke of the Pharisee in the temple who described to God why he should merit divine favor.  Like this example, some are dedicated to good works in an attempt to merit God’s favor and respect.  God will not be bribed by large offerings, nor will He view with favor any attempt to manipulate His love.  Nothing done with the intent of obligating God to respond with grace is a good work – it is legalism.  This type of worship is unacceptable to God.

Isaiah 29:9-14 warns that it is possible to be in such a religious stupor that God is not worshiped by religious actions.  When God’s word is unnecessary and meaningless for His worship, something is terribly wrong.  One need not deny any creed or profess agnosticism to fail; he needs only to remove his heart from his actions and be contented in religious patterns rather than meeting God.

Nothing is more fruitful in sending souls to eternal destruction than false worship.  It provides the participant with a false confidence in the merits of his mysticism and devotion.  Jesus will turn such people away.  “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:22-23).”  There is no room for near misses when the eternal soul of man is at stake.  The character of one’s worship may affect one’s salvation.

Wrong Worship Can Be Fatal - Those who resist God’s patterns of worship have occasionally been met with immediate and irreversible judgment.  God’s word indicates times when the unacceptable worship of Him led to physical death. 

1) The Golden Calf (Exodus 32).  When God called Israel into a special relationship with Himself, Moses asked the people to publicly accept God’s terms.  The first item handed to them was the Decalogue – The Ten Commandments.  The first four commands deal specifically with the worship of God, and the second command specifically forbids the practice of idolatry.

While Moses was on Sinai, idolatry became the pattern for worship in the Israelite camp.  Whereas their leader knew how to walk by faith, the people of Israel were still walking by sight.  The God of Moses had led him into a fiery mountain for forty days without any provisions.  No man under normal circumstances could survive such an ordeal. In Israel’s mind, it was time to fashion a god that they could direct.

God announced to Moses that Israel’s offense could not be ignored.  He stated that He would eliminate Israel and make of Moses a great nation, but Moses pleaded for Israel based upon his concern for the righteous reputation of God.  One day later, Moses would offer himself as a propitiation for the people – a sacrifice God would not accept.  The sinful worship of the people nearly destroyed Israel, but the worship of Moses spared the nation.

Aaron’s part makes little sense.  One could make the case that Aaron was more participant-sensitive.  While Moses was receiving the patterns for a character-based worship, Aaron was establishing a culture-based paradigm.  The people loathed the threatening vision of Jehovah as a consuming fire, but a statue of one of Egypt’s gods, Apis, was easier to comprehend.  As the people praised the statue, identifying it as the almighty gods (elohim) that rescued them from Egypt, Aaron tried to bring the focus back to Jehovah (Exodus 32:5, 6).  Nonetheless, once the religious formalities were out of the way, the people used the feast to serve their flesh.  When Moses chided Aaron indicating that he bore a measure of the guilt for the apostasy, Aaron blamed his culture and circumstances.  Moses ordered the execution of 3,000 traitors whose hearts were set upon idolatry.  In this instance, God visited false worship, even in His name, with death. 

2) Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 9-10).  Leviticus 9 recounts the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood.  Priestly offerings had been prepared and God verified His pleasure with miraculous fire.  Aaron and his sons were clearly anointed by God to serve as the mediator of the Old Testament sacrifices.

Then Aaron’s oldest two sons offered “strange fire” to the Lord.  In the same way He verified His pleasure, God demonstrated His displeasure with this spontaneous and thoughtless act of worship on the part of Nadab and Abihu. 

The verb says that Nadab and Abihu “offered (qarab)” strange fire.  In the Old Testament this commonly describes interpersonal intimacy.  In the Pentateuch the word focuses upon man’s intimacy with God.

The attention of the passage is not on the offering presented, but upon the actions of the participant.  The offering is designed to enable the Levitical priest to “draw near” unto the holy God.   

The Levites were presented as an offering (drawn near) to serve God as custodians of the tabernacle (Num 16:9; 18:4; cf. Josh 3:4) while Aaron and his descendants were presented as sole officiants (cf. Lev 10:3; Num 18:3, 22) of the sacred sacrifices. This official sense of drawing near entails the special choosing by God and presentation by Israel (Ex 29:4). The officiants were enjoined to further purity (separating themselves from the ordinary) by washing, replacing their clothes, and making sacrifices for themselves (Lev 9:4, 8, 10).[69]

The word translated “strange” carries the idea of that which is foreign to God.  “The basic thought is of non-acquaintance or non-relatedness. The feminine form, ‘The Strange Woman,’ often in Proverbs is the adulteress.”[70]   Since God created everything that was there, the elements themselves were not foreign.  The position of Nadab and Abihu had been established in the previous chapter so in that sense, they were not foreign.  Everything was dedicated, but something was wrong.  The only part of this world that is foreign to God is sin.  The dedicated servants drew near unto God with a sinful sacrifice.  Thus, the worship of God may under certain circumstances be a sinful act.

The second verb, “commanded” (zawah) indicates that their sin was not an act of violating a revealed law.  Nadab and Abihu in their fleshly creativity stepped outside of God’s prescriptions (Deuteronomy 5:31-32) regarding priestly worship.  In their mind, if no one could point to a verse absolutely forbidding such activity it was permissible in the worship of God.  How wrong they were!  These serve as illustrations of the regulative principle of worship.

The precise violation is undeclared.  It may have been the source of the fire, the content of the incense, the timing of the ceremony, or the authority of Aaron’s sons that infuriated God.  There are even hints that alcohol might have played a part in this event.  What is known for certain is that two priests carelessly approached God with an incense offering.  On the same day when God certified Aaron’s authority by sending fire, He judged with fire two of his sons.

3) The Ark of the Covenant.  Without dispute, the most sacred piece of furniture in Israel was the Ark of the Covenant.  Under normal circumstances, it was seen only once a year by one individual in Israel, the high priest.  Whenever it was moved, dignity prevailed.  The Ark led the people of Israel right into the midst of the Jordan River.  It circumnavigated the city of Jericho under God’s direction.  The laws regarding its treatment were clear.

The Ark became the property of Philistia for seven months.  It had been borne into battle by the defiled priests, Hophni and Phinehas.  In the midst of the battle, the two priests were slain and the Ark was carried away as plunder.  God’s displeasure with the Philistine captivity soon became apparent to the Ark’s captors.  God visited the people with destruction and disease.  The magi of Philistia determined to allow God to providentially claim His possession by placing it on a new cart.

Once back into the hands of Israel, God’s jealousy for the sanctity of this chest was immediately demonstrated.  The people of Bethshemesh initially treated the Ark with precise respect.  However, when the residents eventually replaced respect with curiosity, God visited upon Israel a great slaughter.[71]  The reverence and respect was restored at Kirjathjearim.  For twenty years, the Ark resided in the house of Abinadab without incident.

The next death resulting from the transporting of the Ark is documented in both Second Samuel and First Chronicles.  God’s wrath is visited upon one of Abinadab’s descendents, Uzza, because he steadied the Ark of the Covenant with his hand.  Surely the man’s heart was in the right place.  Was God acting capriciously?  Obviously, He was not. 

The tragedy was called “Perezuzzah” and it forced David to reconsider not whether the Ark would move, but how it would be moved.  While the issue of the “new cart” is obviously wrong, two other matters change.  In the first setting, David sent out invitations to 30,000 “chosen” people.  These would be the VIP’s of Israel.  The second invitations were sent exclusively to the Levites.  The other important change affected the music.  The first group “played before the Lord on all manner of instruments.”  A word study will reveal that the term “played” described the behavior of the Israelites before the golden calf.  The focus is on childish, uninhibited exuberance.  David corrected this by taking the music away from the people and by placing it into the hands of the Levites.  The Perezuzzah practices that ended in death and disgrace manifest a people-driven model.

4) New Testament Examples.  Wrong worship was on occasion visited with death in the New Testament.  King Herod was stricken because he refused to give God “the glory (Acts 12:23).”  Within the churches, God visited the lying of Ananias and Sapphira with death for their hypocrisy.  The body in Corinth had those in their midst who were weak, sickly, and dying.  Their sin had to do with an “unworthy” participation in the Lord’s Supper.

It is evident from Scriptures that God cares not only about the act of worship, but also about the content and the character of the one worshipping.  At times, God has visited the unacceptable expressions of worship with the death of the participant.  It is critical that the one who is worshiping the Lord Jesus Christ reach the point of Saul of Tarsus.  It is possible for one to be deluded into thinking his religious acts of devotion are true actions of worship.  One must be willing to tremble in the presence of Jesus Christ and ask, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”

Wrong Worship Seeks to Destroy True Worship - Incredible as it may seem, the Bible teaches that unacceptable worship will do everything in its power to silence acceptable worship.  John 3:17-21 states that the Sacrificial Servant of God came to save the world, not to condemn it.  Still His light shined in such a way that it revealed the evils nature of natural religion.  Men were condemned by comparison.  The hatred for light will lead some to extinguish anything that by comparison will reveal their darkness.

1) Abel.  Mankind’s first murder was motivated by religious intolerance.  In a special way, God indicated that the offering of Abel was received.  “At the heart of every false religion is the notion that man can come to God by any means he chooses.”[72]  God challenged Cain to consider his ways and correct his actions and attitudes.  Instead of repenting, Cain tried to put out the light that revealed his depravity.

2) Daniel.  All of the trials of Daniel and his companions share a common theme: false worship demands that true worship conform to the mores of the sacral society.  In many of the stories, the believers are brought to a crisis, and they choose the penalty of man’s death rather than to compromise God’s worship.  They would rather die that to corrupt a worship style.

When King Nebuchadnezzar ordered his ministers to bow before his chosen image, three Hebrew men visibly defied his order.  To the king, such defiance was treasonous, worthy of death.  The king granted a compromise, that if they would privately bow down, all would be forgiven.  The men needed no time to reconsider.  Whether God chose to deliver them by life or by death did not matter; all that mattered was that they would be true in their worship of God.

In later life, Daniel would choose the penalty of permanent death rather than forsake one month with God in prayer.  Daniel’s private devotion to God was a matter of public knowledge (Daniel 6:20), and his foes were confident that he never would compromise his worship.  Had Daniel prayed in his closet, only God would have been the wiser.  Still, some unrevealed reason forced Daniel to publicly resist the law and invite the wrath of his adversaries.  When the light shines, it reveals the darkness of those who do evil, and they cannot endure the light.  Had Daniel put the dimmer switch upon his spiritual life, his foes could have rightly accused him of hypocrisy after the month passed.  Daniel chose death over denial.

3) Nehemiah and Ezra.  Persia granted Israelites the permission to return and resettle Jerusalem.  This delighted God’s people, but it infuriated the current wolves who wished to weaken Israel’s hand.  As the temple was erected, the “adversaries” of Judah offered to aid in the project.  They professed to be “seekers” (Ezra 4:1-2).  Nonetheless, Zerubbabel and the leaders refused their offer stating, “Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God (Ezra 4:3).”   In response, the adversaries used legal channels and slander to stop the work.  Courage and divine timing allowed the temple to be completed.

Ezra went in to establish the spiritual distinctives of the nation.  His first order of business dealt with the unequal yokes - the marriages of Jewish people with pagan families.  Nehemiah went in later to rebuild the physical defenses of Jerusalem.  His adversaries tried to stop the project with threats and intimidation.  When success was evident, they attempted to make peace with Nehemiah, but he refused their overtures.  Once the physical walls were in place, Nehemiah used Ezra to rebuild the spiritual walls within the city.  Nehemiah was called back to Persia for a time.  When he returned to Jerusalem, he discovered that those spiritual walls of discernment had been broken down.  Corruption reached to the priests.  People’s devotion to the Sabbath and the support of the Levites had failed, and the adversaries of true worship had apparently won the day.  Nehemiah worked again to see that both purity and provisions were restored.

While Ezra and Nehemiah are clear heroes in the Scriptures, the records of Samaritan history paint them as barriers to the restoration of Israel.  Ezra and Nehemiah’s “arrogance” prevented a culturally responsive worship of God from taking hold in the ancient Promised Land.

4) Christ Jesus, our Lord.  At the time of His appearing, Israel was a three-flavored worship society.  The scribes and the Pharisees perpetuated the work begun by Ezra and Nehemiah.  They rightly determined that they would be distinct from their non-Jewish neighbors.  To accomplish this, they established a new extra-biblical source of tradition, the tradition of the elders.  Rules were established to protect the Sabbath, the provisions for God’s work, the purity of Jewish marriage, and the Old Testament law.  God used their rigorous copying of the Old Testament Scriptures to preserve His word.  Nevertheless, a point in time came when the authority of Pharisaic tradition became as high, if not higher than the Scriptures they claimed to defend.  Jesus was able to fulfill the Old Testament law, but He could never satisfy the man-made traditions that these hands created.

Pragmatism, along with rationalism, dominated the Sadducees.  They were related to the priests who controlled the temple in Jerusalem.  Their base of support came from Rome itself.  The brutality of their occupiers was more critical to them than precise obedience to the Scriptures.  The Sanhedrin was composed of both Sadducees and Pharisees, but Rome made sure that the Sadducees always had a majority vote in that body.  Jesus came declaring a non-Roman kingdom, and this petrified the Sadducees.  It is in this context that Caiaphas cried out for Jesus’ death. “It is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (John 11:50).”  He feared that Rome would be displeased and he might lose his position.

There is no Scriptural record of any interaction between Jesus and the Essenes.  As an identifiable sect, the group appeared during the Intertestamental Period and evaporated in a.d. 70.  Still, its influence is suspected in the book of Colossians.  Its origins were likely within Pharisaism, but while the Pharisees made the most of society, the Essenes separated from Jewish society.  

During Jesus’ time, this Essene community believed that they were the righteous remnant, sole heirs to God’s covenant. They interpreted literally Isaiah’s words: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (Isa. 40:3). Separating themselves for this purpose, they awaited the Lord’s coming in the desert.[73]

The Essenes were a closed society.  One entered into their midst through a series of initiations that took up to four years to complete.  While they might associate with Pharisees in the synagogues, they separated from the pragmatic, priestly clan within Judaism. 

Their theology is hard to grasp.  Perhaps this is because they were better known for their practices than for their beliefs.  “The Essenes … (were) a mystic and ascetic order or brotherhood, and lived mostly in monkish seclusion.”[74] Elements of gnostic-like dualism and asceticism are apparent in their practices.  Edersheim contrasts the legal purity of the Pharisees with the practical purity of the Essenes.

To the Pharisee it was Levitical and legal purity, secured by the ‘hedge’ of ordinances which they drew around themselves. To the Essene it was absolute purity in separation from the ‘material,’ which in itself was defiling. The Pharisee attained in this manner the distinctive merit of a saint; the Essene obtained a higher fellowship with the Divine, ‘inward’ purity, and not only freedom from the detracting, degrading influence of matter, but command over matter and nature.[75]

The Essenes, independent of the authorized scribes, were also copying the Old Testament Scriptures (the Dead Sea Scrolls).  While there is an apparent appreciation for Scriptures, eventually experience became the criterion of the Essenes.  Historians point to the Essenes as a source for Jewish mysticism and Christian monasticism. 

The Colossian heresy was an Essenic and ascetic type of Gnosticism; it derived its ritualistic and practical elements from Judaism, its speculative elements from heathenism. … It taught an antagonism between God and matter and interposed between them a series of angelic mediators as objects of worship. It thus contained the essential features of Gnosticism, but in its incipient and rudimental form, or a Christian Essenism in its transition to Gnosticism.[76]

Jesus did not embrace any one of the three.  Instead, He challenged all three.  “To the Pharisees He said that true spirituality is internal, not external. To the Sadducees He said that it is God’s way, not man’s way. To the Essenes He said that it is a matter of the heart, not the body.”[77]

The light that Jesus brought into the world confounded and revealed the hypocrisy of the established religious groups in Jerusalem.  His own people received Him not.  Neither the politically correct nor the rabbinically connected accepted him.  Diverse adversaries laid aside their conflicts with each other to unite in the destruction of the Son of God.

5) Paul.  Saul of Tarsus met Jesus on the road to Damascus.  At that point, his entire life was turned upside down.  Until this moment, his religious fervency had led him to persecute all professing followers of Jesus Christ.  Because he was not content with opposing those in Jerusalem, he begged for authority to purify the synagogues in other Roman provinces.  Then Jesus met him and made it clear that Saul was not persecuting people; he was persecuting the one he called “Lord.”  That very Lord is Jesus Christ.  Days later, Saul was told that he had been chosen by Jesus Christ to become a powerful light for His name.  As he would stand in the presence of Jews, Gentiles, and kings, he would experience similar opposition, for Jesus said, “I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake (Acts 9:16).”

In Lystra, Paul was singled out for stoning.  His light, even more so than that of Barnabas, was more threatening to the synagogues of the Jews throughout the Roman world.  In Corinth, the synagogue leaders accused Paul of disturbing the peace, and the idol-makers of Ephesus could not allow Paul to continue.

While it is true that Paul saw many saved and that he planted local churches throughout the Roman Empire, the great mark of his ministry was the persecution he faced.  He was never accepted as the friend of any society but was instead treated as the worst enemy of its values and conventions. 

Genuine worship is vital.  Its practice is important to God and its resistance is vital to God’s opposition.  While the instruments that God uses for His worship are imperfect, the object is perfect.  It is not right for the imperfect beings to offer up the fruits of their own imperfection to the perfect God in the name of worship and demand that He accept them as Cain did so long ago.  If worship is to be accepted, imperfect man must seek the direction and energy of the Perfect God before he presents his offering.  Only then can worship be acceptable to God.

Chapter 4 – The Rudiments of Acceptable Worship

Defining the Practice

What Is Worship? - The term “worship” is used freely - sometimes thoughtlessly.  The Webster’s Dictionary definitions serve as a good start, but they are inadequate to the task of acceptable worship.  In its root form, worship is a transitive verb which means “to honor and love as a deity: venerate.”[78]  It is possible for the verb to be used intransitively, without regard for an object of worship making the act more important than the object.  It is also possible to use the word as a noun which transforms the activity into an object.  Today it is common to hear the term used as an adjective, describing a service or a type of music.  All uses are best comprehended by the original transitive verb.  While the term does not demand an object, it is fair to say that one is implied. 

Confusion begins when the focus of worship is lost or trivialized.  Naïve ecumenists will assert that everyone worships the same God.  It seems incredible the Allah of the suicide bomber could possibly be the same as the God of the weeping missionary candidate who was asked, “Are you afraid that you might die?”  He responded, “No, I am afraid that I might not die.”  While both pay the ultimate sacrifice for their deity, one does it so that strangers might die in the wrath of his god, and the other so that the strangers might live in the grace of his God.  In Athens, the apostle Paul was keenly irritated by its idolatry.  It is not enough just to be devout.  As he stood on Mars Hill, he condemned them for their devotion to demons (superstitious = deisdaimon).  Paul did not tell them that all worship leads to God.  He challenged their blindness and ignorance and brought them face-to-face with the God who demands universal repentance.  Only one God deserves man’s worship.

Nonetheless, knowledge of God’s person is meaningless if one’s heart is far from God.  “Worship is not an art condition, it is a heart condition!  All of life, for the believer, is to be an act of worship.”[79]  No structure in all of Israel’s history compared in beauty to the temple.  As David handed the plans and the commission over to Solomon, he emphasized that the project was not as important as the personal thirst of Solomon for Jehovah God.  In 1 Chronicles 28:9, David expresses two imperatives: Solomon must both know David’s God and serve Him.  His service is expressed as being “with a perfect heart and a willing mind.”  The perfect heart is completely loyal to God (1 Kings 15:3), and the willing mind is eager to act upon what it knows to do.  These attitudes are critical because God knows the true condition of Solomon’s heart.  During that portion of life when Solomon was dedicated to the pursuit of God’s heart the entire world beat a path to his door seeking his counsel.  Later, when his heart became filled with foolishness, his kingdom began its descent to division.  One man’s heart of worship is of greater esteem to God than a dozen edifices built by any man in His honor.

No standard definition for acceptable worship exists.  The word most frequently translated “worship” in the Old Testament is shachah.  Bowing down in obeisance is resident within this word.  The Greek counterpart, proskuneō, shares the same humility.  The English word expresses the idea of ascribing worth to God - recognizing Him for who He truly is.

Warren Wiersbe’s definition stresses the concurrent activities of devotion and expression:

Worship involves both attitudes (awe, reverence, respect) and actions (bowing, praising, serving).  It is both a subjective experience and an objective activity.  Worship is not an unexpressed feeling, nor is it an empty formality.  True worship is balanced and involves the mind, emotions, and the will.  It must be intelligent; it must reach deep within and be motivated by love; and it must lead to obedient actions that glorify God.[80]

The theological definition cited by D. A. Carson is much more exhaustive and precise:

Worship is the proper response of all moral, sentient beings to God, ascribing all honor and worth to their Creator-God precisely because he is worthy, delightfully so.  This side of the Fall, human worship of God properly responds to the redemptive provisions that God has graciously made.  While all true worship is God-centered, Christian worship is no less Christ-centered.  Empowered by the Spirit and in line with the stipulations of the new covenant, it manifests itself in all our living, finding its impulse in the gospel, which restores our relationship with our Redeemer-God and therefore also with our fellow image-bearers, our co-worshipers.  Such worship therefore manifests itself both in adoration and in action, both in the individual believer and in corporate worship, which is worship offered up in the context of the body of believers, who strive to align all the forms of their devout ascription of all worth to God with the panoply of new covenant mandates and examples that bring to fulfillment the glories of antecedent revelation and anticipate the consummation.[81]

In a very real sense, the term “worship” can be applied to any devout religious practice of any designated deity.  In the present work, such worship is too broad.  This discussion is limited to that activity which is accepted as worship by the true God who exists in three persons and who has revealed Himself in the Holy Scriptures.  Saving faith has a vital impact upon the true worship of God.  It requires both a true knowledge of God and a true expression in the service of that God.  The motivations of the heart are also critical in determining the quality of worship.  For the sake of simplicity, the definition of David Peterson will serve as the starting point for discussion.  “The worship of the living and true God is essentially an engagement with him on the terms that he proposes and in the way that he alone makes possible.”[82]

When Is Worship Acceptable? - The Scriptures are clear that God does not receive every offering directed toward Him.  In the time of judgment, Jesus will refuse some very sincere gifts as works of iniquity (Matthew 7:22-23).  John MacArthur suggests that there are four kinds of unacceptable worship: 1) the worship of false gods, 2) the worship of the True God in a wrong form, 3) the worship of the True God in a self-styled manner, 4) the worship of the true God in the right way, with a wrong attitude.[83]  Acceptability in worship requires diligence.

Not all significant religious activities qualify as acceptable worship.  “Several emotions often are mistakenly associated with true worship: nostalgia, conscience clearing, aesthetic experiences.”[84]  Worship activities can evoke feelings of closeness without being real.

Christian churches have come to the dangerous time predicted long ago.  … “We are rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing!”  It certainly is true that hardly anything is missing from our churches these days – except the most important thing.  We are missing the genuine and sacred offering of ourselves and our worship to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.[85]

It is possible to be enraptured with the vehicle of worship without ever being transported into the presence of God.  Imagine if, after a successful reelection, the President of the United States issues an invitation for his supporters to stand before him.  They are instructed to meet at a local public building and to be ready to be transported into his presence.  Many bear gifts for the president.  Unexpectedly, two empty limousines pull up, and agents of the President choose twenty people from the crowd to travel to a nearby location.

The chosen passengers travel in finest style.  The limos are filled with pictures of the President as well as other significant memorabilia.  They are filled with joy and they form great friendships en route.  Time seems to fly.

Then they are ushered into a meeting room at an expensive hotel.  The President has not yet arrived, but representatives are there.  A chorus of fine musicians performs a medley of patriotic songs, and a Presidential spokesman then greats the assembled and reads from a letter written to them by the President.  After lauding his superior and encouraging the faithful to continue in their steadfastness, the time arrives.  The President enters the room and each chosen person is given the opportunity to shake his hand and deliver the item that he has brought as a token of his appreciation.  The moment with the President is all too short, and the people return to the limos for the ride back.

They are greeted by those who remained behind and asked, “What was it like?”  One would expect the individuals to immediately respond, “It was awesome!  I stood in his presence and saw his smile!  He listened to me and then spoke my name!”  In contrast, what would one think if one of the travelers said nothing of the President?  Instead, he was so thrilled with the limo ride that nothing else seemed to matter.  Another marveled at the fact that he held in his hand the very first pen used by the President to enact legislation.  Another enjoyed the warm fellowship and friendliness of other like-minded people.  A fourth was thrilled at the professionalism and perfectionism of every note sung by the choir, and a fifth really, really liked the speaker.  One individual would not cease from speaking of the significance of his “offering” and how good he felt when he handed it to the President. 

The problem is that American Christians do not have a heart that is thirsting for an experience with God, eager to express gratitude and praise to him, and open to his response to their efforts to convey humility, appreciation, acknowledgement of his love and character, and joy in knowing and serving him.[86]

For these, the vehicles used to usher them into the presence of greatness became the sidetracks - some even became idols.

What Are God’s Terms for Worship? - The writers of the Psalms were anything but cold and mechanical.  They were overcome by passions of joy and love as well as tears and hate.  They “felt” enough to express their times of doubt and their absolute confidence.  Cold, mechanical worship is not acceptable worship.  Only the most hardened traditionalist would defend such an idea.

On the other hand, the Bible warns that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.  One’s natural heart-felt emotions will not lead him to God, but away from God.  The content is critical to true worship.  True content will energize true emotions. 

Genuine worship is a response to divine truth. It is passionate because it arises out of our love for God. But to be true worship it must also arise out of a correct understanding of His law, His righteousness, His mercy and His being. Real worship acknowledges God as He has revealed Himself in His Word. … Worship means ascribing glory to Him because of those truths. It means adoring Him for who He is, for what He has done, and for what He has promised. … Such worship cannot rise out of a vacuum. It is prompted and vitalized by the objective truth of the Word.[87]

Childish expressions of God, based upon immature understandings, can be cute.  God is not offended by such ill-informed simplicity unless such expressions of ignorance spring from those who have never spiritually grown up.  If I showed you a crayoned drawing with a stick figure of a man and a child with the words “I love my daddy” scribbled on the bottom, you might assume that such a masterpiece would go on the refrigerator.  It would be a cute, childish expression of love from a preschooler.  No father would rebuke the child for his spelling or chide him for the disproportionate size of the head to the rest of the body.  If such work comes from a young child, the father treats it as a masterpiece.

But if such a picture was drawn by his daughter who was studying art at the university, you would gasp in horror and marvel that she would think such was an acceptable expression of love toward her father.  It is not a masterpiece; it is an insult.  If she expresses her love in such a thoughtless way her artwork borders on contempt for her father.

Even more insulting is the next picture.  The young lady has matured in her understanding and expression regarding herself, her friends, and her society, but her knowledge of her father remains at pre-school level.  He provides her with money, health, and protection, but she has no esteem for him beyond this.

Alas, this is the current condition of most Christian’s adoration.  God is viewed childishly and superficially.  He is nothing more than a genie of grace, granting prosperity and health to those who learn how to ask Him for their requests in the right way.  They crave a little god, as Jacob did, with whom they might make deals when they get into trouble.  They see nothing wrong with being “cute” with the gospel.  While Jesus does call for a child-like faith, He is not impressed with an immature faith.

One would expect the leadership to be wary of such foolishness, but often they are as childish as the people they shepherd.  It is appalling that those who ought to be teachers are still immature in their own beliefs and their own worshipful expressions of God.  “I believe the very last thing God desires is to have shallow-minded and worldly Christians bragging about Him.”[88]

Mature worship has a respect for God which exceeds the respect given to any beloved leader in the world.  It is personable, but it is never chummy.  God is the Father of His children, not their peer.

As stated in Peterson’s definition, worship engages God, but it does so on His terms.  “Worship is not about us.  It is not about what we like, what we enjoy.”[89]  No man can insist that God must respect and receive the fruit of the garden of his life.  “For most Americans worship is to satisfy or please them, not to honor or please God.  Very few accept divine confrontation as a hallmark of worship.”[90]  Worship is never made real by how it makes a person feel.  It is real because it knows and respects the terms God has placed upon the activity.  God’s principal mandate regarding worship today is that it centers on His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

A real worship must also grasp the source of energy driving that worship.  Content and emotions are important, but God has provided mankind with the power to rightly worship, the Holy Spirit.  He blows upon the yielded instrument and thus produces the sweet heavenly music that is acceptable to God.  While it is the instrument that is making the noise and receiving the attention, it is really the Divine Artist who deserves the praise.  The instrument really does nothing but yield to the hand of the Artist.  It is played in a way that expresses the Artist’s personality and creativity.

A manifestation of the Holy Spirit is not a personal feeling or an externally manufactured response to God.  Everything that is spiritual would be consistent with every aspect of the fruit of the Spirit.  Everything that is spiritual would be exclusive of that which is a work of the flesh.[91]

Most how-to books project the idea that man energizes the worship (The Holy Spirit is rarely mentioned).  Those trusting in pragmatism, experience, or tradition are fully capable of producing man-satisfying worship whether the Spirit is present or not.  Many like Samson hear the cry, “The Philistines are upon thee,” and they rise up and respond as they had at previous times, not immediately recognizing that the Spirit has departed.  When God’s presence disappeared from the temple in Ezekiel’s days, the worship leaders did not realize what had happened.  They just kept doing what they always had done.  God’s hand of judgment would only become apparent if the back-up enchantments were set aside.  If the pragmatist would shelve his books of polls and psychology and ideas, if the experientialist stopped using the same spiritual steroids which are used by ungodly professional athletes to “pump them up” and artificially stimulate them, if the traditionalist stopped trusting in the relics of a Spirit-filled past, then the need for Holy Spirit energy would become apparent.  If He is not present, the worship is not real, and it is unacceptable to God.  One may have the reputation from men of being alive by virtue of its external practices, but Jesus judges such churches to be dead.

Divine worship is ultimately the work of God.  Worship then is real when it engages God on His terms and is borne along by His energy.

The Wisdom behind the Practice of Worship

What I am endeavoring to do is develop a biblical philosophy regarding the ministry of worship.  This might sound contradictory to some since the Bible declares, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).”  By its very etymology, “philosophy” is the love of wisdom, but the philosophers of Paul’s days were godless men (Acts 17:18).  In the biblical context, philosophy was the active and unending pursuit of natural religion or gnostic wisdom.  It was always devoid of Jesus Christ.

However, the Bible presents a righteous “love of wisdom” in Proverbs.  It begins with the fear of the Lord and recognizes the faithful input of God’s word and instruction (1:5, 7).  The worldly, eclectic wise man is called a fool.  In one of Jesus’ most famous parables, He describes how a wise man builds his house upon a solid foundation.  One who loves Biblical wisdom must pursue the rudimentary, God-ordained principles which in turn produce meaningful worship practice.  If a philosophy is not established, practices will reflect a blind following of one’s traditions or one’s peers.  One will thus build upon the shifting sands of vain philosophy.

The superstructure, the visible practice of worship which is seen by all, must rest on a concealed foundation, the rudimentary philosophy.  Such philosophy must submit totally to the word of God.  “The church is always bettered – indeed, revived – when its people continually weigh their actions and philosophies in the balance of the Bible.”[92] 

A philosophy of ministry acts like a map or floor plan of a building.  If one is in a strange environment, the floor plan allows him to discern the path he must take to reach his destination.  For the journey to be successful, the traveler must know his starting point and his destination.  Once these are known, he may then plot the route to take him to his goal.

The reasons for rejecting a philosophy of worship are the same as rejecting a map.  A map is not necessary if a person already knows by experience how to reach the goal.  It is possible that a believer might truly worship God in the way that God expects without ever having studied the matter.  Assuming this to be true, a study on worship would not change anything he does, but still it would have an edifying purpose.  In such an instance, the worshipper would rejoice in the fact that he has been led into right practice without human teachers.  His personal devotion and obedience to the word has providentially brought him into conformity with God’s patterns.

On the contrary, biblical maps are rarely ignored because they are unnecessary; they are despised because they take people in a direction that they do not wish to go.  Pride keeps people from stopping and asking God for directions.  Usually, a map is also despised if one believes there is no right way of reaching the destination.  If one is content with his patterns and pursuits, he has no desire to look at a map that might threaten his thinking. 

In addition, a map is despised if one believes that the destination is relative, and not concrete.  There can be many acceptable ways to get to God.  Therefore, a man will need nothing more than sincerity to reach his goal.

Finally, a map is despised if one believes that groping in darkness is mandated by God.  The group at Athens asked, “What will this babbler say?”  That “babbler,” the Apostle Paul told them that their ignorance was no longer excusable (Acts 17:30, 31).  An agnostic approach to the worship of God will not work.

I have a friend who was once chided by a college-aged peer for enrolling in further education at a seminary.  He was told that he would lose his zeal.  My friend wisely asked his peer, “What do you think they study at seminary?”  The student replied, “The Bible, I guess.”  He said to his peer, “If the zeal I have is destroyed by the study of God’s word, it needs to be destroyed.  What kind of zeal is that?”  The same must be true of worship.  If the patterns are held up to the light of Scriptures and Scriptures destroy the outcome, the fervor, or the standard, then they deserve to perish.  God’s design must defeat any zeal or fervor that is inconsistent with His way.

Knowing the Present Condition – Systematic Theology - To successfully reach a destination, one must begin by asking where they are.  Scattered throughout any shopping mall are kiosks with maps of the complex.  Usually there is a star which states “YOU ARE HERE!”  This symbolizes the starting point from which one may travel.

The course for biblical worship begins with Systematic Theology.  This discipline is often ignored by students of worship because it requires diligence and study before any practical application is made.  They realize its value and importance; they just don’t have the time to do the work.

Some readers may feel frustrated at the prospect of a detailed analysis of biblical teaching when they are looking for advice about improving next Sunday’s church services!  I believe, however, that we have enough how-to-do-it books and not enough reflection on worship as a total biblical idea.[93]

The last five chapters of Romans are filled with practical instructions:  coordination within the church, cooperation with governments, and the appreciation of differences within the body.  Nevertheless, Paul was not content merely to give instruction.  The first eleven chapters deal with the theological basis for the admonitions and practices that follow.  In a similar way, knowing only the worship policies, rules, and procedures without grasping the core values beneath the paper does not create genuine unity in the church.  “No written policy is better than the person who is interpreting it. … The person who wrote it had a certain intention, but you can only express that intention in words. … You cannot express it perfectly.”[94]  A beautiful building without a solid foundation is doomed.  So, too, worship practice needs to grasp where it stands before it can effectively reach toward heaven.

Knowing the Destination – Biblical Theology - The elements of Israel’s worship were spelled out in the Pentateuch with great precision.  God designed the furniture, ordained the workers, and even arranged the position of the twelve tribes as they surrounded the structure.  The sacrifices, the mediators, and the holy days were detailed in the law.  Nothing was left to man’s judgment.

What became clear much later was that the elements of the temple and the priesthood all pointed to Jesus Christ.  The shadows of the past are replaced with the reality of the present.  Now those who believe in Jesus Christ are priests before Him.  He is the mediator.  Believers now may boldly enter unto the throne of grace.

If the Old Testament structure is abolished, what becomes the standard?  The practice of New Testament worship is taught by precept, principle, and pattern.  Precepts are the direct commands regarding worship such as those found in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-22.

16 Rejoice evermore. 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 19 Quench not the Spirit. 20 Despise not prophesyings. 21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Principles are the practical applications of Bible doctrine.  Romans 13:11-14 details what it means to be risen with Christ.

11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.

Specific sins are not named in this passage.  The mature Christian is given the responsibility to fill in the blanks.  There are activities that are unbecoming to the Christian, and it stands to reason that there are practices that are unbecoming to biblical worship. 

There is much to be learned in the Bible from the patterns of the New Testament believers.  However, great care must be maintained.  It is not enough to say, “David danced, and so can I.”  Much of the confusion in worship today comes from the wrong application of historical passages.  These must not be ignored, for the Bible says that all Scripture is profitable.  It is critical that the key teachings of worship be carefully extracted from the context of the behavior of New Testament believers.

This part of study is often called Biblical Theology.  It seeks to mine out the teachings from a proper exegesis of the passages related to worship.

Planning the Route – Pastoral Theology - After determining both origin and destination, one may then rightly discern the course. This is the most visible aspect of a study on worship.  This study determines what steps are needed to secure the desired outcome; in this case a biblically-sound practice of worship.

Most resources which sell in the Christian marketplace are only interested in the practical.  These works seek innovative and meaningful ways to lead people in the worship of God, caring little for the theological basis or content.  They rapidly surrender to one or more of the three extra-biblical authorities.  If it works, if it feels right, or if it is what has always been done, that is good enough.  The focus is on the superficial, that which people see.  This may be good enough for man, but it is unacceptable to God.

In contrast, when one knows where he stands in God’s eyes, and then where God expects him to be, the steps taken are steps of purpose.  Others may have suggestions.  They may have found a better or more satisfying route.  Without knowing origin or destination, all suggestions appear equally valid.  Yet when origin and destination are known, the one walking has a certain basis for either accepting or rejecting the suggestion.  If it leads away from the destination, it can be cast off.

As we see, the task of developing a Biblical philosophy of worship is vast.  The present work takes but the first baby step in the development of a biblical philosophy of worship.  As related to worship, three themes of Systematic Theology need to be fully explored.  The first theme relates to the object of worship.  Identifying and comprehending the Godhead is key, for to worship anything or anyone else is idolatry. 

The second theme relates to the instruments of worship.  All of God’s creation declares His praise, but He has created two classes of sentient beings to give Him special praise: the angels and man.  Very little attention has been given to this study.  Questions regarding man’s sin nature and worship require biblical answers.  The whole matter of human art and aesthetics needs clarification.

The third theme relates to the tabernacles of worship - the individual believer, his home, and his local church.  Worship is not designed to merely be an individualistic, introspective activity.  While the Bible reveals that the individual New Testament Christian is the temple of the Holy Spirit, it also indicates that the local church body also serves as a temple.  While much attention today is being given to styles of music and innovative trends, the original ordinances of the church, baptism and communion are being marginalized.

Section A: Theology Proper -The Object of Worship

Chapter 5 – Knowing the God of Worship

An Apology for Theology

Some will bristle at the idea of examining worship in light of theology.  This study, to them, makes as much sense as dissecting a live animal to discover what makes it work, and in the process of discovery, the specimen is killed.  To these, worship is something that is alive; it is best enjoyed, not examined.  “Theology is said to be cerebral, theoretical, wordy, divisive, specialized, remote – an obviously unwelcome intruder to the Holy Family of the spiritual, relational, and the practical.”[95]

Such a view does not match with the teachings of Jesus.  Practice without truth is dangerous.  “The idea that depth of learning and theological concern should be relegated to the classroom while the ‘practical’ aspects of Christianity should be reserved for the church is deadly.”[96]

In his article, “The Pastor as a Theologian,” Tom Ascol cries out for pastors to reassert the importance of theology as it relates to the practices of the church.  “In order to lead the church effectively a pastor must have a clear understanding of the intended destination.”[97]  At the top of his list is worship.

Many of the most heated skirmishes in the so-called “worship wars” have arisen because of a failure to ask one basic question: What is worship?  Without a clearly defined, biblically-based understanding of what it is we are supposed to be doing when we gather for worship we cannot even begin to lead a congregation to do it.  … After worship has been biblically defined then other, more practical questions can be pursued.[98]

When it comes to the matter of worship, God rejects childishly-ignorant expressions from leadership.  Before Solomon was charged to serve God enthusiastically, he was challenged by David to know the God of his father (1 Chronicles 28:9).  Such knowledge is the type of interest that God shows toward human beings (Psalm 1:6; 37:18; Jeremiah 1:5).  It is only reasonable for man to reciprocate.  The common person is filled with awe whenever a celebrity sincerely calls him by name without prompting.  He is thrilled to think that the one adored by millions of fans could acknowledge one as insignificant as himself.  When this scenario is multiplied by infinity, it begins to describe God’s knowledge of every person alive (Psalm 139).  If the Sovereign God has searched out and known each individual, how can any man justify his lack of interest in God?

The common fear expressed regarding theology is that it undermines worship.  In fact this is possible, and a balance must be guarded.  However, this fear is often overstated and hides an equally sinister and more pervasive danger.  Many worship practices are also capable of undermining theology.

Deviant worship is motivated by a defective theology.  The real problem is not all the strange things people are doing today in the name of worshipping God.  The real problem is this: what kind of theology permits people to justify such aberrations?  What kind of a view of God makes people think that God would be pleased with such blatant deviations from His Word?[99]

One of the key passages regarding worship is John 4:24, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”  One day, a Samaritan woman challenged Jesus on the geography of worship.  The motive of the woman of Samaria is not distinctly revealed.  If a Judean prophet has just exposed her sin and hypocrisy, it is easy to doubt her concern about the differences between Samaritan and Jewish worship.  She is likely trying to duck for cover by creating a controversy, one in which she believes her position is unassailable.  The Samaritan priests had drilled into her people that the Jewish Scriptures were not of God.  The Jews declared these writings as God’s word because it served a sinister purpose: it forced people into the monarchical system that centered in Jerusalem.  In contrast, the Samaritan Pentateuch set people free.  It exalted Mount Gerizim, not Mount Zion, as the place of God’s blessing.  The choice of Zion was David’s doing, not God’s.  She thought that she could put Jesus in His place.

To her wonder, Jesus transformed the question by declaring both peaks to be irrelevant.  According to Jesus, the worship of the Samaritans lacked real content, and the Jewish religion was superior in content.  In verse 23 Jesus states that the Samaritans’ knowledge is poor and the Jews’ knowledge is rich, but neither is right.  The true worshiper of God worships “in spirit and in truth” which alone is pleasing to God.

The verb in the phrase “God is a spirit” does not exist in the Greek text.  This is not a statement of God’s trinity; it states His nature.

More precisely, “God is Spirit” as “God is Light” (I John 1:5), “God is Love” (I John 4:8). … The non-corporeality of God is clearly stated and the personality of God also. All this is put in three words for the first time.[100]

God is not a corporeal being dwelling in temples made by the hands of man.  He is spiritual.  It is mandated that all true worshipers of God must connect both in spirit and in truth.  “Stauffer declared, ‘Theology is doxology or it is nothing at all.’  We may further declare that unless worship is theologically sound, it becomes less than doxology.  Worship and theology go together.”[101]

Unfortunately man does not see it this way.  If given a choice, many will seek a worship that is spiritually self-satisfying.  To these, nothing is more tragic than what they perceive as lifeless worship.  On the other side are those who insist upon truth to the detriment of expression.  They use their faithfulness to the truth to excuse their inactivity, alleging that all strays are consumed with emotionalism and sentimentality.  A third group tries to moderate both extremes by finding the perfect balance asking each to compromise something for the benefit of the other.

Each of these approaches misses the point.  God is spirit, and God is truth.  In the perfection of His character, these are not rivals, but friends.  They operate as two equal legs on a man.  Each is dependent upon the Head for direction, and each recognizes its dependence upon the other.  The choice is not between spirit and truth - the choice is spirit and truth.

The God of Theology

Who Is the God of Worship? - Worship, when rightly understood is a transitive verb.  It is not enough just to engage in the practice of worship.  Right worship demands a right object.  Throughout Scriptures, God alone is that worthy object.

This study begins with three presuppositions.  First, it assumes the existence of God (Hebrews 11:6).  Secondly, it assumes the ability of man to find that God, for He is not the unknown god of Acts 17:23.  A third assumption is that the Holy Bible is God’s only accurate and complete written record of who He is.  It is critical that the starting point of the theology of worship begins with studying God.

The knowledge of God is ultimately the sum of all other doctrines. … There is no point in considering the doctrine of salvation, nor the doctrine of sin, unless we have started with the doctrine of God. …  We start with the doctrine of God because God is God and because if we put anything or anybody before Him, we are thereby dishonoring Him.[102]

It is clear from a survey of natural worship around the world that there is no consensus as to who or what God is.  America is pluralistic society in which the state does not dictate the individual citizen’s religious persuasions, and this is as it should be.  However, with ecumenism and perceived civility, the religious society is moving from pluralism to polytheism.  Christian ministers who prepare messages with texts from the Koran and emphasize points of commonality between Christianity and Islam are applauded by the religious elite.  It is enough, they say, to believe in and worship a higher being without determining who he or she is.  This is preposterous.

Defining God is vital to the proper worship of God.  “It is to worship what the foundation is to the temple; where it is inadequate or out of plumb the whole structure must sooner or later collapse.”[103]  A. W. Tozer issued a blistering indictment of what he perceived as an ignorance of God in his day.

It is my opinion that the Christian conception of God current in these middle years of the twentieth century is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the Most High God and actually to constitute for professed believer something amounting to a moral calamity.[104]

It was his prayer that Bible-believing Christians grasp the identity of God.

They that know Thee not may call upon Thee as other than Thou are, and so worship not Thee but a creature of their own fancy; therefore enlighten our minds that we may know Thee as Thou are, so that we may perfectly love Thee and worthily praise Thee.[105]

It is difficult to truly define God.  His being and qualities defy the limits of a traditional definition.  Finite man can never fully comprehend the infinite God.  Few theologies even attempt such a definition.

Probably the best definition of God ever penned by man, is that given in the "Westminster Catechism": "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." This is a true definition; for it states the class of beings to which God is to be referred. He is a Spirit; and He is distinguished from all other spirits in that He is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being and perfections. It is also a complete definition, in so far as it is an exhaustive statement of the contents of our idea of God.[106]

Defining God is not optional.  If His identity is not accurately established, the worship is devoid of any real, divine value.  “(Worship), no matter how beautiful or consistent or well-intentioned it is, is unacceptable if it is directed to a false God.”[107]

How is the God of Worship Revealed? - Even though the task of fully knowing God is impossible for man (Romans 11:33), still he is invited to grasp what he can.  God may not be fully known, but He is knowable (Philippians 3:10).  Such knowledge is impossible without God’s revelation of Himself.

Theology recognizes two types of divine revelation: general revelation and special revelation.  General revelation can be comprehended by all of mankind, and he is generally accountable for his response to it.  Psalm 19:1-6 declares that this revelation transcends all geographical and language barriers.  Every person in the world today is capable of discerning a Creator’s hand in the living organisms on this planet.  So too, every human being is capable of moral judgments because of a God-given conscience.  All humanity can see God’s glory.

Nevertheless, there is a limit to this revelation.  General revelation is like an outside window in a jail cell.  It reveals the existence of a better life, but it does not provide a way to that life.  To embrace it does not secure salvation unless one responds to the specific revelation.  In Scriptures, the general revelation can have a condemning effect upon a life.  To suppress the truth revealed in these sources is to invite reprobation (Romans 1:20-25; 2:14-15).  God will hold each man responsible for his hardness if he looks upon creation and does not glorify the Creator.  He will stand condemned before God, without any excuse.

The Special Revelation has life-giving properties.  According to Hebrews 1:1-3, God has used a variety of methods to communicate with mankind.  In the past, God used miraculous signs to reveal His will.  There were also times when He spoke audibly to His servants.  He even used dreams and visions to declare His will.  Even though all of these were powerful, His two most powerful tools of revelation are the Living Word and the written word.  Peter had the privilege of daily walking with Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.  He was one of three who witnessed the transfiguration of Jesus.  In later life, Peter reflected on this magnificent experience (2 Peter 1:17-18).  Nonetheless, as great as that was, Peter affirmed, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy … (the) prophecy of Scripture … (2 Peter 1:19-21).”  “This is the Ultimate Revelation – You see, all that we know about God through miracles, etc., and finally through Christ is dependent upon the Word of God.”[108]

The Danger of Misplaced Worship - While man has been invited to step into the presence of God, to do so, he must know the God he desires to worship.  This knowledge is tied to the first of the Ten Commandments.  This demands the exclusive worship of God; “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”  The Bible warns of satanic counterfeits and calls upon His people to be discerning.  Ignorant worship of God may in reality be the worship of false gods or demons.  God was not pleased with the ignorant worship of the men of Athens.  He calls upon all to seek Him exclusively, and He commands all to repent (Acts 17:27, 30).  He will judge the willful ignorance of all false worship.  The identity of the Object of worship must be biblically clear in the mind of the worshipper.

While man will never fully grasp God, he has been given enough revelation to rightly know Him.  Even though God has demonstrated to every human being through nature and conscience the reasons for responding in praise, man has the capacity of rejecting that call to worship.  His downward spiral moves from irreverence to ingratitude to idolatry to immorality and finally to iniquity.

God has also revealed Himself in special revelation within His written word.  It stands to reason that people of worship ought to be people of the word.  If a person was hired to be the curator of a presidential library, one would expect that individual to be consumed with knowing all there was to know about the former president.  If such devotion is demanded for the sake of the memory of a former leader, how much more ought the devotion to be of those who serve the living King of kings?  The man who worships God must be consumed with His revelation.

What Is It that Makes Him God? - There are certain aspects of God that make Him God.  These characteristics are not shared with any portion of His creation: angelic, human, or brute.  He is Divine by nature, “that peculiar character of being which makes one kind of being to differ from another.”[109] 

The union of divine nature and human nature in Jesus Christ is an event that surpasses human understanding.  “He acted personally, not by this or that nature, but as one in the unity of whose person the two natures are inseparably combined, ‘without confusion or conversion.’”[110]

The divine nature is unique.  While the human nature shares a commonality with billions, there is nothing else like God (Isaiah 46:9).  Man is the acme of this world’s creation.  Nonetheless, God is not exactly like man; nor is He merely a superman.  There is more difference between God and man than there is between a mosquito and a blue whale.

Yet while being distinct from man, God shares His personality with man (the image of God, Genesis 1:26-27).  This quality not only distinguishes man from the brute creation, but it also distinguishes God from the immaterial forces of nature.  God is both self-conscious and self-determined.  Apart from humanity, no other being or force in material creation is able to say either “I am (Exodus 3:14),” or “I will (Exodus 6:6-8).”  As a person, God possesses intellect, emotions and will.  According to the Bible, God speaks, sees, hears, and repents.  No immaterial force is capable of any of these actions.  He even possesses a name (Jehovah) like any other personal being.

With regard to His nature, God is a Spiritual being.  Man might have a spiritual dimension to his nature, but God is purely spiritual, non-corporeal being.  Space, time, and matter have no impact upon Him.  “God exists as a being that is not made of any matter, has no parts or dimensions, is unable to be perceived by our bodily senses, and is more excellent than any other kind of existence.”[111]

The Danger of Idolatry in Worship - In light of God’s nature, the iniquity of idolatry becomes more evident.  God is unlike any of His creation, especially mankind.  “Idolatry is simply an attempt to reduce God to a creature! It is simply an attempt to make the infinite Creator into a finite creature.  It is saying that something which is made is God or is like God.”[112] 

While the creation reveals God, it is wrong to worship what God has created rather than worshiping Him as Creator.  Nothing He made is able to take His place.  “God is against any physical image being fashioned to ‘be’ Him or even to ‘reflect’ Him, since the Creator is not exactly like anything He has created.  To make God like anything created is to deny Him His essential being!”[113]

This relates to the second of the Ten Commandments.  Exodus 20:4-6 is fairly exhaustive in what it forbids in the worship of God.  Nonetheless, after giving and affirming those Ten Commandments, God immediately elaborates on this idolatrous vice (Exodus 20:22-26).  While idols are expressly forbidden, altars for sacrifice are permitted.  Still, when such altars were made, they were never to be ornate or fashioned by man.  Both pagan idols and pagan altars were to be destroyed when Israel entered the Promised Land (Exodus 34:12-17).  The worship of God was never to be confused with the artistic expressions of man.  It was to be about Him alone.  Nothing earthly can ever serve as a tool of worship.

J. I. Packer was publicly challenged on this very matter in his book, Knowing God.  In chapter four, Packer declared all images of the true God are also a form of idolatry.  In his commentary on the Second Commandment says:

In its Christian application, this means that we are not to make use of visual or pictorial representations of the triune God, or of any person of the Trinity, for the purposes of Christian worship. The commandment thus deals not with the object of our worship, but with the manner of it; what it tells us is that statues and pictures of the One whom we worship are not to be used as an aid to worshiping him.[114]

Packer’s debaters appealed to pragmatism, experience, and tradition to dissuade him from this strong position.  Still, Packer remained true to his theologically-based convictions.  It matters not what the advertised results state.  Any man-made image or artistic presentation that does for man’s mind what the Bible cannot do is a form of idolatry.  God cannot be compared to His creation.

How Is He Identified? - The names in Bible times were highly significant.  On numerous occasions the Bible records why individuals were given certain names.  God gave names with great meaning and significance.  So, too, the omniscient, eternal God chose His own significant names and titles – those which reflect His character.

In the Old Testament, three names are used to describe God.  In addition, these names form compound names.  The name Jehovah is His personal name, one not shared by anyone else.  Both Elohim and Adonai serve as titles more so than names.  False deities and arrogant people borrow from these titles.

Elohim is a plural Hebrew noun (which in the Hebrew language means more than two).  This is the most common title used for God in the Old Testament.  Its shortened form “El” is also frequently abused to denote false deities.  In its etymology, the title indicates power.  To the heathen, the power of the gods was rooted in superstition, but to the Israelite God’s power was rooted in knowledge and wisdom.  God is “the Mighty One who is behind creation, a Power which man cannot master.”[115]  The name reflects more than mere power.  “Elohim emphasizes God’s transcendence: He is above all others who are called god.”[116]  The term Elohim distinguishes God as a powerful, divine being.

The second and less common title for God is Adonai.  In the English Bible, the name is translated Lord and spelled with conventional characters.  The name reflects mastery or ownership.  Adonai was considered less sacred by the Israelites than the name Jehovah and was therefore more common in everyday speech.  It would be similar to one today who refers to the Lord Jesus Christ as “the Master” for fear that he would abuse that sacred names or that he would be misunderstood.  God has sovereign power to govern His creation.  When used, the name implies a subjection of one to another.

God has reserved exclusive right to His personal name – Jehovah.  He is identified by this specific name in the Old Testament more than either of the other two titles.  The God of Israel is more than just a divine sovereign, He is Jehovah.  The English Bible identifies this name with the use of smaller capital letters.  His name appears usually as Lord.  However in a few occasions Jehovah appears as God.

The name finds its source in the common Hebrew verb hayah which means “to be.”  The name God chooses to identify Himself stresses His existence.

God possesses being, eternity and immutability in contradiction to the absolute non–existence of other gods, and the derivative existence of created reality. God is, all else that exists becomes. This is one of the most profound statements that can be made about God. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Of particular interest is the fact that this is not just an abstraction.[117]

Unlike the deities of the pagans, Jehovah rises above the superstitions.  The gods of the pagans were capricious and easily offended.  Desperately, the terrified ones looked for an omen that would identify the reason for its displeasure.  This was not so with Jehovah.  He who had nothing to gain from mankind bound Himself with covenants.  The security He used to assure that the promises would come true was His name Jehovah, the everlasting “I Am.”

This name implies a number of incredible truths about the existence of God.  First, God is self-existent.  No being is responsible for His origin, His maintenance, or His perpetuation.

All other life, from the aphid on the rose-leaf to the archangel before the throne, is dependent and derived. All others waste and change and grow old; He only is unchangeably the same. All others are fires, which He supplies with fuel; He alone is self-sustained.[118]

Similarly, God is self-sufficient.  God requires nothing.  As stated above, fires require a supply of fuel, and mankind needs nourishment, but the word “need” is foreign to God’s being.  In relationship to worship, the self-sufficiency of God results in one very humbling realization.  God does not “need” man to worship Him.  “He desires my worship; He has included me in His program; I can glorify and please Him; I can even bring Him joy …, but need - NEVER?”[119]

In relationship to time and space, the name Jehovah reveals that God is both eternal and infinite.  Wherever man may be, Jehovah says “I am.”  There exists no point in human history where Jehovah does not say, “I am.”  The promises that God has made will never fail because God has failed.  Jehovah can never fail because “He is.”  “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.  Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.  They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants (Psalm 119:89-91).”

The Danger of Vanity in Worship - As He delivered the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, God made it clear that His name was to be treated with reverence and respect.  The third commandment states, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain (Exodus 20:7).”  Contrary to popular opinion, this commandment is not directed at the slander of God’s name, for this is obviously wrong.  To take God’s name in vain is to use it in an empty or worthless fashion.  Questions 111-114 in the Larger Catechism of Westminster are worth noting. 

The third commandment requires, that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holy and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.

The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violation of our oaths and vows, if lawful and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarrelling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences;  misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it; to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or any thing contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise opposing of God’ s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.[120]

God’s name is abused when it is used as an interjection of surprise or hate.  If the phrase “Oh my God!” is not a part of prayer or praise, the name is being taken in vain.  The Hebrew word, “Hallelujah!” translates, “Praise ye the Lord (Jehovah).”  To use this word flippantly is a direct violation of the third commandment.  Space would fail to deal with each of the minced oaths or kiddy-swear words.  God’s character is at stake.

In a society where nothing is sacred, it is vital that the worship of God be free from all that profanes His name and His character.  Unfortunately, some are marketing God by creating T-shirts that resemble corporate America.  Jesus and God are used to parody cars, basketball stars, clothing companies, soap operas, situation comedies, and movies that grieve the Holy God.  The name of God cannot be compared to society’s vices without diminishing the Perfect One or deifying the fallen.  Corporate America is outraged when their names are treated with contempt.  It is reasonable to suppose that God would not give His people a free pass to do same in the name of evangelism.

Another danger is to trivialize God.  Sometimes God’s name is profaned unintentionally by well-meaning children’s workers.  Songs like “Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelu, Hallelujah” should not be used as contests to see whether the boys or the girls can scream the loudest.  There is a place for fun, but never should fun be had at the expense of what God considers sacred, such as His name.  His name can also be trivialized by those who call God “the man upstairs,” their “good buddy,” or “boyfriend.”  Such a low view of God borders on contempt.

Then there is the common problem of those who hold a hymnal and sing praises to God’s name while their mind is far from God.  When fully grasped, the hymn, “How Great Thou Art,” constitutes one of the richest expressions of praise to the Holy Name of God, but if one’s mind is distracted by something mundane, the words “How Great Thou Art” are in vain.

The believer is asked to do more than avoid the defiling of God’s name.  When Jesus established a model for godly prayer, His first request was for God to hallow His name.  It is up to His people to magnify and exalt His name because He alone is the true Elohim.  To tremble for any man or man-made god is senseless since He alone is Adonai.  It is a pleasure to bow before Him and serve Him.  It is thrilling to hear Him say, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”  Above all, He alone is Jehovah.  Heaven and earth may pass away.  Every mortal life will one day end, but God will remain.  What He has promised, He will do.  This God alone is worthy of praise.

One of the most humbling aspects of worship is the fact that God does not need man to worship Him.  If today, every voice ceased to bring honor and worship to Him, God would not be diminished.  Man would be unfulfilled in his purpose, but God would not be hurt.  Man is invited into His presence to praise Him and laud His worth.

Chapter 6 – The Awesome Qualities of God

The Perfections of God

God is also revealed by His perfections of character known as His attributes.  Among faithful theologians there is no precise consensus in this matter.  While all agree on the validity of the subject, there is great diversity in determining the number and arrangement of these qualities.  Tozer defines the attributes generally, “An attribute of God is whatever God has in any way revealed as being true of Himself. … It is also something that we can conceive as being true about Him.”[121]  From this definition, he lists nineteen individual attributes.  The definition for the present study is slightly more specific.

The attributes of God are those qualities and characteristics about God that can be only “attributed” or ascribed to Him!  It is something that is true exclusively about God.  Man, who is created in the image of God, shares some of God’s attributes; but, in man, these are in limitation.  His attributes are infinite and perfect.[122]

Human language is strained when it comes to understanding God’s attributes.  Just as a child has difficulty grasping a parental love that refuses to indulge his lusts, so too, the greatest student of Scripture can never fully comprehend the depths of the love of God.  One songwriter stated it this way: “The love of God is greater far than tongue or pen can ever tell.” 

For the purpose of order and coherence, this study divides the attributes into two categories: God’s Natural Attributes and God’s Moral Attributes.  The former are those attributes which are resident exclusively to God.  Man has no point of commonality in these matters. 

In contrast, the moral attributes are shared with mankind.  When man was created in the image of God, these attributes were the moral common “language” of fellowship with God.  The entrance of sin marred this fellowship.  Therefore, God’s moral attributes are perfect and complete while mankind’s moral attributes are imperfect and at times unapparent.  With redemption, the believer is commanded to grow in sanctification precisely in these moral attributes (1 Peter 1:14-16).

The Natural Attributes are those which are incomprehensible to man.  His mind can compare these to nothing within himself or in material creation.  These revelations cannot be found in General Revelation; they are limited to Special Revelation (God’s Holy Word).  To the natural man, such thinking is foolish because it requires spiritual discerning, but to the man who seeks God, these truths are the most humbling and awe-inspiring revelation available. 

His Incomprehensible Perfections

Unity and Trinity - “Our sincerest effort to grasp the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity must remain forever futile, and only by deepest reverence can it be saved from actual presumption.”[123]  If the doctrine of the trinity is to be on target, four propositions must be embraced.  

First, a right exposition of the Trinity requires “the true unity, indivisibility, and simplicity of God.”[124]  As revealed in the Old Testament, the monotheism of God was basic and unchallenged.  No other gods existed.  This truth was in direct conflict with the majority of natural religions which believed in some form of polytheism.  With the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine of God’s unity became more mysterious.  Natural thinking either denies Jesus’ claims or it creates a dualism separating the God of the Old Testament from the Jesus of the New Testament.  Some even adopted a federation of gods.  Still, Jesus said, “I and my Father are one (John 10:30).”  To the mathematician it is impossible that one plus one equals one, but this is precisely what the Bible teaches regarding God.

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long–suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.[125]

Secondly, three distinct personalities must be proclaimed.  Within the Scriptures, each person of the Godhead is called “God.”  In addition, there are abundant references that distinguish between two or even three of the members of the Godhead.  The clearest reference in all of Scriptures is 1 John 5:7.  Three distinct persons bear witness in heaven, and still these three are one.[126]  Each is distinct in His economic functions.  The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.  Upon His departure, the Son sent the Holy Spirit to be the Comforter of His disciples.

Thirdly, each member of the Trinity is substantially God.  “The whole godhead is truly in each person, without confusion or division, and all the essence belongs alike to all the persons.”[127]  The attributes that belong to God the Father apply equally to God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  Omniscience is not shared, for to do so would destroy the concept.  While it is true that the Son yielded to the Father’s will, He did not do so because He was in any way inferior or diminished as God.  Thus the Godhead is singular in essence and substance while at the same time distinct in persons.

Fourth, and perhaps the most mysterious of all, is the truth of incommunicable properties.  Within Christology is the mystery of the Hypostatic Union.  If one traces this mystery back to Theology proper, it is clear that the humanity of Jesus Christ is never communicated to God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit.  Jesus walked this earth as the true “God man,” but that true humanity remained distinct from God the Father.

Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence - Polytheism proclaimed a variety of gods.  Each was limited in his ability, knowledge, and jurisdiction.  The Grecian and Roman theologies had separate deities ruling over various cities in their empire.  One was in charge of the sea, another in charge of fertility, and even one who was in charge of the wine. 

The idea behind (Polytheism) was that every god’s power was limited by the power of his fellows. The corn god, or the fertility god, for instance, could never exercise the functions of the storm god or the god of the seas. A god who made his home in one particular shrine or sacred grove or tree could only act to help men on his own home ground; elsewhere, other gods were supreme.[128]

Their power was limited, but it was greater than the power of mere human beings.

The prefix “Omni-” means “all.”  This concept is reflected in the biblical term “almighty (el elyon).”  The power of God is two-fold as reflected in the New Testament.  Power can relate to both His ability and His authority.  The latter power will be addressed under the topic of sovereignty.  Man in this industrial and information age can comprehend power.  Science is forever in search of new sources and application for the power it understands and is able to harness.  Prior to the eighteenth century, electricity existed, but was not comprehended by man.  Today, society is crippled whenever a power outage occurs.  The Omnipotent God never suffers from a power outage.  He controls the forces of nature which man cannot stop.  He has access over the powers that science has yet to discover.  In addition, His power source is undiminished when it is used.  God never tires or suffers from exhaustion.  The Almighty God rules over the vast resources of the universe.

The omniscience of God is equally incomprehensible.  God has processed every bit of knowledge created by the information age.  In fact, He knows what has not yet been produced.  God knows all of what man considers reality.  He knows the past, the present, and the future, but His knowledge does not stop there; for he truly knows what could have been had any variable been changed.  Man might ask, “What would life be like today if Adam and Eve had not sinned?”  Only God truly knows the answer to that question.  God is never surprised, and He never takes risks.  The events of Eden may fill man’s mind with speculation, but they are perfectly comprehended by God.  His knowledge is without effort and error.  Man must study to grasp deep knowledge, but if the foundations for that knowledge are flawed, the product will likely be flawed as well.  The omniscient God knows all things, and finite man cannot begin to grasp the depths of this knowledge.

While man can comprehend the physical presence of another being, the idea of “omnipresence” is mysterious.  “God, in the totality of his essence, without diffusion or expansion, multiplication or division, penetrates and fills the universe in all its parts.”[129]  While scientists believe that the universe is infinite, the believer insists that it cannot be.  The universe is contained by God’s limits, and only He is limitless.  God is present in those portions of the universe which yet remain unseen to man.  It is impossible for any man to be in more than one place at a time without a compromise to his being.  If on a conference call, his voice might be in Florida, Texas, and Alaska simultaneously, but the totality of his essence resides only in one place.  God does not divide Himself up to cover the needs of His creation.  He does not get “thin around the edges” of His coverage zone.  Psalm 139 indicates that no place is exempt from His presence.

When fully grasped, the three “omni” attributes of God should bring men to their knees. 

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?  Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him?  With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?  Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.  And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.  All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity (Isaiah 40:12-17).

“God has power without restriction; He is almighty and all powerful.  God has knowledge without limit; He is all-knowing.  God has presence without confines; He is all-present.”[130]

Immutability and Faithfulness - Change affects all of creation, and this is most profoundly demonstrated in man.  From the moment of conception change begins.  William Shakespeare wrote, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.  They have their exits and their entrances.  And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages.”[131]  Still, even after man’s exit, change is not complete.  “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7).”

In contrast to this is God.  From eternity past to eternity future God does not change.  Tozer’s definition of immutability is short and precise: “He (God) never differs from Himself.”[132]  God does not grow or develop.  He did not learn how to be the Holy God on the job.  His character and being today are the same as when He created the angelic beings.  To change requires one to move from bad to good, from good to bad, or from good to better.  Every product calling itself “new and improved” cannot avoid calling its old product “old and deficient.”  There will never be a time in past, present or future when God will be more godly or less godly.  He does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).

Critical to Tozer’s definition is the standard of measurement.  God never differs from Himself, but it is apparent from Scriptures that man’s actions prompt a different response from God that is consistent with whom He is.  In the case of Jonah and Nineveh, Jonah believed God’s immutability demanded the destruction of Nineveh in spite of the fact that they repented.  He judged God to have changed when in reality the immutability of God spared Nineveh.  Pentecostal and Charismatic doctrine tries to tie the New Testament sign gifts to God’s immutability.  They assert that if God does not change, then His gifts to His children do not change.  There is one flaw to this logic.  Family life demonstrates that a father’s response to his children changes as they grow in maturity.  Consistency in parenting does not require that the father treat a teen-ager as he does a two-year-old.  If he gives his first child a car at graduation, he is not obligated to do the same with all of the siblings.  If the gift was rooted in achievement and responsibility, the father would be inconsistent to reward a slothful son.  God’s diverse dealings with people are not rooted in a fickle God; they are rooted in sinful man.  God does not change.

For this reason, God is also declared to be faithful.  “(God’s) immutability presupposes His faithfulness.  If He is unchanging, it follows that He could not be unfaithful, since that would require Him to change.”[133]  The history of man has marched on, but God’s faithfulness to His word has not changed.  “By two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul (Hebrews 6:18-19).”  God’s word declares that the immutable God is faithful to His word.

Sovereignty - God’s sovereignty is one of His natural attributes: an attribute not shared with mankind or depicted perfectly in creation.  It is an attribute revealed in Scriptures but invisible in general revelation.  The perfection of God’s sovereignty is hard for any natural man to swallow, especially one who has grown up in a “free-society,” where men are at liberty to say how they are governed and who governs them.  “No doctrine is more despised by the natural mind than the truth that God is absolutely sovereign.  Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything.”[134]  When man thinks of sovereignty, he comprehends tyranny.  This mistake was first made by Eve when Satan convinced her that God’s rules were self-serving.  At the thought of a Sovereign God, man bristles and asks, “What about my free will?”  The question he should asks is this: “What happens if God becomes less than fully sovereign and I am given some ability to undo His will?”  If anything is out of His control, He ceases to be perfectly sovereign.

The attribute of sovereignty declares, “God rules in His universe, being fully and ultimately in charge; and He is both free and unhindered in doing whatever pleases Him or in executing His will.”[135]  For God to be sovereign He “must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and absolutely free.”[136]

  The doctrine poses two dilemmas to man’s thinking.  The first is a moral question.  If God is completely sovereign, then how did sin and death sneak into the world?  If He is truly sovereign, then God is implicated as the ultimate source of sin.  This is fully denied in Scriptures.  The concept of “open theism” seeks to remedy this by denying omniscience to God.  God allegedly takes risks with people.  Sometimes things go terribly wrong, but that is not God’s fault.  Such thinking is preposterous.  God ceases to be God.  The Scriptures clearly deny God’s participation or responsibility for man’s fall while at the same time affirming His absolute sovereignty over all things.  The incongruous truths remain a matter of revelation and mystery to mankind today.  Like the previous attributes, man is expected to receive and believe the revelation without necessarily comprehending it fully.

The other dilemma involves man’s participation in his own salvation.  If God is sovereign, then all verses ordering man to call out for salvation are meaningless.  Likewise, if God is sovereign in these matters, then all who perish do so because they were sovereignly chosen to do so.  From their first breath to their last, they had no say in the matter.  The natural man insists that theology preserve his “free will” to choose God (and later apostatize if he so chooses) at the expense of sovereignty.  It is possible also to flee to the other pole insisting that man is part of some divine morality play, scripted from beginning to end by the Sovereign God.  His personal choices are delusional and he is little more than a pre-programmed computer running his Designer’s program.  The connection between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility is indeed mysterious and impossible for man to grasp today, but it is not impossible to receive.  If it is orthodox to believe the hypostatic union, that Jesus Christ was 100% God and 100% man, is it not as practical to believe that God is 100% responsible for all that happens and man is 100% responsible for his personal choices and actions?

Likewise, the freedom of man pales in comparison to the absolute freedom of God.  Every action a man takes bears a consequence.  Israel was a free society as long as she was a society yielded to God.  William Penn wisely wrote to Peter the Great, “If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him. … Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.”[137]  The sixth chapter of Romans speaks to responsibility, not free will.  The choice is to which authority a man yields his members, not if a man yields his members.  In contrast, God’s divine freedom has no consequences.  “God is said to be absolutely free because no one and no thing can hinder Him or compel Him or stop Him.  He is able to do as He pleases always, everywhere, forever.”[138]

Transcendence and Immanence - Man was created out of the dust of the earth.  He shares many of the same materials found in the rest of creation.  Evolutionists would seek a family link, but the Bible teaches a creative link.  Man is therefore very much a part of this created world, but God is transcendent; He is distinct from His creation.  His might, wisdom, and glory are reflected in creation, but it does not possess or contain His being as pantheism would suggest. 

He is as high above an archangel as above a caterpillar, for the gulf that separates the archangel from the caterpillar is but finite, while the gulf between God and the archangel is infinite.  The caterpillar and the archangel, though far removed from each other in the scale of created things, are nevertheless one in that they are alike created.  They both belong in the category of that-which-is-not-God and are separated from God by infinitude itself.[139]

Profanity is the attempt to bring the person and name of the transcendent God down to the ordinary world of man.  The Bible indicates that God’s participation in reconciliation has gone as far as possible.  Preaching is not to reconcile God to man, but to reconcile man to God.  Man must be called upon to embrace God and His work, not to comprehend God and His work.

While God maintains His transcendence, He also reveals His immanence.  Unlike the contention of the deists of old, God is passionately consumed with His creation.  His closeness to His people includes the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit.  Transcendence prevents man from becoming God, but immanence allows man to be the temple of the Holy Spirit.  God knows man’s thoughts and imaginations.  He knows what things man needs before he asks.  He even has the hairs upon his head numbered.  “The Lord is ‘far above,’ but He is not remote!  The Lord is ‘exalted high,’ but He is not detached!  The Lord is ‘wholly separate,’ but He is not unconcerned!”[140] 

The Awesome God of Worship - Natural man wants to either grasp God’s natural attributes or deny them.  Man’s greatest defiance exists in God’s “omni-” attributes, in His immutability, and in the matter of His sovereignty.  If man could be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, he would not need God; he would become God.

Man believes that his own wisdom and knowledge is sufficient to comprehending God.  If he perceives a gap where demonstrable truth ends and faith begins, he blames God for not providing a bridge.  Since the trinity is not comprehended in the scientific world, it must be fantasy or myth.  Likewise, if the mind of man can create an impossibility, he concludes that God is foolish.  He sneers, “Can God create a stone so big that He cannot lift it?”  It is for this reason that Solomon said, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7).”  In God, knowledge is perfect, but in man, knowledge that fails to humble a man fills him with devilish pride.  He asserts that the wonders of God result from ignorance and superstition.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Wonder is not born out of ignorance: it is born out of knowledge.  The more a truly reverent person knows about a flower or an insect or God, the more overwhelmed he is.  Scientific or theological facts may give some people a big head, but truths gives to the reverent saint a burning heart, a thrilling encounter with God.[141]

The power and presence of man over his world seems to be increasing.  Man believes he is in the process of curing every disease and accurately predicting every violent act of nature.  He imagines a day when he will be able to withstand every possible “act of God” thrown his way.  While God’s power is perfect, mankind’s power is not.  He foolishly uses his power and creative ability to eliminate his need for God’s provision or direction.

Man confuses his own stubbornness with God’s immutability.  The humanist’s worship of his own natural condition makes him a perfect creature, not needing change.  He embraces depravity and states, “God made me this way.”  Few poems proclaim this defiance as well as Invictus by William E. Henley.  Here the poet thanks the unknown gods for his unconquerable soul.  The last defiant stanza reads: “It matters not how strait the gate, / How charged with punishment the scroll, / I am the master of my fate: / I am the captain of my soul.”[142]   

Man wants the sovereignty which God has.  He foolishly believes that he is free.  He will bristle at any who would suggest that God directs his life apart from his permission.  God is treated as a doting suitor, as an impoverished dependent, or as a genie who will grant wishes to his master if he strokes the lamp the right way.  God is powerless or penniless if man does not embrace him.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The natural attributes of God effect three changes upon man’s natural disposition.  These attributes ought to have a humbling effect upon the one who approaches God.  When one considers the vast infinity of God, he cannot remain the same self-centered individual.  In Psalm 139:1, David acknowledges God’s sovereign right and omniscient ability to search him and know him.  The psalm then applies the truth to every aspect of life.  He marvels that such a God would have any personal concern for him (17-18).  Verses 23 and 24 complete the thought begun in verse one.  After acknowledging God’s right and ability, David invites God to do what He is already doing, “Search me, O God, and know my heart …”

The second effect is also mentioned in this Psalm.  Verse 6 states, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it.”  God wants to be known so that man will wonder at His greatness.  Words such as “marvelous,” “wonderful,” “awesome,” and “miraculous” have lost their impact today because of profane applications.  These are words that rightly belong to God.

True wonder reaches right into your heart and mind and shakes you up.  … It is an encounter with reality – with God – that brings awe to your heart.  You are overwhelmed with an emotion that is a mixture of gratitude, adoration, reverence, fear – and love.  You are not looking for explanations; you are lost in the wonder of God.[143]

Warren Wiersbe dedicates the fourth chapter of his book Real Worship to the matter of the wonder of God.  He contends that modern expressions of worship have lost the important ingredient of wonder.

The trouble is that wonder is a rare ingredient.  You do not often find it present in most modern worship.  After all, what is there to wonder about?  Why should there be any mystery in the worship experience of the average congregation?  We know all about God, because we know our Bibles so well. … We have outlined the Bible, analyzed God’s attributes, and charted the ages.  What is there to elicit our wonder?[144]

One of the prophetic names for the Messiah was “Wonderful” (Isaiah 9:6) - derived from the Hebrew root “peleh.”  God’s wonders have a purpose, which is neither entertainment nor amusement.

Preponderantly both the verb and substantive refer to the acts of God, designating either cosmic wonders or historical achievements on behalf of Israel. … The root refers to things that are unusual, beyond human capabilities. As such, it awakens astonishment in man. … We may add that it is essential that the miracle is so abnormal as to be unexplainable except as showing God’s care or retribution.[145]

A similar New Testament concept is found in the word “mystery.”  The Greek word “musterion” is found twenty-seven time in the New Testament.  A biblical mystery is in essence unrevealed truth.  While some matters that were mysteries in the past are now understandable through progressive revelation, still some mysteries remain sealed.  It is not shameful for the mature Christian to puzzle and say, “I don’t know why, but I do know God and His character.  Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The third effect is one of confidence and comfort.  Though the world appears to spin out of control, God has not abdicated.  He is not suffering from a power shortage, nor is His knowledge dimmed.  He is present when His children are tried in the fiery furnaces, and His promises will stand forever.  His children are able to boldly say, “The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me (Hebrews 13:6).”

The natural attributes of God were not revealed so that man might have theological bones to pick with one another.  While it is critical that these are defined and applied precisely, it is also critical that believers not loose sight of God.  In Romans 11, the Apostle Paul addresses some of the mammoth theological issues that still bring disputes.  At issue are matters of dispensational change, the sovereignty of God, and His faithfulness to His promises.  He concludes the teachings with one of the most humbling eulogies in Scriptures (Romans 11:33-36).  God’s ways and judgments are incomprehensible.  Counselors need not apply.  Believers need only grasp the depths of God’s vastness and then respond in awe, humility, and confidence.

Chapter 7 – The Moral Perfections of God

Holiness and Wrath - Holiness is the first attribute in this study that relates to the Moral Attributes of God.  These are not attributes that make God moral; they are perfections in God which man is invited to imperfectly emulate.  Making any of God’s natural attributes common to society is profanity, but making God’s moral attributes common to society is mandatory.  Man should never see the image of God carved into wood; but he should ever see the character of God in the life of the believer.  For this reason, God commands His people, “Be ye holy, for I am holy (Leviticus 20:7; 1 Peter 1:15-16).” 

In addressing the Moral Attributes of God three principles must rule.  First, it is critical to remember that these moral attributes are always perfect in God, but never perfect in man.  The standard of holiness is neither the mean of human morality, nor is it the acme of human morality.  The standard is God.  The special revelation of Scriptures is necessary to grasp the attributes in their perfection.  Secondly, it is critical that the definitions reflect God’s comprehension of the attribute and not society’s understanding.  As opposed to the natural attributes, the moral attributes connect with God’s general revelation in the conscience of man.  Within natural men reside imperfect concepts of goodness, love, and justice.  Without the specific revelation of Scripture, every man does that which is right in his own eyes.  Man’s concept of love is a good example.  The term “love” in the English can describe both holy and sinful behavior.  God’s definition of love is absolutely holy.

Thirdly, it is critical to realize that the moral attributes of God reside perfectly and without confusion.  This is difficult for man to grasp.  The Calvinist would make God’s sovereignty to be His primary attribute.  Likewise, in a day where God is trivialized, well-meaning fundamentalists try to elevate God’s holiness to primary status.  A. H. Strong declares that holiness is God’s “fundamental attribute.”[146]  Many liberal theologians also agree that the God of the Old Testament was primarily holy, but they will make the primary attribute of the N. T. God to be love.  Hence there exists either two different gods or one mutable God. 

The misguided attention given to primary attributes reflects the finite character of man rather than the infinite character of God.  People are predisposed to viewing life from a limited world-view.  They might start with love and then bring all other attributes into conformity with that perceived love.  In man’s mind either God filters His love through His holy character, or His love limits the expression of His holiness.  On the contrary, the infinite God is perfect in both holiness and love, and He is always able to simultaneously express both without diminishing either.  He does not confound His love when He brings judgment to the unrepentant, and he does not contradict His holiness whenever He forgives the sinner.

God’s being is unitary; it is not composed of a number of parts working harmoniously, but simply one.  There is nothing in His justice which forbids the exercise of His mercy.  To think of God as we sometimes think of a court where a kindly judge, compelled by law, sentences a man to death with tears and apologies, is to think in a manner wholly unworthy of the true God.  God is never at cross-purposes with Himself.  No attribute of God is in conflict with another.[147]

Holiness is not conformity to a moral standard.  If this were so, then God could not be holy, for He has no standard for measurement.  He could be as capricious as the Roman gods, engaging in behavior both vile and beneficial.  In a nutshell, the attribute of holiness is the absence of all moral impurity.  In God it is a “self-affirming purity.”[148]  He is not made pure; He is pure.  He is both pure in essence and in action.  A sterile bandage is essentially pure when it is in a sealed package, but when it is opened for use it loses its purity.  Such is not the case with God.  A key to holiness is its separation from all that defiles.

His holiness is related to His wrath.  This attribute of God rarely receives proportionate attention in modern preaching.  “A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness.”[149]  There exist two critical differences between God’s wrath and man’s wrath (James 1:19-20).  First, “God’s wrath in the Bible is always judicial.”[150]  His response is similar to the actions of a judge in a courtroom.  If the sentence erupts from the judge due to either loss of self-control or wounded pride, justice will not be served.  However, if the offender stands before him without pardon or mercy, the judge brings the wrath of the court down upon the guilty.  To do anything less would be unjust.  “In the second place, God’s wrath in the Bible is something which people choose for themselves.”[151]  God’s wrath is visited as much for what man has not done as it is for what he has done.  To neglect God’s remedy is to invite His wrath.

Righteousness and Justice - The two words are close in meaning.  In Old Testament poetic and prophetic literature, the two terms frequently appear in couplet form.  "But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream (Amos 5:24).”  They are nearly identical twins, but still each has his own personality.

  The Lord is called the righteous judge.  Unlike the imperfect judges who preside in courtrooms today, God has never violated the code He enforces.  His actions and attitudes are always just, for He always judges on the basis of guilt, never on the basis of personal hurt.  The judge is the one who discerns between right and wrong, and justice demands that evil never be overlooked.  While perfect justice is never lenient, any wise judge may stay the sentence and be just.  Under the right circumstances, he may even pardon the guilty.  According to the word of God, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John 3:36).”  The perfect judge is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).  In spite of this, if any man refuses His terms of pardon, God is obligated by His justice to execute the sentence. “God is just to condemn the unbeliever.  God is just to protect the saint (not because of what the saint has done, but because of what Christ has done for the saint).”[152] 

The term “righteousness” deals with criteria of discernment.  The gigantic word begins with the very simple word “right.”  A righteous activity is both legal and appropriate.  If it fails either of these two tests, it is wrong.  If one is rushing an injured child to the hospital and clearly ignoring the posted speed limits, his actions may be appropriate, but they are illegal.  A judge must determine if a righteous exception should be made.  “Judgment is the application of equity to moral situations and may be favorable or unfavorable according to whether the one under examination has been equitable or inequitable in heart or conduct.”[153]  On the other hand, if one engages in shady business practices which are not precisely forbidden, his actions may be legal but they are clearly not appropriate.  A judge on this earth may not be able to touch him, but the righteous Judge of the universe will take action. 

The law is not the standard of right and wrong, nor is the polled opinion of citizens.  Jesus declared that the standard set by the most zealously religious element of His society was not good enough (Matthew 5:20).  God alone is the standard for righteousness.  Right and wrong are determined by Him.

"Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? (Isaiah 40:13-14).”

The natural man would like to charge God with inequity.  Even His most faithful followers at times must be reassured that God’s justice prevails.  Abraham feared that God would judge Sodom without regard to the righteous people who lived within its environs.  In this context Abraham asks, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”  The friends of Job insisted that his trials resulted from God’s chastening hand.  If he would repent, all would be restored.  Job repeatedly longed for a day in court where he might plead his case (Job 9:29-35; 23:1-7).  This fallen world is admittedly unfair due to sin, but the Righteous Judge of the universe is still in control.  He has not failed.

In a similar vein, there are times when God’s followers are appalled by His apparent indifference to the evil that surrounds them.  Psalm 73 exposes the hidden thoughts of Asaph to the world.  He was ready to explode from his troubled view of inequity in the world.  Another example is Jonah.  He was out to force the hand of God to destroy Nineveh after it had repented.  The humble follower will defer his lack of understanding to God who is perfect in righteousness and justice.

Goodness (Mercy, Grace, and Kindness) - “Goodness is that part of His divine nature that naturally inclines Him to be kind, cordial, benevolent, and full of good will toward men.  It’s the term used to describe God’s friendliness and openness to man!”[154]  There is nothing resident in man that makes him delightful to God.  The story of Mephibosheth is rich in typifying the goodness of God.  Many a man lives in a self-created bitterness away from the Sovereign God.  He hides in the barren land of sin and shame.  When he hears the knock of God at the door of his heart he assumes that all God wants to do is destroy him.  He is ushered into the terrifying presence of the King of kings.  Powerless, he prostrates himself before the one who can rightly execute him.  He dares not to make eye contact, and when addressed, he responds in the most humbling way possible.  Then he hears the incredible.  Why would a Sovereign treat him as a prince instead of dishing out his just deserts?  The answer is simple – God is good.  “Man was not made for misery, discomfort, or anguish.  God’s intent was for man’s good--because He is a good God.  Goodness is His nature!”[155]

There exist three facets to God’s goodness.  They are mercy, grace, and kindness.  Mercy is God’s unmerited response to man’s unending misery and distress.  God withholds the justly deserved wages of man’s labor.  In a general sense, God’s mercy prevents this world from becoming as unbearable as it deserves to be.  In a special way, mercy withholds the wages of sin.  God’s goodness is expressed in the pain He withholds.

Grace is God’s unmerited response to man’s unredeemable poverty.  God secures release from the justly deserved chains of sin.  Grace is tied to the soteriological concepts of redemption.  Man is not merely impoverished; he is in debt because of sin.  Without God’s grace, the debt would never be paid.  Sin’s abundant debt is more than matched by God’s abundant grace.  God’s goodness is expressed in the release He secures.

Kindness is God’s unmerited response to man’s unyielding barrenness.  God provides bounty instead of the justly-deserved famine.  Thanksgiving finds its basis in the kindness of God for every good thing is undeserved.  God’s goodness is expressed in His provisions. 

It is common for natural man to presume upon the goodness of God.  Goodness on God’s part is self-exercised.  No power above Him dictates how and when His goodness is shown.  No activity below obligates God to manifest His goodness.

Love - While in the English the term “love” is used to express a variety of affections, the Greek language uses a variety of words to precisely express the motivation beneath the affection.  One Greek word (stergō) expresses the love a parent has for a child (“natural affection”).  Another expresses the mutually shared affection for a comrade or brother (phileō) who would be greeted with a kiss.  Still another (eraō) expresses the affection of sensual and selfish gratification.  Such love passionately abandons all reason, discretion, and moral codes to find satisfaction.  The Greek god, Eros, personified this type of love. 

When used religiously, eraō described the Grecian passionate pursuit of mystical union through Platonic spirituality.

There was also a more mystical understanding of eros, whereby the Greeks sought to reach and to go beyond normal human limitations in order to attain perfection.  As well as the fertility cults … there were the mystery religions whose rites were intended to unite the participant with the godhead. … In the early Christian era gnosis found its place in this approach, giving its own particular slant to the human desire for self-transcendence.[156]

Around the time of Jesus Christ, rabbinic teachers recognized a clear qualitative difference between eraō love and the love expressed in the Old Testament.  In the Septuagint agapaō was chosen to express God’s love instead of the expected eraō, which the translators reserved for human sexuality.  With the writing of the New Testament, the Holy Spirit guided the authors to exploit the rarely used Greek word agapaō to describe God’s love. 

Agapaō in Greek is often quite colorless as a word … meaning to be fond of, treat respectfully, be pleased with, welcome.  When, on rare occasions, it refers to someone favored by a god, … it is clear that, unlike eraō, it is not the man’s own longing for possessions or worth that is meant, but a generous move by one for the sake of the other.  This is expressed above all in the way agapetos is used … particularly of an only child to whom all the love of his parents is given.[157]

The New Testament provides the definition for agapaō, for one cannot be found apart from God’s special revelation.  God’s love differs in character from all that mankind considers love.  “False ideas (about God’s love) have grown up round it like a hedge of thorns, hiding its real meaning from view, and it is no small task cutting through this tangle of mental undergrowth.”[158]  It is a mistake to view agapaō in stark contrast to the other three.  God’s love is not dispassionate, but instead it is purely passionate, like the love between husband and wife.  Likewise, its kisses and kindnesses are holy.  God’s love is a parental type of love which compassionately pours out upon its children precisely what is best for them.  In a sense, agapaō love expresses only the noble elements of the other types of love and expresses them in a self-sacrificing, charitable fashion.  Perfect love is bound to the perfect character of God.

The character of God’s Love is communicated in 1 Corinthians 13.  Agapaō love is longsuffering and kind in its character.  Eight defiling elements, the expressions of a sinful and self-centered man, are missing.  Godly love is neither jealous nor envious when others prosper.  It is never arrogant, demanding the honor of others and puffing up one’s importance.  Godly love is never indecent in its expressions.  It never seeks its own agenda and is therefore never hurt or provoked when it is treated inconsiderately or injuriously.  True godly love is never tolerant of sin.  It does not contemplate ill upon another, nor does it rejoice when one is treated unrighteously.  Truth alone is the cause for rejoicing. 

While shutting out those elements that defile, God’s love is inclusive.  It bears all difficulties for the sake of the gospel.  It believes all godly truth even when the world casts doubt upon it.  It expresses a godly optimism in all the promises God has made, and it bears up under the pressures of the present hour.  God’s love never, under any circumstance, withers and falls as do the leaves of trees after the season of sunshine ends.  His love never fails.

The Reflection of God in Worship - The moral attributes of God have three applications that relate to the matter of worship.  Worship begins with a personalization of these doctrines.  Worship then proceeds to a proclamation of God’s moral attributes.  It reaches its acme in the participation in God’s moral attributes.

The first response to God’s moral attributes must be soteriological.  Without a God-given mediator, there is no way that man can naturally approach God.  Without a propitiatory sacrifice, it is impossible to assuage the perfect wrath of God.  False worship tries to use religious devotion to secure favor, but this is impossible.  God’s holiness, wrath, righteousness, and justice must be comprehended, and man must realize his lost condition.

When we see God as holy, our instant and only reaction is to see ourselves as unholy.  Between God’s holiness and man’s unholiness is a gulf.  We ought to be shaken to our roots when we see ourselves in comparison to Him.  If we are not deeply pained about our sin, we do not understand God’s holiness.[159]

This world is plagued by sin, but it is not as bad as it could be.  If the kindness of God was eliminated, there would be no pleasure in life.  Yet man often presumes upon the goodness and mercy of God.  His goodness and mercy begin to explain why immediate justice has not been meted out for transgressions.  The delay in sentencing is not due to neglect on God’s part.  Rather, He does not want any to perish, but He wants all men everywhere to repent. 

His incomprehensible love only makes sense when His holiness and justice are understood.  To many people, the crucifixion is merely historical fact, but to the hopeless sinner, that event means life.  Worship begins with responding to God’s gift of salvation.  These are people who “have tasted that the Lord is gracious (1 Peter 2:3).”  This type of worship is expressed in the third stanza of “How Great Thou Art”  “And when I think that God, His Son not sparing, / Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in - / That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing, / He bled and died to take away my sin! / Then sings my soul, my Savior God, to Thee; / How great thou art.”

After salvation, the worship of God is filled with appreciation.  David expressed his appreciation in Psalm 40:1-5.  God extracted him from the miry clay, put his feet on solid ground, and established his path.  The wonder of God’s personal interest in His redeemed child is beyond expression.  The truly born-again child of God should never get over what God did in the past.  Awe and humility are the enduring results of personalization.  As one hymn writer asked, “Why should He love me so?” 

Worship advances from personalization to proclamation.  God has a purpose behind His mercy and grace.  According to 1 Peter 2:9, the chosen child of God is called upon to “shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”  The word “shew” means to report widely.  It is not a lifestyle; it is a verbal activity.  The Psalmist in Psalm 89 is unashamed in his praise of God.  “With my mouth will I make known Thy faithfulness to all generations.”  Psalm 108:1-5 indicates that singing God’s praise is not just for the redeemed to hear, but also for the nations.  The personal testimony of one who has been rescued is a delight to God’s ears, but it is not for His ears alone.  “’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, / And grace my fears relieved. / How precious did that grace appear / The hour I first believed.”

Personalization and proclamation mandate participation.  Worship is not confined to an hour on Sunday, nor is it limited in expression to the mouth of man.  The walk of man is a flawless indicator of whether the praise of God is genuine.  1 Peter 2:11-12 indicates that the lifestyle of the redeemed is one similar to Abraham.  The believer is a foreigner and a sojourner.  The culture of the residents is not neutral; it is in conflict with the soul of the believer.  In the midst of this, the believer is called upon to reflect the excellence of heaven’s culture.  He must let his light shine (Matthew 5:16).  His life will be misunderstood and maligned by a society that is at odds with God.

God’s moral attributes are those qualities which God commands His children to reflect in the foreign land.  These attributes are undesired by the natural man for his personal life.  Holiness as defined by God is senseless to him.  The natural man rejoices when the merchant treats him righteously, but he does not want a similar standard placed on his endeavors.  He wishes to receive love and mercy, but has no desire to be the channel of these activities.  It is here that the obedient child of God reflects the character of his Heavenly Father.   Every aspect of life falls under the category of the worship of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).  There are people who will never open the cover of a Bible, but God has placed His children to be living revelatory agents of Himself to a sin-darkened world.  Joseph stood before Pharaoh, Daniel before Nebuchadnezzar, and Paul before Caesar.  It is unlikely that any of these saints had this as their long-term goal.  God’s best lights follow His call to shine and then yield their placement to the wisdom of God.

It is therefore critical that the believer have a clear understanding of the moral attributes of God.  A life that is strong in one or two aspects but weak in others presents a cartoon image of God to a spiritually-illiterate society.  A caricature is drawn with the purpose of exaggerating a subject’s mouth, ears, eyes, or nose.  If accuracy is important to the subject, then such portrayals are not appreciated; they are at times hurtful.  The Corinthian church had allowed a shameless, practicing sinner to remain in their midst.  Perhaps they intended to be longsuffering as God is.  The Bible makes it clear that this was not their place.  The apostle John locked horns with one named Diotrephes.  In the name of purity, he excluded John’s disciples from his fellowship.  While God is pure, it is clear in this instance that Diotrephes had crossed the line.  Cartoon images make God to be something that He is not.  Occasionally these images cause the unbeliever to say, “If that is what a Christian is, I want nothing to do with Jesus.”

Summary: The Object of Worship

The Ten Commandments begin with three ordinances regarding the worship of God.  When one grasps who God is, the brilliance of these commands is unmistakable.  Having no other god requires a negative and a positive action.  One must rid his appreciation for and fear of all deities that would obstruct the exclusive worship of God because He will endure no rivals.  In a positive sense, God commands man to know Him.  As human relationships are grown and sustained by communication, so too, a relationship with God grows through knowing Him.

 Idolatry is forbidden in the second commandment.  The reduction of the infinite and spiritual nature of God to manageable material icons or to flesh and blood is preposterous.  One cannot love God through any thing that was created by Him or fashioned by man.  God has exclusive right to be God.

The third command involves the profaning and trivializing of His name.  That Name is special to Him.  He chose it as a means of revealing Himself to man.  The names of Elohim, Adonai, and Jehovah are filled with rich meaning.  His reputation rests on His Name.  One who truly worships Him hallows His Name.

Certain attributes belong to God alone.  As Lucifer was lifted up with pride, so too, man desires those attributes which would free him of his dependence upon God.  When these attributes are rightly understood, men will respond with humility and awe toward God.  These attributes provide man with confidence, for God is still sovereign, He is all-knowing, and He is faithful in all of His promises.

The moral attributes of God evoke three activities in the life of the believer.  The first is personalization.  Knowing God has a humbling effect upon the person.  He will realize his spiritual poverty and receive God’s free gift.  Once freed from sin, there will be a humble appreciation for what God has done, not for the world in general, but for him personally.  He stands in awe both at the vastness of God, and at His personal care for His child.

The second activity of worship is proclamation.  When God is rightly understood, His child cannot remain silent.  He has been saved for the purpose of declaring God’s great work both to saints and sinners.  This extolling will last into eternity.  Such pure exuberance and appreciation for God is missing in too many lives today.  It is hard to imagine that one who has truly been accepted as an object of God’s love can ever remain silent.  Either the reality of his position is unrealized or he has no real relationship with God.  “The reason some believers are not excited about the ministry of song is because they do not have a great vision of the Savior nor a fresh delight in Him pulsating through their beings.”[160]  Tozer bluntly states, “Any man or woman on this earth who is bored and turned off by worship is not ready for heaven.”[161]

The third activity of worship is participation.  God has called upon His children to live differently in this world.  Instead of mimicking their society, they are called upon to demonstrate His character in their daily lives.  Such activity is rarely appreciated by this society.  As believers demonstrate God’s characteristic displeasure for sin, His righteousness and justice, and His goodness and love, they become living epistles, read by those who have never opened a Bible.  It is critical that a living epistle be an accurate representation of God’s attributes.

Section B: Christology - The Incarnation of Worship

Chapter 8 – The God-given Image of Worship

By virtue of its name, Christ is the center of Christianity.  Therefore the study of the person and work of Jesus Christ is vital to all aspects of the Christian life, beginning with salvation.  “Eternal life is dependent upon a correct relationship to Christ, and that in turn requires a correct understanding of whom and what he is.”[162]  Christian worship also, by virtue of its name centers on Jesus Christ, springing from the right response to the right doctrines of Christology.

In order to combat modernism within the Northern Baptist Convention, Curtis Lee Laws called fundamental Baptists to a pre-convention meeting in Buffalo, New York in 1920 for “an immediate and urgent duty to restate, reaffirm, and reemphasize the fundamentals of our New Testament faith.”[163]  The message on Christology began:

Northern Baptists are Trinitarians.  They worship Jesus Christ.  He is their sovereign God.  “The Word was God.”  They do not believe merely in the Lordship of Christ, but with Thomas they cry, “My Lord and my God!”  They do not have mental reservations concerning Christ’s deity.  They would be false to the best that their minds and hearts teach them, false to the Sacred Scriptures, false to the testimony of the centuries, and false to human experience in the spiritual laboratory of prayer if they did not worship the Lord Jesus Christ.[164]

In the Old Testament, God made it clear that nothing created by Him should receive the worship due only to Him.  The faithful Jew was instructed to love Him exclusively.  The Shema of Moses’ law (Deuteronomy 6:4) states without apology that God is one.  The first of the Ten Commandments forbids the deification of any other gods, and the second forbids man-made images for worship.

Jesus came and directed man’s worship toward the Father.  At the same time, He forged a vital tie with the Father indicating that the true worship of Jehovah could not exclude Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (John 8:24).   God never permitted mankind to create a material image.  Instead, He created the perfect image of worship.  Both John’s gospel and the writer of Hebrews affirm the unique glory that belongs only to Jesus Christ.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. … No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (John 1:14, 18).”

"God, … Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews 1:1-3).”

Upon His death, resurrection, and exaltation, God the Father gave Jesus Christ a name above all names (Philippians 2:11, 5-11; Colossians 1:13-21).  Under any other circumstance, this would appear contradictory to God’s character.  Without the doctrine of a triune Godhead, the worship of Jesus Christ and His position would be blasphemous.

The Anti-Trinitarian Worship of Jesus Christ - The doctrine of the Trinity was a mystery to the Old Testament saint.  God has always existed as three persons in one being.  Throughout the Old Testament, hints regarding this mystery were seeded.  It was the advent of Jesus Christ that made the doctrine apparent and unavoidable.

Judaism mounted stiff resistance to accepting Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God.  To accept His identity, the Jews needed to reexamine their dogma regarding Messiah.  “Acceptance of Christ radically changed a man’s relations to Judaism, heathenism and the philosophy of the times; the advocates of which, however, did not propose to have their claims set aside without a struggle.”[165]

John’s gospel states that He came unto His own people, the Jews, and they received Him not.  Still, there were individual exceptions to the rule.  At Pentecost, the risen Christ was proclaimed and thousands received the gospel.

However, many did not receive Jesus Christ for who He was.  Those who persecuted the disciples of Jesus Christ believed they were doing the work of God in forbidding the furtherance of Christianity.  One former persecutor testified, “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 26:9).”  Such activities included state-sponsored execution for worshipping Jesus Christ to the exclusion of all others.

Even today, there are those who believe they can deny the doctrine of the Trinity on biblical grounds.  One prominent group calls itself Jehovah’s Witnesses.  In its theology, the deifying of Jesus Christ is heresy.  There is only one God, and He goes by the name of Jehovah.

Jehovah’s Witnesses used the ASV 1901 in large part because it was the first English translation to consistently transliterate the Old Testament Hebrew name of Jehovah instead of translating it with the unique spelling, Lord.  However, the New Testament has no exact parallel, and even though the Greek New Testament transliterates many Hebrew names, it always translates and never transliterates the name Jehovah.  The Holy Spirit never moved the holy writers to do so.  To put Jehovah back into the New Testament, the New World Translation selectively translated kurios into Jehovah some 237 times so that Jesus is exalted above other beings, but diminished in His deity.  “The Witnesses actually have two gods, a big one and a little one: an ‘Almighty God,’ Jehovah – and a ‘mighty god,’ Jesus Christ.”[166]   Jesus is revered and adored as Jehovah God’s archangel, but He is never the object of worship, for that exclusively belongs to Jehovah God the Father.  A grateful church can render “obeisance” to Jesus but not “worship.”  The Watchtower Society required a hymnal that was consistent with their doctrine.  According to their own publications, the choice of the hymns was deliberate.

In the songbook produced by Jehovah’s people in 1905, there were twice as many songs praising Jesus as there were songs praising Jehovah God. … But in the latest songbook of 1984, Jehovah is honored by four times as many songs as is Jesus. … Love for Jehovah must be preeminent, accompanied by deep love for Jesus and appreciation of his precious sacrifice and office as God’s High Priest and King. (p. 36)[167]

The deity of Christ cannot be compromised.  The Bible either presents Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity or it does not.  If He is not God, then the Pharisees were right.  Jesus may be a special man and worthy of titles such as “rabbi” (or Michael to the Jehovah’s Witness), but He cannot be treated as God in the flesh.  According to their theology, this would create two gods, a concept foreign to the Scriptures.

But if He is God, the writings of John ring clearly.  His gospel was written so that anyone who reads might believe that the man Jesus is Messiah and the Son of God.  Life is possible, but only through the name Jesus.  John’s first letter declares that any deviation of this doctrine is not honest debate but evidence of the spirit of antichrist.

The Mystic Worship of Jesus Christ - While some would try to deny Jesus His rightful place in worship based upon Old Testament teaching, a far more deceptive theology is at work today.  “(Some groups) maintain that he was a supernaturally enlightened teacher endowed with some kind of cosmic consciousness often called “the Christ” consciousness.”[168]  Modern biblical scholarship (the product of state-run universities) is in search of the “real” Jesus.  It declares that orthodoxy has failed to capture the milieu of ancient and contemporary cultures.  The “Jesus” of orthodoxy lacks credibility to modern thinkers and modernist worshipers.

Jesus’ question to his disciples is likewise directed to us: Who do we say that he is? Jesus’ own straw poll has been brought up-to-date by George Gallup, who polled North Americans as to their opinion of Jesus Christ. The vast majority of those who responded affirmed that Jesus lived. Beyond this, opinions varied. Some believed that Jesus was “divine” in the sense that he was uniquely called by God to reveal God’s purpose to the world. About ten percent believed that Jesus was divine in the sense that he embodied the highest human values. Others acknowledged Jesus as an important religious teacher but did not think he was divine. Finally, some forty percent affirmed that Jesus was divine in the sense that he was God living among men and women.[169]

The exploration for the “real Jesus” is both lauded and encouraged by mainline denominations.  It is even making its way into the pulpits of “Christian” churches.  The testimony of one prospective seminarian is both informative and chilling.

This project began because I needed an Independent Study … for my "capstone" experience for my Comparative Studies in Religion major this semester. I wanted to put together my personal faith questions, my religious studies undergraduate education at UW-Eau Claire for the past 4 years, and my future goal of going to seminary to become an ELCA pastor. I wanted this capstone replacement to be a bridge between my undergraduate education and my future life plans. …

In the beginning of my reading, I learned a lot about what issues Christians struggle with when they study the historical Jesus picture alongside their own faith. There are a lot of Christians who get very defensive in the face of any questioning of the accuracy of the historicity of the Bible and the Gospel accounts. These Christians usually are very literal in their interpretation of Scripture, and many do not like the new picture of Jesus that historical Jesus scholars are painting. The fear is that if they take a scientific, critical approach to the Gospels, all the tenets of Christianity will be unraveled. I learned that the Jesus Seminar, a controversial group that discusses and "votes" on the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts of Jesus, is not that far removed from the mainstream of biblical scholarship even within theological seminaries.

My reason for studying the historical Jesus scholarship is because I wanted to see what Jesus' message seemed to be originally. I wondered if Jesus considered himself divine, and if he considered himself the sole spiritual Messiah for all people. I wondered about the reliability of the texts, the biblical writings and writings that didn't make it into the canon. I wanted to know the roots of these and other "Christian" views that the Church has clung to for so many years, and often used tyrannically to persecute others. I wanted to see what was timeless and good in these Christian ideas, or if Jesus turns out to be too historically and culturally entrenched to be of use to the contemporary Christian church in the world.[170]

Such sentiments are also echoed by Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University.  As a college student, she also set out to find “reality” in Christianity.  “I decided to look for the ‘real Christianity’ – believing, as Christians traditionally have, that I might find it by immersing myself in the earliest Christian sources, composed soon after Jesus and his disciples had wandered in Galilee.”[171]  Her training introduced her to apocryphal writings that “‘official’ versions of Christian history had suppressed so effectively.”[172]  She soon discovered a Jesus who “challenges us to discover what lies hidden within ourselves.”[173]  The “real” Jesus is not found in the creeds of Christianity or even in the Bible.  He is found in shared mystical experiences.

Concurrent with Roman persecution, philosophers produced a hybrid of biblical truth and pagan philosophy.  These were the wolves from within that Paul, Peter, John, and Jude warned the churches to mark and avoid.  These wolves were the source of the apocryphal gospels.  Gnostics made Jesus Christ the supreme mystic.  Even today, they worship Him not as their redeemer, but as the pioneer who enables enlightened men to escape this world and discover the deity which resides in every individual.

The call to discover the “real” Jesus (or the historical Jesus) is often a cover to deny the biblical record.  When the Bible ceases to accurately reveal Jesus, then legions of false Christs are created.  Some are mystical, like the counterfeits of Gnosticism, but others are very practical, serving as vehicles for such philosophies as Marxism.  An anthropological Christology begins with man as the centerpiece, permitting the sociologist and political scientist to place Jesus in modern settings.  Based upon the assumption that traditional theology is the creation of western males, an attempt is made to rid “traditional” Christology of these biases.  Liberation theology, black theology, and feminist theology all endeavor to create a Christology of human need and liberation.  A link is made with Jesus that is based upon mysticism and anthropology, but not revelation.

Essentially, Jesus is who one makes Him to be.  To the Marxist, He is a revolutionary; to the Universalist, He is a pacifist.  The great man, Jesus, is conformed into the image of the sponsor.

There seems to be something about this man for everybody.  So we pick and choose in a way that shows he is on our side.  All over the world, having Jesus on your side is a good thing.  But not the original, undomesticated, unadjusted Jesus.  Just the revised Jesus who fits our religion or political platform or lifestyle.[174]

At the core, Jesus is nothing more than a reflection of humanity and not the one who reveals the express image of the Father.

Such theology does not deny the “divinity” of Jesus Christ.  However, it does deny His exclusive deity.  The divinity of Jesus is shared by every human being.  The practice of the worship of Jesus is proper, but the ultimate purpose of worship is man-centered.  If it does not raise the participant to a transcendent experience, or if the worship of Jesus does not raise the ethical consciousness of men toward the plagues of the day (intolerance, poverty, racism, sexism, etc.), it is in vain.  Jesus is an exemplary mystical and moral leader, like Gandhi, Buddha or Mohammed, worthy of denominating a world religion, but nothing more.

The same serpent who beguiled Eve desires to corrupt man’s mind regarding Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 11:1-4).  It is the deceiver’s intent to flood the world with counterfeit Saviors.  These counterfeits in turn open the door to false spirituality and false gospels.[175]  The door for satanic spirituality and salvation swings upon the acceptance of a Jesus Christ look-alike.

The Core Beliefs of Orthodox Christology - Without an adequate comprehension of His identity one cannot rightly worship Jesus Christ for false doctrines create false worship.  The worshiper can ill afford to have his mind filled with speculations.

In an attempt to make the worship of Jesus Christ relevant, some have adopted the practice of liberalism.  “Christians today are under the impression that Jesus Christ can be shaped or tailored into almost any personality type and lifestyle that suits their preference.”[176]  This is most apparent in the music of the contemporary Christian youth culture.  They claim to respect God’s word while presenting a Jesus which conforms to their image or that of their audience.  One Christian rock band defends their defiant tone in this way:

Christianity is about rebellion.  Jesus Christ is the biggest rebel to ever walk the face of the earth. … He was crucified for his rebellion.  Rock ‘n’ roll is about the same thing – rebellion. … To me rock and the church go hand in hand (Mark Stuart of Audio Adrenaline, Pensacola News Journal, Pensacola, Florida, March 1, 1998, pp. 1, 6E).[177]

Such expressions ought to be rebuked for their falsehood.  Whenever truth is altered for the sake of relevance, it ceases to be real.

 Fundamental Christianity has identified seven key components of biblical Christology.  While most appear in the historic creeds of Christian history, their validity is supported by the light of Scripture.  In a time of abundant false prophecy and teaching, Isaiah stated, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:20).”  This is equally applicable today.  With regard to Jesus Christ:

1. He is fully God and fully human.  He is the second Person of the Trinity (John 1:1, 14, 17-18; Colossians 2:9).

2. He was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-28).

3. He lived a sinless life (Matthew 4:1-12; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22).

4. He died on the cross, taking the full punishment for our sins (Colossians 1:20; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:7).

5. He was raised physically from the dead (Luke 24:1-8, 37-43; John 2:19-22; 20:12).

6. He will physically return to earth one day to judge mankind (Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 1:11; 1 Corinthians 15:22-25; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18).

7. Jesus Christ is the only way to God (John 3:15-18; 14:6; Acts 4:12).[178]

Chapter 9 – From Eternity to Galilee

In The Beginning Was the Word

The Preexistent Christ

The Word - The very first chronological reference to the Lord Jesus Christ is found in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”  John 1:14 unites this Word with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. 

This rare designation of Jesus Christ is unique to the writings of the Apostle John, (John 1:1-14, 1 John 1:1; Revelation 19:13).  The Son is called “the Word” because He serves a unique revelatory function in the Godhead.  “This title indicates that Christ is God’s personal communication to man. … It reminds us that Jesus speaks for God in an absolute, final sense.”[179]  Hebrews 1:1-2 tells how God used His Son to be His tool of expression.  “Among the members of the Trinity it is especially God the Son who in His person as well as in His words has the role of communicating the character of God to us and of expressing the will of God for us.”[180]

In the opening of John’s gospel, the Word is responsible for creation, for life, and for light.  The Word reveals God in creation, but His most articulate expression is incarnation (John 1:14, 18).  The Word reveals to man the glory of the Father, that which is full of grace and truth.

Three supernatural truths about the Word spring from John 1:1-3.  First, the Son is eternally preexistent.  “In whatever way the phrase ‘in the beginning’ may be understood … the paramount fact is that He, the Word was preexistent to it.  Whenever creation had a beginning He was already there.  There was not beginning to His being.”[181]

The second truth reveals the unique personhood of the Word.  The Bible announces that He was with God.  The phrase precisely states that the Word has “a conscious personal existence distinct from God (as one is from the person he is ‘with’).”[182]

The preposition is not sun, which signifies “accompaniment,” or meta, which suggests accompaniment with mutual interest, but pros, which is expressive of a personal attitude toward and occupation with the One whose presence is being experienced.[183]

The third truth proclaims the Deity of the Word.  It is stated so directly that those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ train their attack against this passage.  The absence of a definite article before theos has led certain cults to assert that the Word was a god, but not the God, Jehovah.  Had the Scriptures humored this idea by inserting this article, a different heresy would have been produced.  “By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ὁ θεος ἠν ὁ λογος. … That would mean that all of God was expressed in ὁ λογος … and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article.”[184]  The grammar does not allow the passage to be translated that the Word was a god, or that He was divine.  “The Greek construction emphasizes that the Word had all the essence or attributes of deity, i.e., Jesus the Messiah was fully God.”[185]

In His wisdom, God forbids His people to create images to characterize Him.  The tabernacle and the temple were unique in their day in that they were free from imagery.  God chose to reveal Himself through the Word, the Son of God.  No image can accurately portray the infinite Word of God.  In the truest sense of the word, God is humanly unimaginable, but He is revealed in His Son.

Son of God - In His preexistent state, Christ has been and always will be the Son of God.  Those who view theology from an evolutionary methodology insist that the concept of Jesus as the “Son of God” developed long after the events in Acts.  Its origins, they insist, are found in pagan thought in which rulers were considered to be sons of the respective gods of a land, and who are thus given authority to establish a sacral society.  It is alleged that no contemporaneous reference to Jesus as being the Son of God exists in either the Gospels or Acts.  John’s Gospel is filled with this title, but this is because it was written around a.d. 90 when controversies surrounding the divine nature of Jesus Christ were swirling.  According to this theory, John essentially put “orthodox” words into Jesus’ mouth.

Such a theory denies the evidence in Old Testament theology.  The nation is called the son of God in Exodus 4:22.  “In all these texts the title … expresses both the idea that God has chosen this people for a special mission, and that his people owe him absolute obedience.”[186]  By virtue of his position, the king of Israel stands as the singular head of this relationship (2 Samuel 7:14).

However, the pious Jew never personally identifies himself a “son of God.”  His father is Abraham or Jacob, and their father’s God is his God.  This explains the outrage in John 5:18.  Only on one occasion in the New Testament did the Jews declare that God was their Father (John 8:38-44).  This came after insisting that Abraham was their father, and that Jesus’ “father” was uncertain.  Jesus made it clear that His Father was God and that their father was the devil.

The Gospels appear to diverge from the Old Testament patterns.  The Old Testament challenged people to know the God of their fathers, while the New Testament challenges believers to know the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and establish an unprecedented intimacy with God.  Within the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus repeatedly reveals a Father and son relationship between God and believers.  The pattern for prayer becomes, “Our Father, which art in heaven.”  This poses one important question:

Did Jesus consider God to be his Father in precisely the same sense that God is the Father of all, or did he think of his relationship to the Father as being unique?  While this question has generated considerable controversy, it appears that Jesus was conscious of having a unique relationship to the Father.[187]

Theologians with a high view of the inspiration of the Scriptures are convinced that when the title “Son of God” is applied to Jesus, it is a clear statement of His Deity.  While critics may argue that the “historical” Jesus never claimed to be Deity, the evidence of Scriptures is without dispute.

There are nevertheless instances in which the phrase “Son of God” refers to Jesus as the heavenly, eternal Son who is equal to God himself (see Matt. 11:25-30; 17:5; 1 Cor. 15:28; Heb. 1:1-3, 5, 8).  This is especially true in John’s gospel where Jesus is seen as a unique Son from the Father (John 1:14, 18, 34, 49) who fully reveals the Father (John 8:19; 14:9).  As Son he is so great that we can trust in him for eternal life (something that could be said of no created being (John 3:16, 36; 20:31)).  He is also the one who has all authority from the Father to give life, pronounce eternal judgment, and rule over all (John 3:36; 5:20-22, 25; 10:17; 16:15).  As Son he has been sent by the Father, and therefore he existed before he came into the world (John 3:37; 5:23; 10:36).[188]

The title “Son of God” does not refer to the origin of Jesus Christ.  “It does not indicate that Jesus is derived from God, as some groups say.  If He were, He could not be as fully deity as the Father is.  Since His deity is fully affirmed in the Bible, He must be eternal, as are the Father and Spirit.”[189]

Though the phrase “son of” can mean “offspring of,” it also carries the meaning “of the order of.” Thus in the Old Testament “sons of the prophets” meant of the order of prophets (1 Kings 20:35), and “sons of the singers” meant of the order of the singers (Neh. 12:28). The designation “Son of God” when used of our Lord means of the order of God and is a strong and clear claim to full Deity.[190]

The Son’s authority is emphasized in the gospels.  During His earthly ministry, the religious leaders professed to worship Jehovah God while at the same time rejecting Jesus Christ.  According to Jesus, this dichotomy was impossible.  Whoever receives the Father must receive and respect His Son.  Whoever rejects the Son raises his fist in rebellion against the Father as well.

Matthew 21:33-46 relates the parable of the vineyard owner and the wicked husbandmen.  In desperation, the owner purposes to send his son.  He is convinced, “They will reverence my son.”  Nonetheless, instead of yielding, the husbandmen purpose to slay the son.  Jesus asked the religious leaders to pass judgment on what should happen.  They emphatically pronounced the death sentence upon such rebellion without realizing that they were the criminals.

The Lord - Within the Greek New Testament, it is possible to use the name “Lord” in a common or profane way.  The term could refer to nothing more than the owner of livestock or slaves (Luke 19:33; Romans 14:4), or it could be merely an expression of respect (Matthew 13:27), but such usage is in the minority in the English Bible.  Strong’s Concordance analyzes these occurrences in its Greek Dictionary.  kurios has “748 occurrences; AV translates as ‘Lord’ 667 times, ‘lord’ 54 times, ‘master’ 11 times, ‘sir’ six times, ‘Sir’ six times, and translated miscellaneously four times.”[191]  

When used in a sacred context, the Greek word kurios is used to translate one of two Old Testament titles for God.  Adonai was the less sacred title, stressing God’s ownership.  This name was frequently used by superstitious Jews as an attempt to protect the other sacred name of God, Jehovah, from profanity.  This name was reserved alone for the covenant-keeping God of the Jewish people.  Jehovah was His name stressing His existence and faithfulness. 

Throughout the New Testament, the title is frequently applied to Jesus Christ.  In Philippians 2:11, the time is promised when every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  Such a confession could only relate to His deity.

The name to which Paul referred with the definite article is kurios. This is saying that Jesus is Jehovah. Peter had affirmed the same thing in Acts 2:36, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.” In Revelation John speaks of him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (17:14; 19:16). No more exalted language is known to the human tongue to praise God.[192]

Jehovah - “I Am” - The name “Jesus” is a contraction of the Hebrew name “Joshua.”  When translated, the name means “Jehovah saves.”  Jesus made unmistakable statements about Himself that defined Him as Jehovah.  “Where John uses the verb to be to express absolute existence … we have direct references or parallels to that Old Testament passage.”[193]  Simply stated, when Jesus called Himself “I am” He was unmistakably identifying Himself as Jehovah.  When He affirmed His title, His enemies reached for stones once and fell backwards to the ground on another occasion (John 18:5-6).  He claimed for Himself the divine attributes of eternity and immutability.

The evidence for equating Jesus, the Son of God with Jehovah God of the Old Testament is abundant.  Both the Apostle John and the Apostle Paul cite Jehovah passages in the Old Testament and apply them to Jesus.

In Isa. 6, the prophet sees a vision of Jehovah, surrounded with every circumstance of divine majesty. But John 12:41, explains: “These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him.” Isa. 14:22, 23; Jehovah says: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth”; but Rom. 14:11, and 1 Cor. 1:30, evidently apply the context to Jesus Christ.[194]

The Epistle by Jude also draws the same conclusion.

Jude also refers to Jesus as Lord, which is a title of deity (cf. v. 25). Lord is the New Testament equivalent of Yahweh (Jehovah) and is a clear statement of deity; Jude equates Jesus with Yahweh of the Old Testament (cf. v. 5). Jude further calls Jesus “Messiah,” the Anointed One (cf. v. 25), who was the anticipated Redeemer and Ruler in the Old Testament. Although Jude is brief, he nonetheless gives a magnificent statement extolling the grandeur of Christ.[195]

The Preexistent Christ and Worship - The basis for worship of the Son of God is critical.  Isaiah 42:8 states emphatically that God does not share His glory with others.  In spite of this, Jesus readily accepted such worship.  The Bible-believing Christian is left with but one of two possibilities: either Jesus is indeed God, or He is the agent of Lucifer who demands that glory which God reserves only for Himself.  No “good man” or holy angel of God has ever accepted such worship.  The New Testament leaves little doubt regarding His deity, and the fact that Jesus did accept divine worship speaks volumes about His place in worship today.  “Since the resurrected Jesus quietly accepted Thomas’ reverent and worshipping words, … contemporary Christians follow the example of the first generation believers and worship Jesus without hesitation.”[196]

Similarly, the exclusive worship of Jesus Christ as God enraged Roman authorities.  Christians found themselves in the same position as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did some 600 years before Christ.  The gods of the nation were demanding worship that belonged only to Jesus Christ.  Those who would not bend the knee to society’s deities were libeled as traitors and given the option of renunciation or death.  Historical tradition records Polycarp’s powerful words announced moments before he was burned alive, “For eighty-six years I have been His (Jesus Christ’s) servant, and He has never done me wrong:  how can I blaspheme my king who saved me? (Eusebius, History of the Church, IV, 15).”[197]  If Jesus is indeed the Son of God, Polycarp offered the supreme worship offering, but if not, his act was one of irreversible, foolish zeal.

When one worships Jesus, he worships the timeless God of the universe.  When this concept is grasped, there remains no room for any trivial expressions regarding the Second Person of the Trinity.  The eternal God became human flesh in order to offer His gift of infinite love.  Any degradation of His precious name, the Lord Jesus Christ, by one who claims to know Him is incomprehensible.  The Savior’s name should never be taken in vain.

The Promised Christ

Messiah - The Christ - The varied offices and activities as revealed by the Old Testament prophets indicate the promised Messiah would function in a multitude of ways - primarily in the roles of prophet, priest, and king.  The title serves as a general description of His activities, identifying a specific, promised person.  Old Testament hopes were fixed upon the one whom God would send to be their ultimate human savior and sovereign.

Throughout the Old Testament people who were called to special positions of authority were anointed: prophet, priest, or king.  “Often (Israel’s kings), like the judges (Jud. 13:25), were given the Holy Spirit to equip them for their special work (1 Sam. 10:10).”[198]

In the midst of these examples, the Old Testament Scriptures identify one specific “anointed one” who will lead Israel.  “We are dealing now with a title which had its origin above all in the Jewish hope for the future.”[199] 

More than 400 Old Testament passages were taken by ancient Jewish teachers to speak of the Messiah (Gen. 3:15; Ps. 2:2; 22:7, etc.). But in spite of the extensive Old Testament revelation, Jews did not expect the Messiah as He is found in the New Testament.[200]

Three offices of mediation were fused fully and permanently into one human being.  The Mosaic system exemplified a division of powers.  The prophet was set apart for communication.  His calling was always discerned by his fidelity to the truth.  The priests were descendents of Levi, set apart for propitiation, and the king, a descendent of Judah, served in the capacity of adjudication.  It was his first duty, not to express his lordship over God’s flock, but to enforce and mandate whatever God had revealed.  At a brief point in Israel’s history both Moses and Samuel embodied all three activities in an imperfect way.  Many Old Testament characters functioned simultaneously in two offices, but Messiah would be the perfect mediator revealing the invisible God to mankind, reconciling sinful man to a holy God, and rewarding each individual with just judgment for his response to God’s demands.  

Jesus was Israel’s Messiah from the moment of His human conception.

What Mary conceived was “from the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:20). The point of the virgin birth is to show that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit in a more glorious and more permanent way than were the earlier prophets, priests, and kings whose combined work he would far surpass. Jesus is the “Christ” not because he was given the Spirit of God for a specific time only, but because the gift of the Spirit defines him in his very nature.[201]

John’s Baptism did not supply the anointing for the Christ; it publicly verified the miracle.  Old Testament anointings were abrogated by disobedience or death, but the Messianic anointing was permanent.  The identification of Jesus of Nazareth with the promised Messiah is beyond denial.

Regrettably, Israel’s response was typical.  Messiah’s primary calling to them was to deliver them from Rome.  The pollsters of Jesus’ day would have identified this as the Jewish man’s “perceived need.”  They wanted Messiah to release them from Gentile tyranny.  They desired deliverance without repentance. 

Some Jewish sects in that day were looking for two Messiahs, a Davidic Messiah and a Levitical Messiah.  The Pseudepigrapha errantly states that the Messianic King would yield to the Messianic Priest, creating a type of papacy.[202]  On the other hand, most people demanded only a delivering King. Such a Messianic position was offered during Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness.  Later, when people tried to make Him king, Jesus did not view this as progress.  Instead He withdrew from them.  Their concept of His Messianic identity was clouded by their perceived needs.

Jesus was a disappointment to the Jews of His day.  They hitched their hopes to a Messiah who would look past their humiliation and restore them to their greatness.  Such a Messiah would judge the gross sins of the Gentiles and look past the foibles of the Jews.  This is not what Jesus did.  “He based salvation upon repentance and heart righteousness and a proper spiritual relation to God.”[203]

In spite of divine declaration, the Gospels indicate that Jesus was reticent in applying the title of Messiah to Himself (Mark 8:29-30).  It seems strange that the Messianic identity would be proclaimed by the Old Testament prophets, whispered by Jesus, and then published by the apostles.  The Savior’s reluctance broke on the day of His resurrection (Luke 24:21, 25-27).

Perhaps the greatest singular reason for resisting the title of Messiah involved the omniscience and integrity of Jesus.  Jesus knew that when He used the term, His understanding differed from those who received what He said.  He spoke of the fullness of His anointed mission while His audience thought only of His deliverance.  For this reason, Jesus used expressive titles, such as the Son of Man, to identify the specifics of His anointed work. 

There are many other terms that suggest this same concept of God’s perfect delegate. Seed of Abraham, Son of David, Son of Man, My servant, My Elect, the Branch, Prince of Peace, Word, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father—all of these are Messianic terms in the sense that they point forward to or describe the work of God’s ideal individual, although they also may suggest other features of Christ’s character or work.[204]

Once His redemptive work was completed, the Messianic title enabled the believer to see the vast scope of His Christological ministry.

The Son of Man - Of all the Messianic titles, this was the one most chosen by Jesus for Himself. 

The most cherished self-designation of our Lord was “Son of man.”  In the four Gospels it occurs at least eighty-two times, always on His own lips except once when the bystanders ask what He means by this title (John 12:34).  Outside the gospel records it is found once in Acts (7:56) and twice in Revelation (1:13; 14:14).[205]

The significance of this title is disputed.  Those who look to etymology will link the phrase to Aramaic thinking.  Similar to the concept of the “Son of God” the phrase speaks not of His origin but of His genuine humanity.  God became real human flesh.

If the title Son of God describes Christ’s deity, glory, and infinity, then Son of Man highlights His humanity, humility, and finiteness. If as Son of God Jesus is omnipotent and self-sufficient, as Son of Man He is pushed around and dependent. The Son of Man got wet when it rained.[206]

While never denying His deity, such an interpretation lends itself to a WWJD type of application.  Jesus in His perfect humanity felt every bump and bruise common to man.  Even the Daniel 7 passage is seen as exuding not eschatology but humanity.  “Should we ever feel that life has no point, we must recall that with the Son of Man we have a glorious future (Dan. 7:13; Heb. 2:9–10).”[207]

Others teach that the phrase declares exclusively an eschatological concept.  Daniel 7:13-14 is the key that unlocks the understanding of what Jesus precisely wanted to communicate.  Passages which have no immediate eschatological ties are infused with deep revelatory consequence when the phrase “Son of man” appears.  Jesus describes His present living conditions as far from glorious.  While foxes and birds had homes, the Son of man had no where to lay His head.  “This saying indicates that the Son of Man gave up his heavenly home to suffer all the humiliations of his earthly ministry (Phil 2:5–11).”[208]

While the arguments from both sides are compelling, the fact is that Jesus never precisely defined this phrase.  It is alleged by some that Jesus purposefully substituted the phrase “Son of man” for Messiah so that He might accurately teach regarding His mission without being saddled with first-century Jewish biases.

Most Bible teachers accept both thoughts.  “The title implies more than just earthly status – it connotes supernatural origin and status as well.  Accordingly, it amounts to an implicit claim to deity.”[209]

(The Son of Man is the) Messianic title used by Jesus to express his heavenly origin, earthly mission, and glorious future coming. It does not refer merely to his human nature or humanity, as some church fathers or contemporary scholars believe. Rather, it reflects on the heavenly origin and divine dignity of Jesus, on the mystery of his manifestation in human form, and on his earthly mission that took him to the cross and then into glory.[210]

To force one line of thought upon the other appears counterproductive.  The context must be critical to the meaning.  In Matthew 9:6 Jesus declares that the Son of man has power to forgive sins.  While the phrase has obvious human and eschatological significance, at face value Jesus is declaring His deity.  He is the promised Messiah.

Other Messianic Titles - The very first verse of the entire New Testament identifies Jesus as Christ, the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham.  The mention of both Abraham and David is deliberate (Matthew 1:17).  Abraham is vital, for Israel’s Messiah would be the channel of blessing for all of the families of the earth (Genesis 12:3).  In every other New Testament passage, the title identifies ethnicity, but in Matthew 1:1, Jesus, the Son of Abraham, is the fulfillment of promise.

The synonymous nature of Messiah and the Son of David was undisputed within the rabbinic literature in Jesus’ day (Matthew 22:42). 

The view among the Jewish people at the time of Christ was that the Messiah, the Son of David, would come to free Israel from her enemies and set up the “kingdom of David” and establish His throne, and in this regard there is a surprising unity of teaching.[211]

Messiah’s physical lineage needed to trace itself back to David.  The promises made to him regarding the coming King are repeated in the Old Testament (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Psalms 89, 110, 132).  The literal fulfillment of this promise is supported by the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5; Ezekiel 34:23).  As with the title, Messiah, Jesus honored those who identified Him by this title, but He never used it of Himself.

Messiah and the New Testament Saint - Dispensational and covenant theology are at odds when discerning the Messianic role of Jesus in the present age.  Both will readily affirm that the Messianic identity of Jesus Christ is distinctively tied to the Old Testament Jewish people.  He was their Messiah.  To them alone He would appear and through them alone all families of the earth would be blessed.  He would be their king and reign from Jerusalem.  All the nations of the earth would be blessed or cursed based upon their acceptance or rejection of the Jewish Messiah.

The covenant theologian views the difference between the Old and New Testaments as an upgrade, from the typical kingdom of Israel to the antitypical kingdom of the Church.  Therefore, as the new Jewish people, the Messianic promises become the promises to the Church for the terms church and kingdom become synonymous.  Jesus is now the Church’s Messiah, and all families of the earth are blessed as they yield to Him and His gospel message.  The Church is a people of great dignity and the non-Christian world will one day answer to God for how she is treated.  The literal nature and timing of Jesus’ second coming may be a matter of dispute, but it is certain to them that there is no “rapture” of any “Church” followed by seven years of tribulation.

In contrast, The dispensationalist sees the New Testament era as parenthetical, bridging the time between the rejected King (first advent) and the received King (second coming).  Jesus has not ceased to be the Messiah to the Jewish nation, and the literal fulfillment of the Messianic promises will one day be realized.  Though His national plan has been temporarily set aside, the individual Jew can respond rightly to the treasure God has delivered to him as a Jew and accept the promised Messiah for himself.  The church age saint is a person of humility – much the same as the veiled incarnate Savior was during the days of His flesh.  The world will be judged by what they do with his Savior and not by what they do with the servant (although Jesus takes the persecution of His messengers as a personal affront). 

The believing Gentile bows before the loving Messiah today in much the same way as the magi who looked for the King of the Jews and worshiped Him when He was found.   They live as people of faith in a way that parallels the believing centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant.  Cornelius was not made clean by becoming a Jew.  When he placed his personal faith in Jesus Christ, God pronounced him clean (“What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common.”), and Holy Spirit baptism proved that a believing Gentile was now a part of the Christ’s church.

To begin with, all believers are the recipients of divine favor through the Messiah. … Through Israel all the elect from the nations are blessed secondarily through association with God’s chosen ideal individual. This is the point of Rom. 11:12–24 and Paul’s concept of grafting.[212]

After His resurrection and exaltation, the New Testament most frequently identifies this Second person of the trinity as either Lord or Christ.  Lord relates to the Hebrew concept of Jehovah and Christ relates to Messiah.  The Deity and Messianic identity of Jesus are critical New Testament concepts.  His resurrection and ascension prove he never ceased to be either Jehovah or Messiah.  He has promised to come again and establish His kingdom.  He will then rule as perfect prophet, priest, and king embodied in one visible entity.  Some covenant theologians teach that this promise stands fulfilled, but most dispensationalists await this activity with joy.  For a dispensationalist to identify Christ’s work today on earth as Messianic is confusing and counterproductive to a literal hermeneutic.

The Promised Christ and Worship - In this day, churches are being called upon to meet people’s needs in many areas – worship included.  Messiah came the first time to do just this.  While a case may be made that Jesus went about Galilee meeting man’s physical and educational needs, the New Testament reveals that He came to meet man’s greatest spiritual needs.  Each person who was healed experienced the pure compassion and kindness of Messiah, but each healing served the greater purpose of revealing the Messiah.

The ministry of Jesus was never about meeting “perceived needs.”  In the Bread of Life discourse (John 6), Jesus declared that the feeding in the wilderness was not about hunger prevention.  Jewish tradition proclaimed that the “second Moses” would restore the miracle of manna.  If Jesus would just keep the food coming, they were inclined to identify Him as Messiah.  Jesus rebuked this request (John 6:26-27) and ordered them to embrace their true spiritual needs instead of their perceived ones.  American “seekers” similarly desire Jesus to meet the perceived needs of the audience.  If He will relieve them from their illnesses, financial bondage, addictions, depressions and divisions, then they will consider His call for personal regeneration.  Jesus sought to win men, not just please them or satisfy their physical needs.  The winsome nature of worship must never lose focus of the real mission.

Furthermore, it is critical that the believer recognizes the anti-premillennial content of some of the “accepted” songs of worship.  A proper understanding of Christ’s Messianic identity must not confuse His first advent, His second coming, and His present headship over the church, nor should it confuse the humble role of the New Testament saint with his future exalted rule and reign with Christ.  The premillennial believer is realistic in recognizing man’s inability in his own power to establish God’s kingdom.  2 Timothy 3:12, 13 states that godliness will always be met with persecution, and that evil men and seducers will only get worse with time.  It is therefore clear that in this present age Jesus does not “rule the world with truth and grace.”  While local revivals are always gifts from God, there is no promise that “the darkness will turn to the dawning, and the dawning to noonday bright, And Christ’s great kingdom will come to earth.”  Nor is the New Testament saint ruling in this world today as implied: “Majesty, kingdom authority flow from His throne unto His own, His anthem raise.”  These pleasant thoughts are delusional.  Messiah arrived the first time at a time of great need, and He will come again when the earth has had its fill of sin and death.  Only then shall Messiah rule.  Praise and worship should express with confidence the glorious return of Messiah to rule and reign.

And the Word Was Made Flesh

The Condescending Christ

The Father’s Servant - In his description of the mindset of Christ Jesus, Paul states that He “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7).”  His role as God’s Servant came at a high price.  In order for this to happen, the Eternal Son, “made himself of no reputation.”  Theologians refer to this action as the “Kenosis” (borrowed from the Greek word in Philippians 2:7) of the Eternal Son.

As Jesus ministered on earth, He embraced the title, Servant of the Lord, as a description of who He was.  On the surface, such a name would appear innocuous.  Many obedient Old Testament saints were described in this way.

However, the later portion of the book of Isaiah describes a Messianic being known as “the Servant of the Lord.”  Four or five pericopes are identified as Servant Songs (42:1-7; 49:1-6; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12; and possibly 61:1-3).  As the Ethiopian eunuch read aloud from Isaiah 53, he asked, “Of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man?”  When the passage is read in its full context (Isaiah 40-66) the question is warranted.  “At times it seems quite clear that the servant (of Isaiah) refers collectively to the nation of Israel. … Sometimes … (it) seems to refer to … the righteous remnant who remained faithful to the Lord.”[213]  Philip rightly identified Jesus Christ as the person of this Servant Song.  So, too, did other New Testament writers.  They, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, identified Jesus Christ as the subject of each of the Songs.  Even Jesus applies the first Song to Himself (Matthew 12:14-21).

The reaction of Judaism was mixed.  The reason Jesus’ identification of Himself as the Servant of the Lord was not rebuked was in part due to the confusion of those who considered the testimony of the Old Testament regarding this matter.

We may say in conclusion that official Judaism at the time of Jesus – even in Palestine – did not include atoning suffering as a necessary part of the messianic idea, and that even if one can actually show the existence of the conception of a suffering Messiah, it was at best marginal and weak.[214]

The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 remains an enigma to the unbelieving Jew.

Still, the truth has never been an enigma to God the Son.  Jesus did many wonderful and noble works during His life on earth, all of which pleased and honored His Father.  Every word He spoke and every person He touched served His Father’s purpose, but the primary task of the Servant of the Lord would involve His substitutionary sacrifice for mankind.  In rich imagery, John Bunyan portrays the day when the Eternal Son chose to become the Servant.

Well, when the King and his son were retired into the privy chamber, there they again consulted about what they had designed before, to wit, that as Mansoul should in time be suffered to be lost, so as certainly it should be recovered again.  Recovered, I say, in such a way, as that both the King and his Son would get themselves eternal fame and glory thereby.

Wherefore, after this consult, the Son of Shaddai … having stricken hands with his Father and promised that he would be his servant to recover his Mansoul again, stood by his resolution nor would he repent of the same.  The purpose of which agreement was this: to wit, that at a certain time prefixed by both, the King’s Son should take a journey into the country of Universe, and there, in a way of justice and equity, by making amends for the follies of Mansoul, he should lay a foundation of her perfect deliverance from Diabolus and from his tyranny.[215]

Isaiah 53 states that the Servant would fully experience the agony of the cross, but it also states that He would enjoy the victory that followed.

As “servant” he would suffer death for the sins of the people, but he would triumph and have such “success” that the kings of the earth would be silenced in his presence (Isa. 52:13-15). He would live to see his “offspring” and to receive the victor’s spoils (Isa. 53:10-12).[216]

All of this is comprehended in Philippians 2:5-11.  Jesus Christ is set forth as the perfect example of the selfless mindset.  Three indicative verbs describe the condescension which resulted in His human corpse to be laid in a garden tomb.  He first allowed Himself to be distinguished as God, the Son – the second member of the trinity, (v. 6).  This step took place outside of human sight in eternity.  The second step took place at Bethlehem, when He became Jesus, the God-man.  As God walked in human flesh among men, He made Himself of no reputation (v. 7).  The condescending Jesus was identified simply as the prophesied “Servant of God.”  While this step into humanity is impossible to fully comprehend, the last step thrusts the judicious nature of man into a tailspin.  At Calvary, Jesus allowed Himself to become sin for the entire world.  The humble Jesus became the most despised man in the history of the world.  As His adversaries mocked Him, spat upon Him, and crucified Him, they did not acknowledge that this cruelty was being inflicted actually upon God, Himself.

Most modern translators and theologians refer to this as the “self-emptying” of Jesus Christ.  This concept is derived in part from the woodenly literal definition of kenoō: “make empty; (1) literally remove the content of something”[217]  English translators as early as Tyndale apparently felt obliged to go beyond a word-for-word rendering to express a thought borne out by both theology and context.  “The A.V. ‘made Himself of no reputation’ partakes of the nature of a comment instead of a translation.”[218]  Still, the “comment” is warranted in this context.

Warfield considers the translation “emptied himself” (ASV) as an error, apparently preferring the Authorized Version rendering, “made himself of no reputation,” i.e., emptied Himself of the manifestations of deity (Warfield, Christology and Criticism, 375).  The crux of the exposition of this important passage hangs on the definition of the act of kenosis. Orthodox theologians have pointed out that the meaning of this word must be interpreted by the context itself. The passage does not state that Christ ceased to exist in the form of God, but rather that He added the form of a servant.[219]

Confusion is introduced by the concept of the “self-emptied” Christ whenever the inquiring mind of man asks, “What did Jesus leave behind when He came to earth?”  In order to be the God-man, Jesus could not have afforded to lose any aspect of His deity.  Most theological expositions regarding the “Kenosis” use Philippians 2:7 as a launching pad for speculation and rarely examine the context framing this key verse.  The Second person of the Trinity was not in any way diminished by His incarnation.

Each of the indicative verbs in Philippians 2:5-11 indicates that the condescension of Jesus was in no way forced upon Him, not even by God, the Father.  His humiliation was purely voluntary; He fully comprehended the price before He left Heaven.  With the purest of motives He yielded fully to His Father’s will and suffered to save humanity from the consequence of its rebellion.

The Bible reveals many real needs that were met by this condescension.  The first on the list must be that of redemption.  “Though there are a number of reasons stated in Scripture for the Incarnation, the principal one was that He might save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). To do this required Incarnation; that is, God in flesh.”[220]  “It is not putting the matter too strongly when we say that the incarnation was for the purpose of the atonement.”[221]  This work is foundational to destroying the works of the devil.

Beyond redemption, the humiliation served a revelatory purpose, for the invisible God was seen by finite men.  Jesus revealed the sympathy and care of God as He walked on this earth.  His interaction with humanity proved that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  To the believer, the humiliation of the Son of God provides an example of how a child of God conducts himself in this present world.  Jesus demonstrated how true holiness interacts with a sin-stained society and its self-righteous element.  The most vital aspect of the Christ-like life is an absolute dependence upon God the Father.

In the context of Philippians, this example of humiliation also applies to the local church body.  Paul pleads with the church to cease from godless self-assertion and to imitate Jesus Christ in self-denial.  Jesus accepted the foolish rejections of people during His earthly ministry.  His suffering and death on the cross at the hands of mankind did not negate the reality of His eternal, divine person.  Likewise, the fact that He was unrecognized and rejected by His creation and His people did not diminish the reality of His person.  He never asserted Himself; instead, He awaited God’s gifted exaltation and promise that one day, every knee shall bow at His name. 

Still, the humiliation was necessary for Messianic reasons.  If God was to be true, His promises required fulfillment.  If Messiah was to be a sympathetic High Priest, He needed to be racially identified with mankind.  To qualify as God’s judge, He needed to be genetically related to David.

The Condescending Christ and Worship - Based upon the example of Jesus Christ, humility and meekness ought to prevail in the church.  The Scriptures say, "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others (Philippians 2:3-4).”

Worship must never be viewed as an opportunity for self-advancement.  It is never about the performer; it is only about the performer’s God.   Neither is worship about self-esteem; it is about esteeming others better than self.  In His condescension the Savior moved from Heaven where He was appreciated most to earth where He was needed most.  Such an act is incredible to a fleshly Christian.  He desires to worship in the place where he is most appreciated, and he will engage in self-promotion to escape his current, unappreciated status.  He may even compromise his doctrinal convictions to be a part of a larger work because his talents are too valuable to be wasted on a small church.  Such was not the mind of Jesus Christ.

Worship should never be about the applause.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus revealed how the Pharisees used worship to receive praise from men.  They made much noise when they gave, they prayed loudly in the most public places, and they dirtied their faces when they fasted.  While giving, praying, and fasting are all acceptable acts of worship, they are negated if the driving force behind them is the applause of men.  If one’s ambition in his worship acts is recognition, he should seek the largest audience he can find on this earth because there is no reward waiting for him in heaven.

The Theanthropic Christ

The term theanthropic (or “theoanthropic”) is unique to Christianity, used to describe the unique person of Jesus Christ.  He is God in human flesh; singular in being with two distinct natures.

It is by far the most amazing miracle of the entire Bible—far more amazing than the resurrection and more amazing even than the creation of the universe. The fact that the infinite, omnipotent, eternal Son of God could become man and join himself to a human nature forever, so that infinite God became one person with finite man, will remain for eternity the most profound miracle and the most profound mystery in all the universe.[222]

The facts and the speculations surrounding this doctrine appeared in the earliest ages of Christian dogma.  The early creeds of Christendom proclaim this miracle, but usually in reaction or response to the heresies of the day.  While this is the very type of topic that theologians would love to dispute at the Areopagus, the conscientious believer realizes the gravity and precision needed to preserve the truth.  “The sanctity of the theme demands the reverence of unshod feet. Speculation is banned.”[223]

The doctrines related to the theanthropic person of Jesus proclaim a reality that surpasses human comprehension.  “It is important therefore for the student of the incarnation to examine with care what the Bible actually teaches on this subject and then to ascertain whether that teaching is self-consistent….”[224] 

The key text in the New Testament for interpreting the incarnation is not, therefore, the bare statement in John 1:14, ‘the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us’, but rather the more comprehensive statement of 2 Corinthians 8:9, ‘ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich.’  Here is stated, not the fact of the incarnation only, but also its meaning; the taking of manhood by the Son is set before us in a way which shows us how we should set it before ourselves and ever view it – not simply as a marvel of nature, but rather as a wonder of grace.[225]

The theanthropic doctrines present a common tension in theology – that tension between full deity and full humanity.  For instance, this tension parallels the very nature of Scriptures.

Christ is a theanthropic Person, and the Bible is a theanthropic Book. In both the human side is perfect, as is the divine. Just as it is unorthodox to try to explain away the divine nature of Christ in order to understand His human nature (as did the Arians), or to sacrifice His true human nature in order to explain His divine nature (as did the Docetics), so it is wrong to deny that the words of Scripture are both divine and human in their nature. The mistake is in trying to explain the inexplicable and in trying to fathom the unfathomable.[226]

The tension must always be embraced rather than ignored.  Man-made solutions that diminish one side or the other create false doctrine.

The Virgin Born Son - The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is well known, but in modern America, it is rarely appreciated.  Each Christmas season, the churches draw the attention of people to the events in Bethlehem about 2,000 years ago.  While all proclaim a special birth, the truth of the virgin birth is rarely received.  Many modern Christians honor the doctrine with their mouth but reject it in their heart.  They treat the miracle as a myth with timeless man-centered meaning.  One prominent, contemporary religious scholar testifies:

I found myself wholeheartedly singing the carols and listening to the stories of the child born in Bethlehem, angels breaking through the darkness to announce the miraculous birth – stories that most New Testament scholars, knowing that we have little or no historical information about Jesus’ birth, regard as a mixture of legend and midrash, that is, storytelling that draws upon Israel’s stories of the miraculous birth of Isaac, of the prophet Samuel, and of the rescue of the infant Moses. … For a moment I was shocked by the thought: We could have made all this up out of what had happened in our own lives; but, of course, we did not have to do that, for, as I realized once, countless other people have already done that, and have woven stories of innumerable lives in the stories of music, the meanings and visions of Jesus’ birth.  Thus such celebrations are borne along through all the generations that have shaped and reshaped them, and those that continue to do so, just as encountering the tradition may shape and reshape us.[227]

The gospel accounts of both Matthew and Luke describe the events from the eyes of Joseph and Mary respectively.  The content would lead the reader to believe that Luke may have personally interviewed Mary, for the details suggest an eye-witness.  Jesus was conceived in the womb of a discreet virgin.  Joseph, who had trouble accepting the miraculous nature of Mary’s conception, was told in a dream that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  His acceptance of things as they were was a step of great faith.  He was willing to sacrifice his own reputation to do God’s will.

Moreover, the reality of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is not confined to these two gospels.  New Testament doctrine both requires and announces this miracle.  “Throughout the rest of the New Testament there is consistent assumption that Christ is indeed the very Son of God and that He was born of a woman but not a man.”[228]  The seed that would bruise Satan’s head was not Adam’s seed, but Eve’s.  Humanity would never by procreation produce a deliverer, yet the seed of the woman would, and there is great significance in this fact.

 “Born of a woman!” A special significance attaches to this. The apostle hereby distinguishes the birth of Christ from that of all others. Were it not so he would just be stating a fact of common experience and wasting his words on a mere superfluity of detail. … For the apostle thus to speak of Christ is both to distinguish Him in accordance with His divine and preexistent Sonship as just set forth by him, and at the same time to testify both to His real humanity and His supernatural birth.[229]

The virgin birth in inexplicable by natural man.  In an animal shelter in Bethlehem the impossible occurred; God took on human flesh and dwelt in man’s world.

Immanuel - This name appears three times in Scriptures (Isaiah 7:14; 8:8; and Matthew 1:23) and means “God with us.”  In the midst of man’s hardness God supplied Isaiah’s prophecy.  A virgin would conceive and bear a son.  Skeptics have suggested less miraculous interpretations of Isaiah’s prophecy, but the name, Immanuel, defies worldly interpretations.  “A natural reading of the passage would lead us to expect that the presence of God is to be seen in the birth of the child himself.”[230]  “In his birth the presence of God is to be found. God has come to his people in a little Child, that very Child whom Isaiah later names ‘Mighty God’ (el gibbor).”[231]

With reference to Jesus, the Bible states that in Him all the fullness of the godhead resided bodily (Colossians 1:19; 2:9).  R. G. Lee preached, “His every muscle was a pulley divinely swung, His every nerve divine handwriting, His every bone divine sculpture, His every heartbeat divine pulsation, His every breath the whisper of deity.”[232]  The child born to Mary was in every way God, the Son.  On that day, God was manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).

The Second Man, the Last Adam - The truth of the incarnation of the Christ is hard enough to comprehend as a child of God.  To a lost world, the concepts are foolishness.  While Paul contrasts both Adams in 1 Corinthians 15:35-50 and in Romans 5:15-19, that fact is that both Adams were anthropological men.  The Son of God became fully human so that He might redeem humanity.  While it is more common for men to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, it is equally dangerous to deny His humanity.

The expression “likeness of men” in no way negatives the reality of His manhood. The apostle does not say “the likeness of a man,” but “the likeness of men,” i.e., as they actually are—a mode of existence new to Him. Only of One who was more than man could this be predicated. True manhood was His, and not a mere resemblance thereto. In becoming—what He was not before—man, He did not cease to be what He ever had been—God.[233]

His human existence was common and unworthy of His exalted status as God.  “In utter contrast to the dignity of the Son of God … the birth of Christ was in the rudest of circumstances.”[234]  The unlimited being subjected Himself to many frustrations common to man.  He experienced human development, human emotions and human limitations.  His hunger, thirst, and weariness were real.  Still all of this took place without ever diminishing His deity.  At conception, humanity was added to Deity.  “He had not ceased to be God; He was no less God than before; but He had begun to be man.  He was not now God minus some elements of His deity, but God plus all that He had made His own by taking manhood Himself.”[235]

Hypostatic Union - The union of human and divine natures in one being is incomprehensible.  It is at this point that the humbled man realizes that he is in essence walking on water at the bidding of his Savior.  He must keep his eyes on the Master, for once his gaze becomes fixed on his position he will begin to sink. 

This concept of the hypostatic or one-person union of the divine and human natures in one Person is probably one of the most difficult concepts to comprehend in theology. Not one of us has ever seen Deity except as the Scriptures reveal God, and not one of us has ever seen perfect humanity except as the Scriptures reveal pre-fallen Adam and our Lord. To try to relate these two concepts to the person of Christ adds complexities to ideas that are in themselves difficult to comprehend.[236]

To arrive at the biblical position regarding the union of the Theanthropic Christ requires stepping away from human experience and stepping toward divine revelation.  Both biblical authority and the doctrine of the Trinity must be assumed.  To grasp the union, full humanity must be added to full deity without corrupting either of the two, essentially “combining an infinite and eternal Person with one that is finite and temporal.”[237]  All of this sounds foolish to the natural man.  He rejects the steps of revelatory faith and presumes that he can rest safely in the boat.  His faith is placed in the theology of human knowledge and experience.

History is filled with the insufficient answers man has devised to explain the union of the Theanthropic Christ.  After more than two centuries of struggling, the Council of Chalcedon published a careful and biblical statement regarding this doctrine.

The Chalcedonian Creed stated that the two “natures” were united without mixture, without change, without division, and without separation. This means that the entire complex of the attributes of Deity and those of perfect humanity were maintained in Jesus Christ at all times since His Incarnation.[238]

The two natures did not combine to produce a new nature.  Nor did one impose itself upon the other so as to diminish it.

This Theanthropic Person is as much God as is the Father or the Holy Spirit; but neither the Father nor the Spirit has come into union with that which is human. Similarly, this Theanthropic Person is in every respect the embodiment of every feature of a true human being; but no other human being has ever been so united to the Godhead.[239]

It is curious to note that those who saw Jesus never appeared to struggle with this union.  “None of the Evangelists, however, calls attention to the apparent incongruity of this fact, or tries to resolve it.  It is as if they were unaware of any tension between Jesus’ being human and more than human.”[240]  Their doctrines are announced without any sense of apology.  Nor does the inspired word of God manifest any confusion as it boldly asserts both the perfect deity and the perfect humanity of the Christ (Phil. 2:6-11; John 1:1-14; Rom. 1:2-5; 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 1:1-3).  “Over and over again, such statements appear side by side without any contradiction in the divine Mind.”[241] 

The biblical doctrine of the Theanthropic Christ can only be revealed and received.  It will never be grasped by natural human intelligence.  The Nazarene was man, but He was never ordinary man.  He was also God in the flesh.

The Theanthropic Christ and Worship - The doctrines surrounding the perfect union of divinity and humanity within one person are beyond natural comprehension.  With regard to worship, the doctrines need to be fully embraced as taught in Scriptures.  Then, when their significance is grasped, believers need to stand back in awe and proclaim of Jesus Christ, “How Great Thou Art.”

The New Testament does not encourage us to puzzle our heads over the physical and psychological problem that (the incarnation) raises, but to worship God for the love that was shown in it.  For it was a great act of condescension and self-humbling. … And all this was for our salvation.[242]

On this doctrine, worship cannot afford to be naïve.  Sometimes, little compromises in doctrine plant mustard seeds of error in a church.  Within the English language people are acquainted with the expression, “not one iota of difference.”  While orthodoxy maintained that Jesus Christ possessed the “same” essence as the father, a moderating group, known as semi-Arians, began proclaiming that Jesus was of “similar” essence.  In the Greek, the two words are distinguished by one letter, an iota.  Those who defended orthodoxy recognized that this tiny rip in the fabric of theology would eventually shred the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ.

Worship cultivates the field of the heart in ways that no other aspect of ministry can.  Art can ready the heart to receive whatever seed is cast upon it.  This may be advantageous in a truth-resistant world.  “Art is often a back door to truth. Clearly, people are brought to faith through great aesthetics. The power of the art draws people to behold it. After a while they begin to wonder if the ideas that inspired it are true.”[243] 

However, the converse is also true; art can bring errors into a church that would be instantly and unapologetically dismissed if they appeared in a sermon or in the Sunday School curriculum.  In today’s pursuit of relevance, the temptation always exists to make Jesus Christ more human and earthy.  The blasphemous “Superstar” and “Godspell” portrayals of Jesus still impact people today.  It is critical that the worship of Jesus Christ honor Him perfectly for who He is, and not for who man understands Him to be or wants Him to be.  When worship is done, the participant must leave with a theanthropic Jesus, not just a human Jesus.

The Veiled Christ

Revelation - The Prophet - The first chapter of John’s gospel identifies Jesus as “the Word” and “the Light.”  These concepts indicate that in the years between Bethlehem and Calvary Jesus revealed the Father to His creation and specifically to His chosen people.  Regrettably, the Incarnate Word and Light was rejected by both groups.  Still, some did receive Him for precisely who He was, God’s only begotten Son.

Jesus asked the disciples what the view of the common man on the street was regarding Himself (Luke 9:18).  They replied that the people viewed Jesus as a divine prophet of God.  The perception of the people was not wrong - just shallow.

A blind man in John 9 was interrogated by the Pharisees.  When asked to identify his Healer, he first identified Jesus as a man.  As they brow-beat him, the man’s spine stiffened, and he identified Jesus as a prophet.  When the Pharisees tried to label Jesus as a false prophet, the man proclaimed that Jesus is a prophet of God, justified by the miracle of his sight.  He was cast out of the synagogue as were others who identified Jesus as the Messiah.  When he again met the One who healed him he accepted Jesus as the Son of God. 

To the average man, Jesus was a prophet of stature similar to John the Baptist, Elijah, or even Jeremiah.  Jesus embraced this aspect of His ministry, never denying it (Luke 4:24).  He revealed mysteries and exposited the Holy Scriptures.  The accompanying signs and wonders were not primarily designed to relieve human suffering.  Even the man who was born blind recognized that his miraculous sight was to prove God’s messenger.  As Moses resisted Pharaoh with signs and wonders, and as Elijah and Elisha rebuked Ahab and his descendents, so too, Jesus rebuked the religious establishment of His day with notable public miracles.

Jesus was not merely one in a line of prophets; He was the Prophet of all prophets.

In this sense Moses and all inspired men were prophets. But Christ was the personal “Word of God” incarnate, he who had eternally been “in the bosom of the Father,” and “known the Father”; and consequently as Mediatorial Prophet is that original fountain of revelation of which all other prophets are the streams. He is the Prophet of all prophets, the Teacher of all teachers.[244]

He was the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15 - anticipated and welcomed for a time in that day.

The qualifications for this prophet and all others who claimed to reveal God’s word to man were very precise.  Presumptuous prophets were condemned to death.

In Deuteronomy 18:15–22 and Deuteronomy 13:1–5 God listed five certifying signs by which a true prophet of God could be recognized: (1) a prophet must be an Israelite, “from among [his] own brothers” (Deut. 18:15); … (2) he must speak in the name of the Lord (…[Deut. 18:19]); (3) he must be able to predict the near as well as the distant future (… [Deut. 18:22]); (4) he must be able to predict signs and wonders (Deut. 13:2); and (5) his words must conform to the previous revelation that God has given (Deut. 13:2–3).[245]

His adversaries tried to label Jesus as a false prophet.  They ascribed His wonders to Beelzebub.  Their rejection resulted in the unpardonable sin, which in turn resulted in a dispensational change.  Those of the exodus who failed to respond to Moses’ prophetic office perished in the wilderness.  The prophet’s message was given to be parsed by its hearers, but to believe and receive.  Therefore, the prophetic utterances of Jesus Christ are incumbent upon all.

After the ascension, the importance of Jesus’ prophetic ministry becomes eclipsed by His present ministries.  “It is significant that in the Epistles Jesus is never called a prophet or the prophet. This is especially significant in the opening chapters of Hebrews …”[246]  Still this does not in any way diminish the three and one half years of prophetic ministry.  The words spoken by God the Father still ring true today, “This is My Beloved Son.  Hear ye Him.”

The Veiled Christ and Worship - One cannot rightly worship Jesus Christ without embracing His teaching.  It is God the Son who speaks!  “Therefore, both converted and unconverted, hear this Prophet with more reverence, attention, and desire.”[247]

For twenty years, a group identified as the “Jesus Seminar” has attacked all aspects of Jesus’ ministry.  In regard to His prophetic ministry, the seminar scholars have concluded that only 20% of the recorded teachings of Jesus Christ in the gospels are sufficiently authentic or believable.  The other 80% were ascribed to Him by later orthodox traditions.  The verifying miracles of Jesus are dismissed as either misunderstandings or fabrications of legend.

The Jesus Fellows believe the historical Jesus was simply a sage, a spinner of one-liners, a teller of parables, an effective preacher. This is what He was historically according to these scholars. The "high Christology" (supernatural phenomena, the messianic claims, the miracles, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection) all came as a result of a persecuted church community which needed a more powerful God for encouragement and worship. … The real Jesus was a winsome, bright, articulate peasant, sort of like Will Rogers.[248]

While the Pharisees tried to explain away Jesus as a false prophet, modern scholarship explains Him away as an exaggeration.  Such a Christ is unworthy of either obedience or worship.  When modernism adopts the clothing of any worship, especially traditional worship, it is flagrant hypocrisy.

Only those who accept the biblical record are able to worship Jesus Christ as God intended man to do.  Mary told the servants at the first miracle to do whatever Jesus commanded.  At the last supper Jesus said, "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me (John 14:21).”   The true worship of Jesus Christ requires both a reading and a doing of His commands.  Ignorance of the entire message of Jesus Christ diminishes the worship of Him.

You who are converted, know also that if you are not diligent in listening to Him, in continually beseeching Him, in expecting His answer, nor in following His counsel, He will remain silent, hide Himself more and more, and leave you in darkness. The more attentively and persistently you hear His instruction, however, the more He will reveal His secrets to you, and grant deeper insight into that which you may know already. His voice of instruction will be more enduring and efficacious within you. Therefore, “Hear attentively the noise of His voice, and the sound that goeth out of His mouth” (Job 37:2).[249]

Chapter 10 - From the Cross to the Sky

The Propitiatory Christ

Last Adam - Among professed believers, there is no dispute in the fact that Jesus lived a sinless life.  His thoughts, words, and actions were all unimpeachable. 

Sinlessness in our Lord means that He never did anything that displeased God or violated the Mosaic Law under which He lived on earth or in any way failed to show in His life at all times the glory of God (John 8:29). … But at every stage of His life, infancy, boyhood, adolescence, manhood, He was holy and sinless.[250]

Still a great debate rages as to whether or not Jesus was impeccable (without the capability of sin).  The biblical record does not answer this question directly.  In fact, it appears to be one of many divine paradoxes out of the reach of human comprehension.

The Bible tells us that “Jesus was tempted” and “Jesus was fully man” and “Jesus was fully God” and “God cannot be tempted.” This combination of teachings from Scripture leaves open the possibility that as we understand the way in which Jesus’ human nature and divine nature work together, we might understand more of the way in which he could be tempted in one sense and yet, in another sense, not be tempted.[251]

Those who assume that it was possible for Jesus to sin insist that the last Adam must be afforded no privilege over the first Adam.  He must have the same limitations if the contest is to be fair.  In addition, if no possibility of failure exists, then the temptation would not be real. 

If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocation; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with his people.[252]

Still, both the divine and human natures traveled in one person. 

Although Christ had two natures, He was nonetheless one Person and could not divorce Himself of His deity. Wherever He went, the divine nature was present. If the two natures could be separated then it could be said that He could sin in His humanity, but because the human and divine natures cannot be separated from the Person of Christ, and since the divine nature cannot sin, it must be affirmed that Christ could not have sinned.[253]

It would be impossible for the humanity of Christ to sin without affecting the deity.  The man in the wilderness was indeed God’s Son, but God’s Son understood the infirmities of the flesh.  The first recorded temptation provided relief from real hunger.  Yet to do so would cause the Son to act independently of God’s revealed will for His life.  Such a faithless deed would be excusable to any man.  Nevertheless, Jesus did not sin.

Deviation from the Father’s will was no more possible for him in the incarnate state than before. His deity was the guarantee that he would achieve in the flesh that sinlessness which was prerequisite if he were to die as ‘a lamb without blemish or spot’ (1 Pet. 1:19).[254]

As the last Adam, Jesus revealed the victory that is possible for the new-born child of God - one that is born of the Spirit.  His sinless life has an exemplary purpose for the believer.  “Jesus was subjected to various temptations, a number of which are recorded for us in the Gospels, yet at no point do we find him succumbing.”[255]  Still, there exists a far higher purpose behind the sinless life of Jesus Christ.

A Lamb without Blemish - There was a clear redemptive reason why Jesus engaged in three-and-one-half years of public ministry.  He was to be offered up as a lamb without spot or blemish.  The Passover Lamb, who died as a substitute for the firstborn child, was tested before it was sacrificed (Exodus 12:5-8).  The sacrifice was set aside on the tenth day, but it was not sacrificed until the darkness of the fourteenth day.  The time publicly proved that the animal was a worthy sacrifice.

During this time, the lamb was not a sacrifice for sin, but this time was needed to demonstrate its qualifications as a sacrifice to be offered. Christ was the antitype of that Paschal lamb. His life of suffering with all that that involved served to prove His eligibility as an offerer and as the offering for sin. His sufferings in life did not provide a sacrifice or even make Him eligible to offer one, but they did demonstrate His right to be the sacrifice. They proved He was eligible to offer the one eternal sacrifice for sin. Though tested often and “in all points,” He remained the sinless, spotless Savior. Thus His sinless life of suffering was a natural and necessary part of His person and His cross work.[256]

Each temptation that came Jesus’ way was passed with perfection.  Each brought the smile of His Heavenly Father, for He had come for the purpose of doing His will.  Coincidently, each success also brought Him closer to Calvary.

Jesus’ sinless life reveals the infinite timeliness of His love.  He knew that Calvary was His calling.  He also knew that Calvary required a sinless sacrifice.  Whereas each temptation man faces is usually a choice between God and immediate sinful gratification of the flesh, the Savior’s choice was between death on Calvary and sinful gratification.  In the wilderness temptations, the choices were between sin which would make Him unfit for Calvary and obedience which would lead to a cruel death on behalf of all sinful man.  Thus, each temptation of Christ was not only an expression of faith toward God the Father, but it was also an affirmation of His love for lost humanity.  Every day of His life Jesus brought all thoughts and words into conformity with God’s holiness so that He could receive Calvary’s despised cup.  Such love is beyond comparison and worthy of praise.

The Savior, Jesus - To the step-father, Joseph, the angelic messenger declared, “And thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins.”  Jesus is the shortened form of the name which means “Jehovah saves.”  John the Baptist introduced Jesus as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.  Central to any Christology is the moment Jesus cried, “It is finished,” on the cross.

The atonement is the scarlet cord running through every page in the entire Bible. Cut the Bible anywhere, and it bleeds; it is red with redemption truth. It is said that one out of every forty-four verses in the New Testament deals with this theme, and that the death of Christ is mentioned in all one hundred and seventy-five times. When you add to these figures the typical and symbolical teaching of the Old Testament, some idea is gained as to the important place which this doctrine occupies in the sacred Scriptures.[257]

This is further supported when one examines the weight the Gospel accounts give to this matter.  While five percent of the gospel accounts is invested into the first thirty years of Jesus’ life, and sixty-two percent covers the forty-two months of His ministry, a full one-third of all that is written in the gospels deals with seven critical days and their immediate fall-out.  The focus of the gospel message is not on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but it is upon His death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). 

The cross is not only central to Christology, but it is also central to nearly every branch of theology.  “Here the doctrines of God, man, sin, and the person of Christ come together to define man’s need and the provision that had to be made for that need.”[258]  Hamartiology describes what sin is and what it does to God’s creation.  Theology proper reveals why sin must be judged.  Anthropology explains why man’s current alienation from God has brought relentless misery to this universe, individual wrath upon mankind today, and eternal judgment to come.  The reason for the cross is incomprehensible apart from understanding the status quo from God’s perspective.  Soteriology examines the wonderful effect when the blood of Jesus Christ is applied.  Not only are the effects and damage of sin terminated, but also repairs are made to restore much of what has been destroyed.  Once saving faith enters into the equation, there is abundant newness of life in contrast to resident death.  The new birth bears new life, new relationships, and new power.  Sanctification is now possible.  The life-changing “good news” is proclaimed by those who have been pardoned.  Eschatology becomes the bright hope for the child of God.  What Jesus did at Calvary changed everything.

The crucifixion is also central to the Christian experience.  If properly appreciated, the atoning work of Jesus Christ cannot be comprehended without being personally applied.

1) The Savior Became a Substitute for the Sinner.  A eunuch from Ethiopia was puzzled as he read a scroll containing Isaiah 53.  In that chapter, one is portrayed as hated and despised by men.  In reality, this abused man is wounded on behalf of “our transgressions” and bruised for “our iniquities.”  Yet those who stood by declared this death was evidence that God despised the sacrifice, not the ones for whom the sacrifice died.  “There are many facets to the meaning of Christ’s death, but the central one—without which the others have no eternal meaning—is substitution. This simply means that Christ died in the place of sinners.”[259]

God wants man to grasp this act of grace.  “The substitutionary death of Jesus Christ created the backdrop of justice where justifying mercy would shine with unparalleled glory.”[260]  The vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ for man’s sin is the theme of both testaments.  The New Testament repeatedly makes the claim (John 1:29; Mark 10:45; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; 1 John 3:16; Galatians 2:20).  The grammar of the New Testament is explicit. 

There are two Greek prepositions that emphasize the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death. The preposition anti, translated “for,” means Christ died “instead of” sinners (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). The preposition huper, also translated “for,” means Christ died “in behalf of” or “in place of” sinners (Gal. 3:13; 1 Tim. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18). Philemon 13 shows that huper must mean “in place of.”[261]

The Old Testament is filled with typical stories which reveal the heart of God regarding substitute sacrifices.  The Levitical offerings are senseless without the vicarious element.  Nonetheless, while the blood of bulls and goats flowed from Israel’s temple altar, the prophets revealed a later vicarious sacrifice that would satisfy God’s wrath.

In Exodus 33, Moses offered himself as a vicarious object of God’s wrath that the people might be spared.  God refused his offer.  Moses’ qualifications were close, but not complete.  “Man in his unregenerate state cannot please God (Rom. 8:8).  Nor could the sinner make atonement by death, either for himself or for his fellowmen.”[262]  There are four reasons why Jesus was accepted and Moses was not.

Firstly, one was required who could entirely apprehend the attributes, the character, and the claims of God.  Secondly, this person must put himself into relationship with the sinner, come under the claims of divine righteousness, and stand its test without failure. To this end, being himself in complete acquaintance with the holy nature and righteous demands of God, he must become identified with human constitution and nature.  Thirdly, such a person must be free from guilt himself, and he must be tested and proved to be free from all taint of sin.  Fourthly, he must himself endure the penalty of sin, bear the curse of the broken Law. If he had any taint in himself he would suffer judgment on his own account and no advantage could accrue to the sinner. But, though sinless himself, it would be necessary for God to deal with him as He would deal with sin.[263]

Forty-two months of transparent ministry revealed that Jesus Christ was God’s perfect sacrifice for sin.

The entire record of Calvary coincides perfectly with this view of the vicarious nature of the Atonement. There were no merely accidental features of what took place. Here was God in the flesh. He had been born miraculously. He had lived a life which gave evidence of His eternal deity. He had clearly announced Who He was, and what He had come to do. Now He confronted humanity in terms which adequately represented all of humanity.[264]

To natural thinking, substitution is complete foolishness.  How can it be fair for a judge to execute sentence upon the victim for the crime of the perpetrator?  Guilt is assumed to be non-transferable; a criminal must suffer punishment for his own crime. 

There are two answers to this objection.  One is the voluntary character of the sacrifice. … Jesus was not compelled by the Father to lay down his life.  He did so voluntarily and thus pleased the Father. … The second answer is that the work of Jesus Christ in giving his life also involved the Father.  … Thus, the Father did not place the punishment upon someone other than himself.  Although the exact nature of the relationships among the persons of the Trinity is not known to us, it is clear that God is both judge and the person paying the penalty.[265]

2) The Savior Paid Redemption’s Price.  While the sacrifice of Jesus satisfies the demands of justice, the redemption of Jesus Christ cancels the debt which enslaves mankind.  “The emphasis of redemption is on the payment made and the release which is thus secured.”[266]  “Thus, the doctrine of redemption means that because of the shedding of the blood of Christ, believers have been purchased, removed from bondage, and liberated.”[267]

The concept of bondage to sin is affirmed repeatedly in Scripture (Romans 6), but denied by contemporary society.  While every sin is always individually destructive and enslaving, only those sinful activities that negatively impact the innocent and vulnerable of society (e.g. children, homeless) interest the modern social worker.  Alcoholism and drug abuse are great scourges upon American society, but instead of accepting God’s assessment, society treats these sins as illnesses.  Instead of seeking release from bondage, the greatest hope these have is that doctors can make their condition manageable.  Jesus died to set men free from the controlling power of sin.

The New Testament terminology is definite in these concepts of bondage and liberty.  The Greek terms agorazō and exagorazō bring the believer to the slave-market.  Unlike the historical slavery that found its justification in racism, this slavery is based upon guilt.  The slaves are prisoners, and their chains bind them to both their lusts and the consequences of those lusts.  Whereas the former term emphasizes the price, the second term expresses the release.  A third term, lutroō, is often translated “ransom.”  This is the price paid to release one from hostile confinement.  Bible doctrine requires care in this concept.

But we hesitate to speak of paying a “ransom” to God the Father, because it was not he who held us in bondage but Satan and our own sins. Therefore at this point the idea of a ransom payment cannot be pressed in every detail. It is sufficient to note that a price was paid (the death of Christ) and the result was that we were “redeemed” from bondage.[268]

The Old Testament in its laws and types reveals that freedom, not bondage, is God’s plan for every individual.  One of the most beautiful stories of redemption is found in the book of Ruth.  The potential for redemption resided in two men, but only one fulfilled the requirements to the letter.

Before any kinsman could be the redeemer, he had to meet certain characteristics:  1) He had to be kin.  Christ was our kin by the Incarnation, i.e. He was human (Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14-15). 2) He had to be able to pay the price for redemption, i.e. he had to possess sufficient riches.  Christ certainly qualifies here (II Cor. 8:9). 3) He had to be willing to pay the price of redemption.  Christ was ready and willing (Heb. 12:2). 4) He had to actually pay the price.  Christ, of course, did that, too (Tit. 2:14; I Tim. 2:6; I Pe. 1:18-19).[269]

The price paid by Jesus Christ in His death on the cross secures liberty.  This sets the believer free so that he might serve Jesus Christ out of no other motivation than love and appreciation.  Common sense should cause the liberated believer to not live for self.  To do so is no less absurd than for the demoniac of Gadara to return to the tombs and continue to destroy himself after being released from bondage (Mark 5:1-20).  One who is sane and liberated from cruelty devotes himself to serve his liberator (2 Corinthian 5:14-15).  His new yoke is self-imposed, constrained by the gracious act of another.

The redeemed are paradoxically slaves, the slaves of God, for they were bought with a price. …Believers are not brought by Christ into a liberty of selfish ease. Rather, since they have been bought by God at terrible cost, they have become God’s slaves, to do His will.[270]

3) The Savior Reconciled Sinful Man to His Creator.  Natural man rarely grasps the true enmity which exists between himself and God.  Rather, God is viewed by many of these as some permissive father.  He would like them to do right, but He still loves them in spite of their sin.  To these, the preaching of the cross is indeed foolishness. 

Sinful man is not simply endured by God; he is at odds with God.  The concept of reconciliation is rooted in the New Testament.  “The word reconciliation comes from the Greek word katalassō, which means ‘to effect a change, to reconcile.’”[271]  The separation caused by sin is well documented in Scriptures.  “Sin had created a barrier between man and God and rendered man hostile toward God (Isa. 59:1–2; Col. 1:21, 22; Ja. 4:4).”[272]  People who can worship God in spite of sin’s barrier in reality worship some other god, one of their own imagery.  Jesus Christ died on Calvary so that reconciliation would be possible.  “The death of Christ also brings to an end the enmity and estrangement which exists between God and mankind.  Our hostility toward God is removed.”[273]

Two parties are involved in reconciliation.  God is immutable and needs no change.  He is the offended party, not the offender.  God has determined that through a perfect substitute sacrifice, the grounds for reconciliation are possible.  For His part, God provides the formula for peace without compromising His holiness.  Man must realize that sin destroys the fellowship that God wants to have with him.  For this reason man must repent of his sin and receive the terms of peace granted by the Godhead.  To understand fully what reconciliation is one must examine both sides of this equation.

Reconciliation has been proffered by God, and the work of Jesus Christ makes the restoration possible.  “Reconciliation by the death of Christ means that man’s state of alienation from God is changed so that he is now able to be saved (2 Co. 5:19).”[274]  In this sense, reconciliation is the work of God.  Romans 5:6-10 provides evidence that when man had no desire for restoration God was at work.  The one-time sacrifice has opened the door for reconciliation to each fallen man upon this planet.

Such an offer was never made to Satan and his fallen angelic band because his moral failure created an eternal enmity with God.  In contrast, when Adam and Eve fell an atoning covering was provided.  The sacrifice was symbolic of the perfect Lamb of God who would make restoration possible.

Reconciliation is now possible with God.  The terms of peace are attached to receiving the work of Calvary.

The extent of reconciliation affects the entire world (2 Co. 5:19) in the sense that trespasses are not imputed and God is able to offer man His love in Jesus Christ; but it affects believers in a saving sense so that when that gift of love is personally received we are saved (Ro. 5:11).[275]

This justification by faith provides peace with God, access, confidence, and the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit.  As with the prodigal son, the Father graciously gives the reconciled sinner a robe, a ring, shoes, and a celebration.  The one who was dead to His father is now alive.  He was not dead from failure on the part of the Father, but on pride that kept the son from accepting His terms of peace.  Those who reject God’s terms of peace in this life will one day experience the eternal enmity realized by the devil and his angels.

4) The Savior Satisfied the Just Wrath of a Holy God.  Liberal Christendom objects to the concept of propitiation.  “To propitiate means to appease or to satisfy a god.”[276]  Historically, the polytheistic images of paganism reveal implacable, super-human tyrants.  Rituals are carried out by the fearful to appease these self-absorbed brutes – the divine devils of superstition.  For this reason, some object to the concept of propitiating the God of the Bible.  While a clear distinction must be drawn between the character of God and that of human imagination, it is equally wrong to diminish what the Bible teaches regarding His wrath.

It is not the capricious, arbitrary, bad–tempered and conceited anger which pagans attribute to their gods. It is not the sinful, resentful, malicious, infantile anger which we find among humans. It is a function of that holiness which is expressed in the demands of God’s moral law … and of that righteousness which is expressed in God’s acts of judgment and reward.[277]

Annually, on the Day of Redemption, the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and sprinkle the sacrificial blood upon the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant.  He served as the mediator who appeased the righteous wrath of God.

The Old Testament word kaphar means “to cover”; it involved a ritual covering for sin (Lev. 4:35; 10:17). The Greek verb hilaskomai, meaning “to propitiate,” occurs twice in the New Testament (Luke 18:13, Hebrews 2:17). … The word also occurs three times in the noun form (hilasmos—1 John 2:2; 4:10; and hilasterion—Rom. 3:25).[278]

In Luke 18, Jesus describes two men who went into the temple to pray.  The contrast is evident on many levels including the response of each to the wrath of God.  The Pharisee fearlessly stands in the presence of God.  In his prayer he proclaims his own merits and the demerits of others, especially the publican in his presence.  The publican will not let his eyes meet the God of Heaven.  His cry for mercy is special.  He uses the Greek word which means propitiation.  He was incapable of finding one good reason why the wrath of God should not abide upon him.

Before the cross a person could not be certain that God was satisfied with whatever he brought to Him. That is why the publican prayed (literally) “God be propitiated toward me a sinner” (Lk 18:13). Today such a prayer would be a waste of breath, for God is propitiated by the death of Christ. Therefore, our message to men today should not suggest in any way that they can please God by doing something, but only that they be satisfied with the sacrifice of Christ which completely satisfied the wrath of God.[279]

The wrath of God is not imaginary.  The terror surrounding a man’s unredeemed condition should drive him to his knees.  Only after the wrath of God has been appeased can man stand with a holy boldness in His presence.

Some theologians prefer the term “expiation” because it limits the focus on God’s wrath.  Instead it emphasizes the human aspect, the clouded conscience of man.  “A person who is angry or offended is propitiated, i.e., appeased; whereas sin and guilt, which weigh upon the conscience of the offender are expiated, i.e., removed or wiped away.”[280]  A person in need of expiation needs not deal with the wrath of another.  He requires only a clearing of his conscience so that his insecurities cease.  As an example, a fugitive might unwittingly agree to cater at the wedding of a police officer.  Throughout the reception he would live in terror for fear that his identity will be recognized and that he will be arrested on the spot.  In contrast, if he had served his sentence, his anxiety would be gone for the payment of his guilt is past.  His crime has been expiated.

This exchange is evident in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

There is no real ground linguistically or theologically for altering “propitiation” to “expiation.”  Expiation is a necessary element in the work of propitiation, but it is not an alternative to propitiation.  Expiation deals with sin and guilt in such a way that  propitiation is affected toward God, and the pardoned sinner is restored to fellowship with God.  The action of propitiation, therefore, is directed toward God, while the action of expiation is directed toward man in his state of sin and guilt.[281]

Jesus had to die on the cross because the wrath of God needed appeasement.  The matter of God’s wrath is not a figment of the superstitious imagination.  It is an axiom of divine revelation.  If man only needed a salve for his stinging conscience, expiatory good works would have sufficed.  After all, it worked for the Pharisee in the temple.

It is possible to make propitiation the axis of the saving work of Jesus Christ.

Sometimes the death of Christ is depicted as reconciliation, or peacemaking after hatred and war …; sometimes it is depicted as redemption, or rescue by ransom from danger and captivity …; sometimes it is pictured as a sacrifice …, an act of self–giving …, sin–bearing … and bloodshedding. …  All of them have as their background the threat of divine judgment which Jesus’ death averted. In other words, they are so many pictures and illustrations of the reality of propitiation, viewed from different standpoints.[282] 

In contrast, it is impossible to omit propitiation from any true discussion regarding Calvary.

Has the word propitiation any place in your Christianity? In the faith of the New Testament it is central. The love of God, the taking of human form by the Son, the meaning of the cross, Christ’s heavenly intercession, the way of salvation—all are to be explained in terms of it, … and any explanation from which the thought of propitiation is missing will be incomplete, and indeed actually misleading, by New Testament standards.  In saying this, we swim against the stream of much modern teaching and condemn at a stroke the views of a great number of distinguished church leaders today, but we cannot help that. Paul wrote, “even if we or an angel from heaven”—let alone a minister, bishop, college lecturer, university professor or noted author—“should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” … And a gospel without propitiation at its heart is another gospel than that which Paul preached. The implications of this must not be evaded.[283]

The cross confounds the understandings and sensibilities of the natural man.  “He who was ‘the life’ (John 14:6), the Creator, the giver of life and new life which constitutes victory over death, became subject to death.  He who had committed no sin suffered death, which is the consequence or ‘wages’ of sin.”[284]  The preaching of the cross will ever be foolish to those who have never received it.  The idea that “good people” stand condemned because they have not believed on the saving work of Jesus Christ is offensive.  Instead of pleading for mercy, mankind would rather dispense foolish and unlearned questions in order to blunt the blow that has been delivered to their consciences.  The propitiatory work of Jesus Christ can only be appreciated when both God’s revelation and His miraculous workings are received.

By this means justice has been done, for the sins of all that will ever be pardoned were judged and punished in the person of God the Son, and it is on this basis that pardon is now offered to us offenders. Redeeming love and retributive justice joined hands, so to speak, at Calvary, for there God showed himself to be “just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.”[285]

The public nature of His life allowed sinful man to place the life of Jesus under the magnifying glass and find it unimpeachable.  No aspect of publicity and shame was spared as He hung in mockery, elevated high so that Jerusalem could see.  Notable martyrs such as Socrates were granted a measure of courtesy in their executions, but Jesus was not.  His death was witnessed by thousands including travelers who had come to Jerusalem for Passover.  Many witnessed the soldier’s sword pierce His side.  The death of Jesus was certain.  Three days later, His resurrection would also be witnessed by a multitude.  Decades later, the Apostle Paul would declare of Agrippa, “that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner (Acts 26:26).”  Agrippa had to agree that the preaching of the cross was based upon irrefutable evidence, but it is still foolish to those who hold the truth of God in unrighteousness.

The Propitiatory Christ and Worship - The Propitiatory Christ is a common and rich theme in most hymnals. Such is as it should be.  It is the critical first point in a true gospel presentation (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).  Worship that minimizes or eliminates the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ is unacceptable.  It is not enough for a church to express unconditional love to its needy society.  These great works may result in great personal expense and even loss of life for the cause.  They may even be done in Jesus’ name, but they miss the true message of the gospel.

The infinite depth and character of God’s love is best reflected in the Cross of Calvary.  Romans 5:7-8 cracks open a hint of this love.  When a righteous or innocent man is condemned to die, next to no one steps in and offers his life instead to prevent the injustice.  Likewise, few would offer themselves to perish so that a man of positive goodness might continue to live and do good deeds for his community.  Nevertheless, God did an incredible thing.  He sent His sinless Son to die as a substitute for one who is truly guilty and without merited strength; one who is, in fact the enemy of God.  His resolve during that day of torture and death to love the unlovely is remarkable.  “Love so amazing, so Divine, Demands my soul, my life, my all (“When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” Watts).”

The cross of Calvary alone makes access to God possible.  Worship ought never to give the unredeemed man the warm feeling that he has stood uncondemned in the presence of God.  When Isaiah stood in the presence of God, he cried over his sin.  The publican in the temple would not lift up his eyes.  Even the Old Testament high priest who entered into God’s presence on the Day of Atonement did so with fear and trembling, making sure that he was a pure as he could possibly be.  When making God accessible to lost humanity, the necessity of the cross of Christ and the cleansing from sin must be inescapable.

The cross of Calvary also reveals the selfish poverty of many worship expressions today.  As previously cited, John Wimber rejected “fundamental” Christianity because of its inability to enrapture him.  He cried, “For that I gave up drugs!”  What would the Savior say regarding worship in churches that profess His name?  One does not need great imagination, for Jesus did reveal His thoughts regarding church administration in Revelation 2 & 3.  As He views the pragmatically prosperous church and discovers that they are rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing would he cry out, “For that I suffered and died?”  As He ponders the church that has the reputation for being the liveliest in town, but discovers that the works are not perfect before Him, what would He say?  Would he watch approvingly as people cast off all decorum and yield to the impulses of the present in the name of “experiencing” God, or would He cry out, “For that I suffered and died?”  He finally arrives at the door of precise tradition.  These know where the theological lines are drawn and are ready to expose error.  Still, something vital is missing, namely a love for the Savior.  The coldness is enough for the Savior to threaten to close the door for good.  “Externalism reduces worship to the right place, the right lighting, the right time, the right words, the right demeanor, the right clothes, and the right mood.”[286]  As He leaves, the Savior cries out, “For that I suffered and died!”  The grief of Calvary should have been enough.  Why must the Savior stand at church doors and know and plead for permission to enter and engage in true fellowship?

Equally disturbing is the professing saint who has no desire to sing the praise of his Savior with other believers.  So, too, is the saint who professes boredom when the meat of the word is served.  The problem is not always with the teacher or the song leader.  Sometimes the reluctance is the evidence of an empty heart, one that either does not know or comprehend the love of Jesus Christ.

The Victorious Christ

The Resurrected Christ - Paul presents the basic facts of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5.  First he states that Jesus Christ died as a substitute for our sins as Scriptures promised that He would.  His dead body was entombed for three days, but then He rose again from the dead on the third day just as the Scriptures said He would.  To the skeptic, the “foolishness” of the cross is surpassed by the impossibility of the resurrection.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is essential to the gospel message.  A belief in His propitiation is critical, but it is not enough.

Although in his death we have an effectual completion of salvation, because by it we are reconciled to God, satisfaction is given to his justice, the curse is removed, and the penalty paid; still it is not by his death, but by his resurrection, that we are said to be begotten again to a living hope (1 Pet. 1:3); because, as he, by rising again, became victorious over death, so the victory of our faith consists only in his resurrection. … For how could he by dying have freed us from death, if he had yielded to its power? How could he have obtained the victory for us, if he had fallen in the contest?[287]

The propitiatory work of Jesus Christ was finished the moment He died.  Nothing more could ever be added.  The resurrection has no bearing on the efficacy of redemption, but it does have everything to do with the certainty of its acceptance before God. 

From the standpoint of an apologetic for Christian theology, belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God stands or falls with the question of His bodily resurrection. … The resurrection, therefore, is properly considered a proof of the person of Christ, His deity, Messiahship, and His power to save from sin.[288]

History is filled with noble people who died that others might live, but in every case, sinful man only died to prolong the mortal life of another.  Never did any such death atone for sin.  When Jesus died on the cross, the sin debt for humanity was paid in full.  When He rose again, the validity of the payment was publicly recorded.  The resurrection of Jesus Christ is mankind’s receipt from God that the debt has been paid in full.

While the resurrection is here being examined separately, it must never be divorced from the atonement.  “When death only is mentioned, everything peculiar to the resurrection is at the same time included, and that there is a like synecdoche in the term resurrection, as often as it is used apart from death, …”[289]  The resurrection validates the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, but it is meaningless without connection to the atonement.  Three dead people were restored to life in the Old Testament, and more were resuscitated in the New Testament.  Nonetheless, in every case, the person eventually died.  It is Jesus alone who died, was buried, and rose again to die no more.  He is the first begotten of the dead, the first fruits of them that slept.  His resurrection is unprecedented.  For this reason Paul said that Jesus was “the first that should rise from the dead (Acts 26:23).”  His resurrection is the first of its kind, but it is not the last.

Three adversaries reject the transparent New Testament account of the resurrection of Jesus.  The first has been Gnosticism.  The concept of a bodily resurrection was abhorrent to Greek culture (as evidenced in Athens).  Gnostic philosophy determined that nothing material was real; only that which was spiritual was real.

One (ancient) gnostic teacher … says: “Do not suppose that the resurrection is an apparition. … It is not an apparition; rather it is something real. … One ought to maintain that the world is an apparition, rather than resurrection.” … Human existence is spiritual death.  But the resurrection is the moment of enlightenment. … Whoever grasps this becomes spiritually alive.  This means … that you can be “resurrected from the dead” right now.”[290]

The gnostic believes that Jesus did not rise bodily.   Instead, He simply communicated to His enlightened disciples from the grave.  “Some gnostics called the literal view of the resurrection the ‘faith of fools.’  The resurrection … symbolized how Christ’s presence could be experienced in the present.  What mattered was not literal seeing, but spiritual vision.”[291]

Gnosticism was condemned as heresy.  Its esoteric definitions of the resurrection were unacceptable and clearly unbiblical.  For this reason, creeds were used to define the matter of the resurrection. 

The Early Church, evidence by the early Fathers and the Creeds, introduces the phrase “resurrection of the flesh,” which is still found in various Creeds.  The Church adopted this expression because many heretics, denying an eternal future for the body, understood the word “dead” as meaning “dead souls.”  By confessing that the flesh will be raised, the Church emphasized the biblical truth that the dead will be raised in their bodies of flesh.[292]

Skepticism is the second adversary.  Since the day of Jesus’ resurrection, naturalists deny the miracle, treating the Scriptural record as flawed.  Perhaps legendary embellishments crept into the “sacred” record.  It may be that the actors were confused, going to the wrong tomb or hallucinating.  The story may have been the creation of a conspiracy.  Maybe the disciples really did steal the body.  Even worse, they may have been part of an elaborate hoax in which Jesus did not really die, but only appeared to be dead to the ignorant.  Then, after three days of rest in the tomb, he revived enough to walk out and proclaim resurrection.  Answers to such charges are abundantly available in most evangelical systematic theologies.

The final adversary is liberalism or modernism.  These professors claim to be in the lineage of orthodoxy.    The resurrection of Jesus Christ was real, for its impact upon the apostles and the early Christians is inexplicable without it.  At the same time, the resurrection as understood by an uncritical acceptance of the Bible is naïve.  The events of Easter Sunday were very “real,” but they are not “historical.”  One scholar explains his position in this way:

The resurrection, while a real event according to the unanimous testimony of the New Testament, is not historical in the sense that ordinary events are. …No one saw God raise Jesus from the dead.  Nor can it be verified.  In a sense, it is an inference from the disciple’s Easter visions.[293]

Key to the critical position is a distrust of the biblical testimony.  Modern scholarship demands naturalistic answers for the miracles contained in Scriptures.  The doctrine of the resurrection cannot escape its critical eye.

Liberal theology, denying the infallibility of the Bible, generally reduces the resurrection hope to a modern version of the immortality of the soul; i.e. man’s true “self” continues to exist in an immaterial, ghost-like spirit body.[294]

While denying the source of orthodoxy, liberalism insists upon using the vocabulary of belief.  To the unsuspecting, the confessions of liberalism appear to be sound, but when the concepts are defined, it is clear that liberalism does not embrace the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Liberal theologians, …  rejecting the infallibility of the Bible, have been trying to find out precisely what happened in connection with Jesus’ resurrection by applying the historical method of higher criticism as a tool of human research and reasoning in the field of revelation.  The result invariably was – and is – a denial of the resurrection as the Scripture speaks of it, i.e. Jesus Christ’s real and literal rising from the tomb in His own body of flesh and bones ….[295]

This “real but not historic” view impacts the meaning and the message of the resurrection.  To the liberal, “the message” is that “Jesus did not leave his earthly life behind but took it with him.  As a result, his whole ‘being for us,’ which characterized his earthly ministry and which culminated in the cross, are forever present and available to us.”[296]  Is this the best that man can expect?  The apostle Paul did not believe so. “In 1 Corinthians 15:17-19 the apostle states that the whole Christian faith and salvation it brings stands or falls with the resurrection of our Lord.”[297]

The very mention of the resurrection by Paul disrupted the message in Athens.  Coincidently, the nearby church at Corinth apparently slighted this doctrine, perhaps considering it a “non-essential.”  Within Corinth arose an “agnostic Christianity” (1 Corinthians 15:34) which rejected a literal resurrection.  Chapter 15 in First Corinthians details the importance and exposition of the resurrection.  It is a message that liberalism, Gnosticism, and skepticism will not receive.

In one specific section (1 Corinthians 15:12-19), Paul takes aim at the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If, hypothetically, the resurrection is denied, then six terrible conclusions follow:

The first conclusion is “what a waste.”  Paul, himself, as well as a multitude of other first century believers had experienced great suffering and persecution while preaching the gospel.  If there is no resurrection, both Faith’s Hall of Fame and Foxes’ Book of Christian Martyrs become monuments to folly.  Why would anyone sacrifice to spread such emptiness to the four corners of the world?

The second conclusion is “what vanity.”  One may place absolute trust in another, but if that one is untrustworthy, the dependent will be sadly disappointed.  To believe very deeply in a resurrection will not make it so.  If the resurrection is not a fact established by God, then the believer’s faith is empty.  The disciples have no justification for forcing the philosophies of the teacher, Jesus, upon a foreign culture.  In addition, how can any intelligent person exclude any other great philosopher, for if Jesus is as empty as the next, why trust in Him alone?  

“What a pack of lies,” is the third conclusion.  The Bible cannot be a “good book.”  If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the testimonies of those who said that they saw and touched the risen Christ are false.  The alleged adding of “prophetic material” to the text after the events took place is deceitful.  Fraud is inconsistent with God’s character no matter how noble the cause may be. 

The fourth conclusion is “what a hopeless religion.”  One has no reason to believe that sin’s penalty was forgiven on the cross.  No proof exists that God has provided Himself a lamb to pay the debt of mankind’s sin.  Man must renew his endeavor to propitiate God for himself.

“What unforgivable cruelty,” follows in this list of disappointments.  Those who have passed from this life into the next have been sadly and eternally disappointed.  They have not the crown of righteousness which is promised to those who loved the appearing of Jesus Christ, nor will the crown of life be presented to those who were faithful right up to the point of death.  They lie in the ground without any hope.

The final conclusion is “what a senseless lifestyle.”  On occasions, some will applaud the benefits of clean living and conducting one’s business according to the golden rule, but the writers of Scripture never saw things this way.  Asaph almost concluded that clean living in a wicked world was a waste (Psalm 73:12-14).  Christianity discovers in this present age that hedonism is both its adversary and its resilient foe.  A literal resurrection is the only true hope for victory.  Without it, Paul concludes that hedonism may just as well be embraced (1 Corinthians 15:30-33).

Chapter 15 ends with a command founded upon the assumed reality of the bodily resurrection of Christ.  The believers of Corinth were ordered to become steadfast and unmovable.  They were, in every circumstance, to be abundantly energized in the Lord’s work.  Moderation and compromise were no longer to guide them.  All of this rests upon the confident and abiding assurance that the believer’s toiling is not empty.  Christ must be raised for this to make sense.

When Jesus did rise again he validated the work of Calvary.  Jesus Christ conquered death and thus proved that victory over it is now possible.  “The resurrection is the everlasting guarantee of the forgiveness of our sins (1 Co. 15:17).  Our trust is not in myths or self-induced beliefs, but in the true and proven facts of the gospel.”[298]

The resurrection provides the new things in the believer’s life: new birth, new advocacy, new power, and new courage.  1 Peter 1:3 indicates that the new birth is rooted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When Jesus rose from the dead he had a new quality of life, a “resurrection life” in a human body and human spirit that were perfectly suited for fellowship and obedience to God forever. In his resurrection, Jesus earned for us a new life just like his. We do not receive all of that new “resurrection life” when we become Christians, for our bodies remain as they were, still subject to weakness, aging, and death. But in our spirits we are made alive with new resurrection power.  Thus it is through his resurrection that Christ earned for us the new kind of life we receive when we are “born again.”[299]

The resurrected Jesus serves as the believer’s advocate in Heaven.  Many worshiped leaders and philosophers have passed through human history; without their published works, they would be forgotten today.  Their names are etched upon monuments, and their remains occupy tombs, but Jesus Christ is presently at work for humanity to this very day.  His resurrection made this possible.

The believer also discovers new power to accomplish that which is impossible to do in the flesh.

(In Eph. 1:19–20) Paul says that the power by which God raised Christ from the dead is the same power at work within us. …This new resurrection power in us includes power to gain more and more victory over remaining sin in our lives. … This resurrection power also includes power for ministry in the work of the kingdom.[300]

Paul’s call to be steadfast and unmovable is rooted in the new courage that accompanies the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Jesus is not the exclusive recipient of resurrection; He is only the first - the leader of all resurrections.

Paul says that Christ is the “first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). In calling Christ the “first fruits” (Gk. ἀπαρχή), Paul uses a metaphor from agriculture to indicate that we will be like Christ. Just as the “first fruits” or the first taste of the ripening crop show what the rest of the harvest will be like for that crop, so Christ as the “first fruits” shows what our resurrection bodies will be like when, in God’s final “harvest,” he raises us from the dead and brings us into his presence.[301]

There is yet one additional impact that the resurrection has upon all mankind.  “As in Adam all men die physically, so in Christ all men are raised physically.  The resurrection of Jesus Christ guarantees the resurrection of all men.”[302]  Daniel promised a universal resurrection irrespective of personal faith (12:2).  While all of mankind is revived, the eternal destinies are two-fold – everlasting life or everlasting shame and contempt.  The power and authority of every tyrant ceases at his death.  Those who have resisted Jesus Christ will discover death did not end His right to rule.  He rose again and declared that all power (authority) was His.  He has been given the name to which every knee in creation will bow.  Therefore, while the doctrine of the resurrection is great comfort to the one who trusts in Jesus Christ and lives for Him, it is simultaneously the object of distress for those who reject Him.  “The resurrection of Christ is God’s unfailing testimony to the fact of a coming day of judgment for the world. The one is as sure as the other.”[303]

The Ascended Christ - The ascension of Jesus Christ is rarely disputed, not because liberalism accepts the biblical account, but because it is necessarily affixed to the resurrection.  Those who deny a bodily resurrection will likewise mock a bodily ascension.  Conversely, those who accept the biblical account of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ have no reason to question the validity of His ascension. 

John Walvoord calls the ascension “the second step in the exaltation of Christ which began at the time of His resurrection.”[304]  It is a literal, historical event, and it should be defended and proclaimed for that reason alone.   Yet, it is more; its ramifications affect the believer today.  “Easter is incomplete, Pentecost is impeded, and the Second Coming is impossible without the ascension.”[305]

In His ascension, Jesus was restored to His rightful exalted place; that which was veiled throughout His earthly life.  “The ascension proclaimed him to the universe as the reinstated God, the possessor of universal dominion, the omnipresent object of worship and hearer of prayer.”[306] 

This welcoming into the presence of God and sitting at God’s right hand is a dramatic indication of the completion of Christ’s work of redemption. Just as a human being will sit down at the completion of a large task to enjoy the satisfaction of having accomplished it, so Jesus sat at the right hand of God, visibly demonstrating that his work of redemption was completed.[307]

New Testament authors build doctrines filled with hope and confidence upon the facts that Jesus not only died and was resurrected, but that He also is ascended.  Both Mark and Luke record the events.

From these accounts it appears, (1.) That the ascension of Christ was of his whole person. It was the Theanthropos, the Son of God clothed in our nature, having a true body and a reasonable soul, who ascended. (2.) That the ascension was visible. The disciples witnessed the whole transaction. … (3.) It was a local transfer of his person from one place to another; from earth to heaven. Heaven is therefore a place.[308]

His seating at God’s right hand shows that his work is complete, and that He has rightful rule and sovereignty over the universe.  To the believer, His ascension was necessary before the Holy Spirit could be poured out upon His people. 

Still, the reason that ought to bring the greatest joy is the fact that Jesus ascended and sat down to demonstrate the future hope of all who have put their trust in Him.  “The ascension and exaltation of Christ assures the believer that like Christ he also will take his place in heaven with a body like unto Christ’s own glorious body.”[309]  Humanity was incapable of entering into heaven before the perfect man ascended as a forerunner of the human race.  “Since a truly human Jesus has ascended to heaven, human beings can also ascend there.”[310]

The fifth chapter of Revelation expresses the frustration in heaven as some being is called out to open the scroll - no one is found who is worthy.  As John wept, one of the elders encouraged him.  One of David’s lineage has prevailed.  He is the slain Lamb of God, whose sacrifice endures to the present day.  Nevertheless, this one is no carcass; He is presently the one who has perfect power (horns) and perfect knowledge (eyes).  His worthiness to lay hold of and to open the special scroll is attributed to His special work.  In the past, the Lamb redeemed these people to God by being slain.  These who were common are made a royal priesthood.  This last activity was made possible by the ascension and seating of the Savior.  The redeemed ones and the angelic chorus laud the sacrifice of Jesus and herald His present triumph in the presence of God. 

Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. (Revelation 5:12-14)

The veil that shrouded the deity of Jesus Christ was fully removed when He ascended and sat at the right hand of the Father.  Now all authority is His.

The Victorious Christ and Worship - In the period of time from the cross to Pentecost, biblical worship was transformed.  The nature of that transformation is variously understood depending upon whether one comes from a dispensational or covenant background.  Still, common to all is the testimony of the Resurrection and the Ascension of Jesus Christ.  No longer is the name “Christ” whispered among the faithful; it is now proclaimed to the same world that crucified Him.

The disciples were given a commission to take the gospel message beyond the environs of Jerusalem and Judea.  Samaria and the uttermost parts of the world would worship Jesus Christ for what He did on Calvary.  The program would include the planting of local churches to accomplish the tasks of evangelism, baptism, and training.  With this commission came two great promises: the promise of His presence and the promise of His return.

The Lord Jesus Christ becomes the object of worship.  Because of His absolute obedience to the Father in the matters of His humiliation and passion, Jesus is highly exalted.

His first coming was that of veiled glory.  To receive the Son was to receive the Father.  It was impossible to honestly obey the Father while rejecting the Son He sent.  As a perfect man, Jesus demonstrated perfect devotion to God the Father.

The cross and resurrection caused worship to move to its present stewardship.  Jesus becomes the exalted Son - His full, pre-incarnate glory restored.  Now, God the Father has given Christ Jesus a name that is above all others.  The place of Jesus Christ in the content of the worship of God has been divinely altered.  He, rather than the Father, becomes the focus of the worship of the New Testament believer.  The roles of the Father and of the Holy Spirit are still vital and their identification and adoration are acceptable, but the Lord Jesus Christ is the primary person of the Godhead to whom praise and worship belongs. 

This adoration will reach its acme during the millennial reign of Jesus Christ.  When the Lamb receives the scroll, the prophetic events leading to His return will commence.  When He arrives, He will be given direct, sovereign control over that portion of this cosmos which currently rejects His rightful rule.

It is suggested by some that Jesus hinted at this radical change in his conversation with the woman at the well of Samaria.

In essence, Jesus was saying, “I’m standing in the transition, and in one hand I have the Old Covenant and in the other hand I have the New Covenant. The hour is coming (and it’s already here because I am here) when the current system of law and sacrifice and ritual will be gone and the New Covenant will come.” He was clearly predicting the end of the external ceremonial system.[311]

The Old Testament system was a series of shadows designed to point to the reality found in Jesus Christ.  The patterns were never designed to be the eternal, material tools for external worship, but this is precisely what happened. 

Reducing worship to externals severely displeased God in Old Testament Israel.  We cannot just “go through the motions” and expect to be accepted by God.  It must be as true or real on the inside as it is on the outside.  We can be accurate and orthodox on the outside yet with our hearts far away from God.[312]

The Apostle Paul testified to the liberation he discovered when he let go of the fleshly confidence he found in those external rites (Philippians 3:1-11).  It is impossible to accept the imputed righteousness of Christ without first releasing the self-righteous rags of the past.

The exchange of self-righteousness for Christ’s righteousness is needed in order to “know Him.”  This is the goal of true worship both in the Old and New Testaments - to know God.  Such knowledge is not intuitive; it is acquired by revelation.  Included with this, Paul wanted also to know in a personal way the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His passion, sharing the hope of Christ’s resurrection.

The worship of the first disciples was bold.  Threats did not dissuade them from the task.  On the contrary, the more the adversaries growled, the more the disciples rejoiced and prayed.  They petitioned the Lord not for more understanding from their detractors, but instead they pleaded for more boldness.  The resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ changed everything.

In a day where much of the attention has returned to rituals, holy days, and buildings, the reality of worship must become more profoundly Christ-centered.  Sundays are not to commemorate the death of Jesus, but the fact that He rose again and reigns in Heaven today at the right hand of the Father.

Chapter 11 - From Today to Eternity

The Mediatorial Christ

In this day of professed tolerance, much of Christendom is getting a make-over.  Instead of elaborating on the distinctives, the spirit of the age seeks common ground with all peaceful religions on earth at the expense of truth.  Whenever the earthly ministry and teaching of Jesus can be juxtaposed with the teachings of Mohammed, Buddha, or even Moses so that common ground is discovered, the true character of His earthly ministry is diminished.  He becomes no more than the key prophet of Christianity. 

This practice is both absurd and insulting when one realizes the enduring nature of Jesus’ ministry.  What ever became of Mohammed and what is he personally doing today?  The followers of the great world religions make pilgrimages to the tombs of their supreme leaders, for none assumes that the remains of his leader have moved bodily from any sarcophagus.

Of the four major world religions founded on a person and not a philosophical system, Christianity is the only one that claims an empty tomb for its founder. … None of the millions of Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims claim that their founders came up out of the dust in resurrection.[313]

Only orthodox Christianity believes that its spiritual head is alive right now and is actively involved in the lives of His followers.  His seat at the Father’s right hand is not a couch of laziness.  Instead, He is aggressively involved in mediation and intercession on behalf of His beloved ones.  He told His disciples that He would prepare a place for them, and that they might one day join Him in that place.  One can follow Mohammed or Buddha to the grave, but no further.  Unlike Jesus, neither has a present ministry on behalf of his followers.

And Christ is at the right hand of the Father, ever living to make intercession for us. …  This is the present ministry of Christ… My friend, Buddha can’t help you; Mohammed can’t help you; no founder of the modern religions can help you. A friend told me of how he was healed by a so-called faith healer who is now dead. I asked him, “Can she help you now?” He retorted, “No, of course not, she is dead!” “Well,” I said, “Jesus is alive. Our Great High Priest is alive today.”[314]

The contemporary ministry of Jesus Christ is manifold.  John Walvoord has identified seven New Testament figures that illustrate this present ministry of Jesus Christ toward His believers:

1) The Last Adam and the New Creation: … 2) Christ as the Head of the Body of Christ … 3) The Work of Christ for His Sheep as the Great Shepherd: …. 4) Christ as the True Vine in Relation to the Branches: … The vine and the branches teach the basic lessons of proper relationship to Christ, dependence, faith, and fruitfulness together with the wonderful spiritual by-products of joy and answered prayer which are realized by the true branches. 5) Christ as the Chief Cornerstone in Relation to the Stones of the Building: … Only as life is founded upon Him can a true building be erected for time and eternity.  6) Christ as the High Priest and the Royal Priesthood: … 7) Christ the Bridegroom and His Bride: … The marriage relationship is viewed in three phases: (1) The bride is already joined to Christ in legal marriage as a result of the price that was paid at Calvary and the acceptance of the offer of salvation.  (2) The bride is now awaiting the coming of her Bridegroom, which will occur at the rapture of the church.  (3) Subsequent to the rapture, the marriage feast will be observed (Rev. 19:7-9).  The present work of Christ will therefore have its consummation ….[315]

While much could be said regarding each of these symbols, one symbol takes precedence over the others in the New Testament.  “The major ministry of Christ in the present age relates to His church and is largely an expression of the work of Christ as our High Priest.”[316]

Some today express a comfortable relationship with God, but the Bible reveals that those who know God best fear Him the most.  Isaiah trembled, for he knew that sinful man had no business stepping into the presence of the Holy God.  Job desperately wanted to speak with God face to face, but he understood that God’s transcendence made such activity impossible.  For this reason, Job cried out for a “daysman,” a mediator who would be able to reconcile him to God (Job 9:32-25).

A mediator is a go-between who brings together parties who are not in communication and who may be alienated, estranged, and at war with each other. The mediator must have links with both sides in order to identify with and maintain the interests of both and represent each to the other on a basis of good will.[317]

In His present ministry, Jesus Christ serves as the perfect mediator.  Before Christ, some men represented God to mankind, others represented mankind to God, and still others were His ministers for justice.  Rarely did any one man serve as prophet, priest, and king at the same time, and never did this last for the lifetime of the servant.

It is his glory, given him by the Father, to be in this way the all-sufficient Savior. We who believe are called to understand this and to show ourselves his people by obeying him as our king, trusting him as our priest, and learning from him as our prophet and teacher. To center on Jesus Christ in this way is the hallmark of authentic Christianity.[318]

Even though the great adversary of Job’s time is still very active today accusing man before God, Jesus stands in the role of advocate, mediating and propitiating on behalf of those who believe.

Priesthood is common to all religions.  Most groups establish a caste of individuals who live and operate in the realm of the metaphysical.  These magi have a connection with the tribal or national deities which is not attainable by the common man.  The magic man zealously protects his mediatorial role, for if the common man ever discovered an independent way to enter into the presence of deity, the magi would become obsolete.

The New Testament proclaims Jesus Christ as the only mediator between God and mankind.  His priesthood shares little in common with paganism and its expectations.  The character of His priesthood is demonstrated in the Old Testament by two other elected priesthoods, “… in the distinct priesthoods of Melchizedek and Aaron. Both were required in order to set forth the perfections of the dignity and ministry of Christ.”[319]

It is critical to note that, while both priesthoods were very much a part of God’s revealed plan, neither was intended to substitute the reality of what Jesus Christ would accomplish.  Both were shadows of the truth or living parables to enable mankind to appreciate the present ministry of Jesus Christ.

The priests of the Old Testament were … only symbols and types of the true priesthood of Christ. Their sacrifices could not purify the conscience from the sense of sin. They availed only to the purifying of the flesh. They secured reconciliation with God only so far as they were regarded as representing the real sacrifice of Christ as the object of faith and ground of confidence. Hence, as the Apostle teaches, they were offered continually, because, being ineffectual in themselves, the people needed to be constantly reminded of their guilt and of their need of the more effectual sacrifice predicted in their Scriptures.[320]

The Aaronic priesthood pictured the exclusive nature of the work of Jesus Christ.  From within a chosen nation God selected a single tribe to serve as its ministers.  One single blood line of that tribe would provide the high priest.  While such elevation was never due to personal merit, one could be removed due to demerit.  Israel’s sole tabernacle / temple had but one main entrance.  One brazen altar received the sacrifices of the people.  Curtains kept all but the priests out of the Holy Place.  Within that Holy Place was one Ark of the Covenant residing in the Holy of Holies.  Once a year, the priest would enter alone into that place and sprinkle the blood upon the Mercy Seat. 

By the Levitical system, God reveals the absolute character of His holiness.  Under such a system, the mediator approached God in fear.  Aaron’s Priesthood is the fullest expression of man’s inability to get to God based upon his resident merit.  His priesthood was always a weak illustration, based upon the fact that the intercessor was also in need of intercession.  Even the most holy and godly high priest of Israel eventually died and was replaced.  The curse of sin affected the officer in charge of interceding on Israel’s behalf.

God’s wisdom provided Melchizedek as a second illustration.  In contrast to Aaron, the priesthood of Melchizedek is shrouded in mystery in the Old Testament.  Nevertheless, God providentially used the events of history to intimate the existence of a superior priesthood.  Even the pages of Scripture reveal that Messiah would be a superior high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

In what ways does Christ function as a Melchizedekan priest? Like Melchizedek He is a ruler. He receives our obeisance. He blesses us. And as Melchizedek offered bread and wine to Abraham to refresh and sustain him after the battle, so our Lord as Priest refreshes and sustains His people. He did this, for example, to Stephen at the time of his martyrdom. Our Lord was standing to sustain Stephen (Acts 7:55). He does the same today with respect to local churches as He walks among the golden lampstands (Rev. 2:1). His work of redemption is finished, so He is seen seated, indicating He will never have to rise again to do it over or to add to it in any way (Heb. 1:3). But His ministry of helping and sustaining goes on, so He is seen standing to do this. We have a great High Priest standing and ready to come to the aid of those who are tested (2:18) and anxious to give grace to help in time of need (4:16).[321]

Today, Jesus actively serves in a way superior to both Aaron and Melchizedek.  He is uniquely suited for this task because of who He is and what He has done.

Firstly, on the intrinsic excellence of His person and His proved sinlessness; ….  Secondly, upon the fact of His manhood, ….  Thirdly, upon His sufferings as man, in the days of His flesh; ….  Thus He has knowledge of all human need and trial, of every person and every case.  Fourthly, upon the value of His atoning sacrifice; …. Fifthly, upon His resurrection. … Sixthly, upon His relationship with those whom He represents. … They, the sanctified, are one with Him, the sanctifier; …. Seventhly, His Godhood invests His priesthood with an incalculable efficacy, for He thus has perfect knowledge of all the claims of divine righteousness, and maintains them, while at the same time securing the welfare of those on whose behalf He acts.  Eighthly, the character and efficacy of His priesthood rest upon the validity of the divine counsels. … His priesthood is thus shown to be merciful, faithful, sympathetic, authoritative and continuous.[322]

Jesus Christ’s resume for the position of God’s perfect High Priest is impressive, but it means nothing if God has not elected Him to be the eternal and perfect High Priest for mankind.

Jesus … was appointed by God as High Priest forever in a new order of priests (Heb. 5:8–10). Thus He has entered on behalf of believers into the inner sanctuary, into God’s very presence as the Melchizedekan High Priest (6:19–20). … Because He lives forever in a permanent priesthood, He is able to save His people completely (vv. 23–24a). … He always lives to intercede for His people (v. 24b).[323]

As perfect High Priest, Jesus Christ provides His followers with access into the very presence of God.   The servant of God may serve as an ambassador, but he can never be the mediator as was Aaron in the Old Testament.  Today, the curtain of separation has been torn away for good.

In addition the Bible indicates a very personal ministry that Jesus Christ has with believers.  He is the intercessor bearing the individual needs of each child to God.  Such a task could never be undertaken by a created being; it requires the activity of the infinite God.  “(Intercession is) a special activity of Christ in securing, upon the ground of that sacrifice, whatever of blessing comes to men, whether that blessing be temporal or spiritual.”[324]  The Son of God intercedes on behalf of each individual.  This act of love serves as the basis for assurance.

(1) Christ’s death demonstrates God’s love for humankind in the ultimate way. (2) Believers can be sure then that God will freely provide for their needs. (3) No one can accuse them, since Christ is at God’s right hand and appeals to Him on their behalf. (4) Therefore, they may be sure that no trial or any other circumstance can separate them from God’s love in Christ.[325]

The Mediatorial Christ and Worship - The New Covenant and its accompanying new worship did not sit well with those who were committed to the Jewish tradition.  The book of Hebrews is written in part to explain why things are different and how Jesus’ new and living role changes everything.

Based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (an offering that is once and for all forever, Hebrews 10:14), the believer is invited into the presence of God, “by a new and living way (10:19, 20).”  Jesus’ ministry did not end with His sacrifice.

It is only by the discovery of the beauty of the moral perfection of Christ, that the believer is let into the knowledge of the excellency of his person, …; and it is only by the knowledge of the excellency of Christ’s person, that any know his sufficiency as a mediator; …. It is by seeing the excellency of Christ’s person, that the saints are made sensible of the preciousness of his blood, and its sufficiency to atone for sin; for therein consists the preciousness of Christ’s blood.[326]

As living Mediator, He invites blood-bought believers to enter into the very presence of God (10:22-23).  Worship with the Father is no longer separated by walls, curtains, and Levites because the real issue, the sin, has been answered completely by Jesus Christ.  As would be expected for any who would enter the presence of royalty, there are matters of personal grooming which must be addressed.  The heart must be genuine in its desires, confident in its actions, and delivered from an evil conscience by salvation.  The worshiper’s life must be cleansed from defilement by confession of sins.  All of this is made possible because Jesus serves as a living mediator. 

Worship also has a corporate aspect (10:24-25).  It is not enough to insist that one has a deeply personal and unspoken relationship with God.  Individual worship will find expression in the midst of other believers.  The barriers that kept Jews and Gentiles apart have been torn down.  Believers will need encouragement, and God has provided churches for this purpose.  The body will not be perfect, but it will be committed, filled with people who see church attendance as a sacred duty and recognize its neglect is desertion of the local body.

Biblical belief is not ancestor worship, nor is it merely acknowledging what God did in the lives of past heroes of the faith.  While gratitude ought to be lifted up for godly giants of the past, they are not the reason why faith survives.  Faith survives because its Mediator is very much alive and is presently interceding for His people today. 

The Confessed Christ

The desire to peer into the future is a common fascination for mankind.  As a rule, man does so to benefit himself in some practical way.  In contrast, Jesus declares Himself to be the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.  This curious title becomes even more curious as it is examined.  Jesus did not say that He was the beginning and that He will be the end.  He states that He is both beginning and end in present time.  Such a position is incomprehensible to finite man because he is naturally chained to a timeline.  The One Who lives both flawlessly in the future and in the past while present today reveals that the future is very much about Him.  Jesus Christ is the center of all that has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future.

The treasury of truth encompassing the past and present work of Jesus Christ is vast.  If one knows nothing of the future work of Jesus Christ, he would be justly satisfied with all Jesus has done and all that He is doing right now.  Nevertheless, the future work of Jesus Christ is revealed and must not be neglected. 

Among orthodox believers, there is a general acceptance of the framework of future events especially as they relate to the salvation doctrines because some of the principles of prophecy surrounding the return of Jesus Christ are merely the ripened fruit of sound doctrine.

Christ taught that His return would be a literal, physical event; He would return in just the same way as the disciples had seen Him depart (Acts 1:11). He also taught that His return would be a comfort to His followers because He would be returning to take them to be with Him in His Father’s home (John 14:1–3). The time of His return, however, would be unknown, therefore people should be prepared for His coming (Matt. 24:36, 42; 25:1–13). During His absence, His people should be faithful stewards (Matt. 24:45–51), faithfully serving Him to receive His commendation and rewards upon His return (Matt. 25:14–30).[327]

If prophecy was limited to key points of concurrence, again the heart of man would be full.  Nonetheless, God’s word did not limit man’s knowledge to only those points of agreement.  God’s prophetic faithfulness is proven repeatedly in the Old and New Testaments.   His prophecies are so precise that critics of the supernatural try to discredit them by dating their transmission after their fulfillment.  Prophecy in the past was not to be received allegorically but literally, with the confidence that God would do precisely as He promised.

The Bible reveals that Jesus will return.

It is claimed that one out of every thirty verses in the Bible mentions this doctrine; to every one mention of the first coming the second coming is mentioned eight times; …  It is the theme of the Old Testament prophets. Of course, they sometimes merge the two comings so that it is not at first sight apparent, yet the doctrine is there (1 Pet. 1:11).  Jesus Christ bore constant testimony to His coming again (John 14:3; Matt. 24 and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21; John 21:22).  The angels, who bore such faithful testimony to Christ’s first advent, bear testimony to His second coming (Acts 1:11; cf. Heb. 2:2, for the faithfulness of their testimony).  The apostles faithfully proclaimed this truth (Acts 3:19, 20; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; Heb. 9:28; 1 John 2:28; Jude 14, 15).[328]

If indeed all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, then the prophetic teachings regarding the return of Jesus Christ are likewise profitable and should not be ignored because of controversy.  God declares that future events must impact present worship.

With regard to the prophetic content of Christ’s return and future ministry, intellectual honesty requires me to admit that other systems of “end-times events” are possible.  These systems are not the result of one or two verses being misapplied.  The roots go much deeper and impact more than the doctrines of eschatology.  Four eschatological systems impact the application of prophecy – the historicist, the preterit, the futurist, and the spiritualist.[329]

It is rightly acknowledged that some who might read this work will be critical of this section, for, in their mind, I will build upon evidence that has not been established.  To present and defend a system of eschatology at this point is beyond the scope and purpose of the present work.  Therefore, I choose to identify my position without elaboration.  Without apology, this writer approaches matters of eschatology from a premillennial, pretribulational bias.

In the future, every human being, living and dead will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  However, depending upon what the individual did with the gospel, Jesus Christ will either be Savior or Judge.  This is not to say that Jesus Christ lacks Lordly authority today.  His present sovereignty exists even among those who refuse to acknowledge Him.  Still chapters 4 and 5 of Revelation describe a point in time when the sacrificed Lamb receives the mysterious scroll because He alone is worthy to receive power.  The type of power listed in Revelation 5:13 is elsewhere translated “dominion.”  It describes overwhelming force and sometimes legal power.  Whereas Jesus presently possess all authority over heaven and earth, in the future that authority will become immediately obligatory upon all human beings upon the earth.

The Conquering Lamb - “Worship as a declaration of the Lamb’s worthiness is the main theme of Revelation 5.”[330]  Jesus Christ is identified repeatedly as “the Lamb” in Revelation.  Such an image appears peculiar.  Once He is called the Lion of the tribe of Judah.  This image appears to be more in keeping with the conqueror while the lamb would seem to be more representative of the conquered.  Then again, there is supreme divine wisdom in this choice, a wisdom that surpasses man’s wisdom.

The very word rendered Lamb in the Apocalypse is different from that used elsewhere of the sacrifice of Christ. In other passages it is ammos here it is always anion; this diminutive, expressive of the lowliness and humiliation of the Lord Jesus in His death, serves to set forth in greater contrast the statements of His majesty and power.[331]

It has been suggested that God created sheep specifically for the purpose of revealing His conquering Son.  “God did not choose the lamb because it possessed characteristics of Christ; neither did He choose it for the sacrificial aspect. God created such an animal to represent Christ.”[332]

The Lamb will gather His own to safety.  This event is called “the Rapture” by most dispensationalists.  While some eschatological schemes tend to minimize distinctions, dispensational schemes magnify differences.  Among these is a difference between Jewish promises and Church age promises.  Whereas Old Testament accounts and even Gospel prophecies place saints right in the midst of the Tribulation events, the promise to those who are “in Christ,” whether alive or dead, is that they will be caught up.  The resurrection of the saints is then distinctive from the general resurrection in Revelation 20.  “Though we know from other Scriptures that both groups will not be raised at the same time, His voice calling them will be the cause of the resurrection of all.”[333]  While the rest of mankind faces the horrors of the Tribulation period, the church-age saint will be kept from “the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth (Revelation 3:10).”  Believers of this age look forward to the arrival of their bridegroom who has gone to prepare a place for them.  Those who have been faithful to Him during His absence will love His appearing.

Likewise, the Bible describes an event called the Judgment Seat of Christ.  Again, dispensationalists see this even as distinct from the Great White Throne.  The purpose for this event is to reward those who were faithful to their stewardship while on earth, not to determine the suitability of one to enter Heaven’s gates.  After the crowns of honor are granted, the recipients will respond by casting those crowns at the feet of the One who truly deserves honor and praise.

Meanwhile, three series of judgments (seals, trumpets, bowls) are being unleashed upon the earth.  As a result of the sixth seal, men cry out for deliverance from “the wrath of the Lamb.” 

The phrase “wrath of the Lamb” seems a paradox. “Wrath of the lion” would be more consistent. We are so accustomed to emphasizing the meekness and gentleness of Christ (Matt. 11:28–30) that we forget His holiness and justice. … God’s wrath is not like a child’s temper tantrum or punishment meted out by an impatient parent. God’s wrath is the evidence of His holy love for all that is right and His holy hatred for all that is evil.[334]

The fear of an angry lamb seems ludicrous.  “You never see a sign saying, ‘Beware of the lamb.’ You see ‘Beware of the dog,’ but not of the lamb.”[335]  This is no contradiction; it is a divine paradox.  He who was elected to secure peace with God for mankind will cease being longsuffering toward rebellious mankind. 

If this does not sound like the ministry of the Prince of Peace, realize that his aim is not peace with unbelief and disobedience.  Those are the enemies that must be destroyed, lest they destroy.  When the amnesty of Jesus is despised, division is inevitable.[336]

The broad nature of Jesus Christ’s work during the Tribulation period is reflected in the Daniel 2 vision.  The Stone strikes the toes of the image when the Lamb breaks the first seal.  The seven years of tribulation will demolish every aspect of this sin-defiled cosmos.  Political Babylon, economic Babylon, and religious Babylon will all rise to unprecedented heights, only to be crushed at the end of the seven years.  The Kingdom of Jesus Christ will not enter upon earth due to reformation.  Instead, wickedness will be permitted to run its willful course until there is nothing left of it.

Coincidently, Israel will recognize its failure.  As the Antichrist is revealed for the traitor he is, Israel’s attention will be upon the One Who was pierced.  In the midst of their repentance, Jesus will return.

The Lamb secures His kingdom.  Matthew 25:31-46 speaks of a judgment by the Son of Man between the sheep and the goats.  Dispensationalists recognize this as being distinct from both the Judgment Seat and the Great White Throne judgments.

As His kingdom is inaugurated upon earth for one thousand years, He will banish unbelief and rebellion.  The Messiah will rule through Israel as He promised.  The unfulfilled promises to Israel will be met at this time.  Jerusalem will become the focal point of all nations, and the throne of David will hold the key to civil authority.

Then and only then will the world experience a time of righteousness, justice, social welfare, economic prosperity, and spiritual knowledge.  He will show Himself to be King of kings and Lord of lords in the same arena where man’s rebellion against God took place.[337]

At the end of one thousand years, the devil will be loosed for a brief season.  The loving Savior will permit this so that the hidden rebellion of that age will become manifest.  Those born during the thousand years who had every good reason to receive redemption, but chose not to, will join forces for one last attempt to overthrow God’s eternal plan.  While the size of the foe will be mammoth, it will never succeed.

Revelation 20:11-15 describes what is known as the Great White Throne judgment.  At this point, the unredeemed dead from the time of Cain until the final rebellion will stand before God.  While the passage indicates that God sits on the throne, it is clear from John 5:22, 27 that the person of the trinity who judges will be Jesus.  He who had been the judge during the Bema Seat and the Sheep and Goat judgments will preside here as well.

Paul speaks of “Jesus Christ who is to judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1). Peter says that Jesus Christ “is the one ordained by God to be the judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42; compare 17:31; Matt. 25:31–33). This right to act as judge over the whole universe is something that the Father has given to the Son: “The Father...has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man” (John 5:26–27).[338]

After the guilt for their sin is established, the Lamb’s Book of Life will be opened to prove that the mercy provided was never received.  Whereas the pain of being judged by one’s accusers is always great, it is no match for the pain of knowing the judge paid the supreme price for a refused pardon.

While the coming events are shrouded by a layer of mystery, the Bible reveals even less of what will follow the Millennial Kingdom.  There will be a new heaven and a new earth, and time will cease as man knows it today.  There exists but one verse to indicate the role Jesus Christ will play in eternity.

It is in this eternal state that the promise of 1 Corinthians 15:24 is fulfilled, when a conquered world is presented to the Godhead by Christ.  This must not be construed as ending the role of Christ as King, but rather ending its temporal phase and beginning its eternal characteristics.  With the introduction of the eternal state the revelation of Scripture comes to its close and the unending day of the glorious eternal state begins.[339]

At this point, the eternal praise and worship of the Godhead, especially of Jesus Christ, will begin.  “When we’ve been there ten thousand years / Bright shining as the sun, / We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise / Than when we’d first begun.”

The Confessed Christ and Worship - As the Apostle Paul awaited death at the hands of his persecutors he expressed no regrets for the things that had not yet been done.  He stated that he had fought a good fight, he had finished his course, and he had kept the faith.  He awaited a crown of righteousness (2 Timothy 4:8) – one that belonged not only to him but also to all who longed for the appearing of Jesus Christ.  This crown belongs to anyone who, at the time of his death or Jesus’ return, does not wish for one more day to complete their individual stewardships or to straighten out what they should have repented of long ago.  They approach the master with talents from a fruitful life in hand.

While prophecy is a source of brotherly debate, the fact that every one will either face death or participate in the Lord’s return ought to color the worship of the individual.  At any moment, the child of God may be unexpectedly whisked into the presence of His Savior for eternity.  For this reason, the believer needs to live as a stranger and a pilgrim upon this earth recognizing that only what is done for eternity will have merit.  His acts of genuine worship will have eternal consequence.

Because worship glorifies God and fulfills the purpose for which God created us, it is an activity of eternal significance and great value. … Because God is eternal and omniscient, the praise that we give him will never fade from his consciousness but will continue to bring delight to his heart for all eternity.[340]

Human tragedy and injustice will always abound on this earth.  The poor will always be present in this world, but the opportunities to pour out the best oil upon the Savior’s feet must never be forsaken for any man.  Some men are content to give fishes, feeding men for a day.  Some teach fishing so that men might eat for a lifetime.  The disciple is called to nourish the famished souls of humanity by feeding them of the Bread of life and providing water from the living spring which satisfies the thirsty for eternity.  This does not negate charitable activity, but it realizes that the temporary must never replace the eternal.

To many people today, the expression “kingdom come” is most disconcerting.  When they recite the Lord’s Prayer, the last thing that they want is to be ushered into the kingdom of Christ, for if Jesus comes back, life as they know it will cease.  To them, hymns like the following, which express the joy of His return, are repugnant.

O quickly come, dread judge of all;

for, awful though thine advent be,

All shadows from the truth will fall,

and falsehood die, in sight of thee:

O quickly come; for doubt and fear

like clouds dissolve when thou art near.

O quickly come, great king of all;

reign all around us, and within;

Let sin no more our souls enthrall,

let pain and sorrow die with sin:

O quickly come; for thou alone

canst make thy scattered people one.

O quickly come, true life of all;

for death is mighty all around;

On ev’ry home his shadows fall,

on ev’ry heart his mark is found:

O quickly come; for grief and pain

can never cloud thy glorious reign.

O quickly come, sure light of all;

for gloomy night broods o’er our way;

And weakly souls begin to fall

with weary watching for the day:

O quickly come; for round thy throne

no eye is blind, no night is known.

Author: Lawrence Tuttiett, 1854[341]

Worship must rise with the prospect of the coming of Jesus Christ.  Nothing of this earth’s bounty should ever be substituted for the prospect of sharing His glory.

Chapter 12 - The Christ of Worship

Jesus serves as the perfect embodiment of divine worship.  The worship established by God was purposefully free of icons or representations.  Contrary to all other religions at that time, nothing material was placed in the temple to aid the worshiper as he conceptualized God.  To grasp God, one needed to attend to His holy word.  When Jesus came, God provided to humanity the supreme image of Himself.  The Scriptures reveal three assurances regarding the true embodiment of worship.

The Embodiment of Worship is God the Son - Christology is truly the study of God because Jesus is Deity.  He existed in eternity before the creation of the world.  Throughout the Old Testament, the Jews worshiped Jehovah God.  Without realizing it, they were indeed worshiping God the Son.  In this way, the object of worship has really never changed.

Many will reject Jesus as the true object of worship because they deny His deity.  Some will insist that the Bible describes Jesus as a “lesser god” than Jehovah of the Old Testament.  Still others, driven by a false idea of man’s universal divinity, will create a counterfeit Christ made after their own image.  Liberalism will cast the Bible aside and engage in the search for the “Real Jesus.”  Gnosticism will promote pseudo-gospel accounts in order to create a mystic Jesus, one who rises into the spirit world and learns self-discovery.  Still others, buoyed by a political or social agenda seek for a Jesus who defends their cause.  Jesus is the spokesman for fairness and equality in the world and can therefore be fashioned by these people into a Marxist or a feminist.  As Jesus relates to them and their experiences, He becomes real. 

The Bible makes it clear that Jesus reveals God the Father in a perfect way to mankind.  This is only possible because He is God.  This fact is made clear in the Scriptures.  In order for worship to be true regarding Jesus Christ, the authority of the biblical record must be accepted without qualification.

I do not ask you to pray for a special whisper from God to decide if Jesus is real.  Rather I ask you to look at the Jesus of the Bible.  Look at him. Don’t close your eyes and hope for a word of confirmation.  Keep your eyes open and fill them with the full portrait of Jesus provided in the Bible.[342]

The deity of Jesus Christ is tied to the doctrine of the Trinity of the Godhead.  If He is not a person of the Godhead, the worship of Jesus Christ is idolatry.

There seemed to be not the slightest reluctance on the part of Christ in the acceptance of such worship. Therefore either Christ was God or He was an imposter. But His whole life refutes the idea of imposture. It was He who said, “Worship God only”; and He had no right to take the place of God if He were not God.[343]

Conversely, if Jesus is deity, it is wrong to worship Him as one who is less than God.  “The Christians of all ages have not been satisfied with admiring Christ, they have adored and worshipped Him. They have approached His person in the attitude of self-sacrifice and worship as in the presence of and to God.”[344]  The deity of Jesus Christ makes His worship special.  He must not be worshiped in a way similar to any celebrity because He has been given a name that is above the name of every celebrity.  He is more than the greatest man that ever lived; He is God!

The deity of Jesus Christ also makes this worship exclusive.  When God said, “Thou shalt not have any other gods before me,” His commandment included God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit within His being.  As applied to New Testament worship, the Bible teaches that no man can have any other god before Jesus Christ.  The worship of God means Jesus plus no other.

The deity of Jesus Christ finally makes the worship of Him mandatory.  During His days on the earth, His adversaries tried to declare that they worshiped God, but they rejected Jesus as Messiah.  Jesus made it clear that such a dichotomy was impossible.  “The only way to worship the Father is to worship the Son. … God can be worshiped only as He is perceived to be one with His Son, who is to receive the same honor as the Father.”[345]  After Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension, God gave to Jesus a name to which every knee will one day bow.  Every human being on earth will either bow in appreciation for His saving work on their behalf, or they will bow as a conquered sinner.  Jesus will one day receive worship from the mouth of every person.  If not given willfully, that worship will be mandated.

The words spoken by Jesus are the very words from the mouth of God.  He is that Prophet promised by Moses.  Jesus’ word is law.  For that reason man must listen and obey.  One cannot honestly claim to worship Him and disregard His word.

Thus, Jesus Christ is the embodiment of man’s worship toward God.  He cannot be diminished nor can He be circumvented.  Just as there is no salvation in any other name, so, too, God has obligated that all true worship springing from man be channeled through God the Son.  “This, then, is the bottom line in all worship: we come to God only through Christ, and we come to Christ in coming to God. Worship of the Father cannot be separated from worship of the Son.”[346]

The Embodiment of Worship is God in Human Flesh - God is a spirit person.  His being is not sensed by man’s five senses.  The Bible states that no man has seen God at any time.  This is one reason why Jesus Christ was sent into the world - to reveal who God is to human flesh.  God, who is otherwise unknowable to mankind, has spoken in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ.

To accomplish this work, Jesus had to humble Himself.  Nothing would keep Him from becoming the sinless sacrifice for mankind.  His condescension forced Him to personally leave the place where He is most appreciated to travel to a people who would not receive Him, but would abuse Him in an unprecedented way.  This love is a theme of worship, but this action is an example of condescension that every believer ought to embrace.  Worship is never about being applauded and appreciated by mankind.

The great mystery of 1 Timothy 3:16 is that God was manifested in the flesh.  Two natures – one human, one divine – were embodied fully and perfectly in one body.  As with many of the doctrines related to Jesus Christ, this is awe-inspiring.  One cannot grasp such magnificence without compromising either the humanity or deity of Jesus Christ.  In worship, any unworthy portrayal of the God-man is a betrayal of His being.

The Embodiment of Worship is God our Savior - From the time God bound Himself to Abraham by His sure word, Abraham’s people have looked for that one in whom all the families of the earth would be blessed.  He was revealed as God’s anointed one - Messiah in the Hebrew and Christ in the Greek.  It would be He who would serve as prophet, priest, and king to the people of Israel.  Messianic hope filled Israel at the time when Jesus walked on this earth.

Jesus fulfilled perfectly the divine requirements for His role as Messiah.  He was accepted by God, but He was refused by the leadership of the nation at that time.  Occasionally, people within the nation would dare to breathe the hope that Jesus was indeed that promised Messiah.  Usually they did so looking for Jesus to respond as a liberator from Rome, a manna provider in the wilderness, or even a judge.  Nevertheless, Jesus disappointed them by not fulfilling their perceived needs.  Instead, He addressed their real needs - the spiritual ones that kept them distant from the Holy God.  His suffering and death on the cross was a prophetic part of the Old Testament Messianic ministry.

On that cross, Jesus propitiated God’s wrath by redeeming unworthy man.  The selfless Son of God died on the cross so that man might be reconciled to God.  Worship worthy of Jesus Christ marvels at the high cost of His love.  The shed blood of Jesus Christ paid the ransom and redeemed man from his sinful bondage.  Without this propitiatory work, true voluntary worship would not even be possible.

As worship activities are evaluated, it is wise to remember that the focal point of Christianity is what Jesus did for man on the cross.  In the light of Calvary, much of what is called worship today would be thrown out as chaff.  If worship is trivial, heartless, preoccupied, and self-seeking, it is unworthy of the Savior Who suffered and died on the cross.

As Calvary declared the infinite love of Jesus, the Garden Tomb declared His infinite power.  His victory over sin’s penalty is worthy of man’s praise.  Such was the confidence of the apostles, that they feared not the counsel, which ordered Christ’s execution.  There was nothing of eternal consequence that any man could do to them.  The Apostle Paul chose to be made conformable to the death of Jesus Christ so that he might be resurrected from the dead.  True worship magnifies what Jesus has done and rids itself of the deeds of self-righteousness.  Because of what Jesus did, one day all men will appear before Him as judge.  Will one stand in his religion-based righteousness, or will he be clothed in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ?

Jesus rose again and ascended so that He might serve in His new office, that of mediator and advocate for the believer.  It is He that allows the worshipper to enter into the presence of God.  It is His present activity that makes the worship of God a living activity today.

Those who cherish relevance, who wish worship to exist only in real time, miss out on the fact that to Jesus Christ, the future is real time.  His saving work includes the promise that He is coming again.  The true worshiper loves the imminent appearing of the Savior.  In the Lord’s Prayer, the disciple prays expectantly for that coming kingdom.  If He is worshipping as God intends, his activities will invest in the things that will last for eternity, not for those things which only please mankind temporarily.

Section C: Pneumatology - The Vitality of Worship

Chapter 13 - The Enigmatic Person

Pneumatology is a doctrine that divides good people in part because, when it is comprehended, it directly impacts the practices of every aspect of ministry – especially the practice of worship.  Since it is impossible for this work to examine each of the conflicting points of this doctrine and in fairness present the underlying assumptions, it is tempting to gloss over this doctrine.  However, to do so would not establish truth and in turn the biblical practice of worship.

Many of the competing differences in the “Worship Wars” are defended by invoking the person and work of the Holy Spirit.  Activities, such as the “laughing revivals,” are proclaimed to be vibrant manifestations of the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit upon uninhibited people.  The fact that similar manifestations are not found in the Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures causes some to question whether the fire is Pentecostal fire or the strange fire of Leviticus 10.  This disparity in identifying Holy Spirit worship is driven by unsound doctrine more than by any other factor.  The lies are legion.

The religious world holds various views of the Spirit.  Liberalism in theology is rarely concerned about the Spirit as a Person.  The comforter is believed to be divine science by some.  In this group God is Father-Mother; Christ is the spiritual idea of sonship; and the Spirit is the vehicle or form of religious presentation.  There are those who deny any personality to the Holy Spirit.  He is merely a power or influence.  He is presented as the influence for good that comes from the divine side of man’s nature.  He is the impulse for good.  Often He is but a diffused, refined substance in space who is known when hands are laid on the seeker by those who know this aspect of the refined influence.  Another concept is that everything is pervaded by the Spirit who is known through that which He pervades.  This is pantheism, the idea that God is everywhere and is inseparable from His creation.  All of these ideas are an outright denial of the person of the Holy Spirit.[347]

An unworthy concept of God always leads to idolatry.  Therefore, knowing the Holy Spirit is a necessary pursuit in spite of the conflict it stands to raise.  This is no mere academic curiosity.  The doctrines of the Holy Spirit vitally address how God’s people live today.

The Holy Spirit is the point at which the Trinity becomes personal to the believer.  We generally think of the Father as transcendent and far off in heaven; similarly, the Son seems far removed in history and thus also relatively unknowable.  But the Holy Spirit is active within the lives of believers; he is resident within us.  The Holy Spirit is the particular person of the Trinity through whom the entire Triune Godhead works in us.[348]

To state this another way, “The Holy Spirit is now the primary manifestation of the presence of the Trinity among us. He is the one who is most prominently present with us now.”[349]  To ignore His presence is to disgrace Him.  It is allowing Him to walk in the midst of His people without acknowledging His presence because one fears offending those who know not the Spirit.

The Mystery of the Holy Spirit - While His importance is undisputed among Bible believers, He still remains the most enigmatic person of the Trinity.  Part of this is by Divine design.  Scriptures reveal that central to New Testament worship is the person and work of Jesus Christ. 

We have less explicit revelation in the Bible regarding the Holy Spirit than we find about either the Father or the Son.  Perhaps this is due in part to the fact that a large share of the Holy Spirit’s ministry is to declare and glorify the Son (John 16:14).[350]

Throughout His ministry, it appears that the Holy Spirit acts in a servant’s capacity to God the Father and God the Son.  He never speaks or acts independently of the Godhead.  In the scheme of history, it was He who anointed and filled Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.  It was the same Holy Spirit who prophesied and symbolically portrayed this coming in the Old Testament prophets, priests, and kings.  It is He who presently fills the ambassadors for Jesus Christ.  In this present age, He even allows Himself to be identified as the Spirit of Christ and His indwelling to be identified as the indwelling of Jesus Christ.  The Holy Spirit appears to care more about service than He does about receiving attention.

Not only is He enigmatic by Divine design, but He is also enigmatic due to His ministry.  His personal, indwelling ministry within the believer is identified in John 14-17.  This Spirit activity is diverse from all that anteceded because the departure of Jesus Christ marks a bold change.  The Spirit had personally and perfectly indwelt the Savior.  Prior to that, His activity was that of divinely inspiring or miraculously enabling individuals to perform supernatural activities.  Now He would serve as the perfect, personal Paraclete[351] of the disciples.  This change of ministry from pre-Pentecost to post-Pentecost is a crisis point for confusion.

Another reason for the enigma is that the Holy Spirit’s personal, divine identity appears to be veiled during the Old Testament.  “The approximate 100 references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament give evidence of His working during that period.  All, however, do not see these references as indicating the third Person of the Trinity.”[352]  While His existence is clear, His relationship to the Godhead requires New Testament revelation.  Prior to the New Testament, the deity of Jesus Christ and His relationship to the Godhead was also in dispute.  Regarding both of these persons, Old Testament Scripture requires the New Testament to honestly develop right doctrine. 

Assuming that the Holy Spirit is indeed the Third Person of the Trinity, Old Testament references acknowledge His person.  God revealed His personality to Moses in Numbers 11:17.  “This statement indicates that the Spirit is distinct from Yahweh, that He is personal (giving judicial advice), and that He is divine (guiding Israel).”[353]  All three persons are found in passages such as Isaiah 63:9-10. 

A fourth reason why the Holy Spirit is enigmatic to the believer relates to the finiteness of mankind.  The Holy Spirit is spirit operating in the realm of the non-material.  This limits man’s capacity for comprehension.

(The Holy Spirit) is rather given descriptive titles, of which the most common in Scripture and in common usage is the Holy Spirit. As His Person is pure spirit, to which no material is essential, He is revealed in the Scriptures as the Spirit. The descriptive adjective holy is used to distinguish Him from other spirits, which are creatures.[354]

Both the Hebrew and the Greek words for “spirit” come from the idea of breath or wind.  Both are forces which are imperceptible by the human eye, yet both are very energetic.  Breath is vital to life, and the wind illustrates the mystery of the Spiritual birth.  The wind is indeed evident and is perceived by hearing and viewing its effect upon materials which can be seen, but it is not a perfect picture of the uncreated, immaterial, personal Holy Spirit.  He is no blind force as is the wind.

A History of Pneumatology - The history of Christendom reveals that the early attention was primarily given to the Trinitarian relationship of the Son and the Spirit to the Father.  Much of this energy was invested in Christology - as it should be.  The Eastern Catholic Church separated from Roman Catholicism due to a disagreement over whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Christ as well as the Father.  As it relates to His person, the Holy Spirit’s rightful deity was maintained.

With regard to practice, there were sects within the fold of Christendom that promoted supernatural experiences.  The best known of these was Montanism.  Their view of extra-Scriptural revelations parallels that of the modern Charismatic.  They thirsted for new revelations, but at the same time, their separation from sin was more akin to the Holiness Pentecostals of the present day.  Montanism died out in the early third century.  The machinery of Catholicism began to make any personal spirituality unnecessary, if not an outright nuisance.

The church, however, rejected Montanism in favor of the objective authority of apostolic tradition as reflected in Scriptures. … In the late fourth century John Chrysostom could speak of the spiritual gifts as belonging to an age in the past.[355]

As time passed, a sacral society was formed concentrating the work of the Holy Spirit upon a select few in leadership.  The ordinary citizen was instructed to care for the secular needs of society and leave the spiritual matters in the hands of the clergy.

The doctrines of the Holy Spirit were awakened during the time of the Reformation. 

It was not until the Reformation that the work of the Spirit in the church was truly rediscovered.  This was due at least in part to the rejection of Rome’s dogma of church tradition as the guarantor of correct Scripture interpretation and the formation of true doctrine.[356]

Key to this awakening was the restoration of the authority of Scripture.  The work of the Holy Spirit was forged to the reading, teaching, and preaching of the Word of God.  “In this older evangelicalism, the Holy Spirit gave the gift of faith and repentance to sinners solely through the hearing of the gospel as it is revealed in Scriptures.”[357]  In the mind of reformers like John Calvin, “the Spirit works in the reading of Scripture as well as in the preaching of the Word, and the Word – preached or read – is efficacious through the work of the Holy Spirit.”[358]

While Protestantism professed confidence in Scriptures, it maintained one subtle link with Roman Catholicism.  To reign in the independence, “excesses,” and “abuses” of the Anabaptists, Protestants depended upon ancient catholic creeds and confessions to guide them into a proper understanding of the Bible.  This in turn led to contemporary Protestant standards such as the Westminster and Belgic Confessions.  The standard for orthodoxy was no longer found in human leaders, but an objective standard was set to become the true measure.  Thus, while the word of God was now freed from its bondage to the Roman system, it was immediately subjected to the creeds of Protestantism.  In response to modern subjectivism, the disciples of Calvin cry out for Protestantism to quench all contrary teachings.

The last thing on the mind of the Reformers was what we now call “the priesthood of all believers” and “the right to private interpretation” of the Bible.  … No one has the “right” to interpret Scripture in isolation from the communion of saints.  There is a “cloud of witnesses,” from the patriarchs and apostles to the early fathers, doctors, and reformers, and the individual believer is responsible to this catholic community.[359]

Thus, to conservative Protestantism the Holy Spirit speaks through the Holy Scriptures.  Every sacred teaching must be measured against the Bible for its trustworthiness.  Still, even though the Scriptures are complete, a second authority was drafted to define the historic doctrines of the Church and to prevent any interpretation from becoming “individual” and subjective.  The Holy Spirit illumines believers today, but not outside of the Scriptures as defined by tradition.

As the Reformation restored the importance of Scriptural authority to Christendom, so the Great Awakening restored the neglected doctrines related to the contemporaneous workings of the Holy Spirit.

This fire of the Holy Spirit did come on the germinating missionary theology in waves of “Great Awakenings,” which God graciously sent to Protestantism.  Spiritual restoration within formal but lifeless Christendom came in three forms: German Pietism in Europe, evangelicalism in Great Britain, and the “Great Awakenings” in America.  Although these movements differed considerably, essentially they were one great movement of the Holy Spirit. They all helped to quicken the life of the church; to deepen the spiritual experience of the professing church memberships; to convert the church from traditional rationalism, orthodox scholasticism, and introversion to evangelicalism, evangelism, and extroversion; and to motivate God’s people in the evangelization of the multitudes who knew experientially nothing of Christ.[360]

Jonathan Edwards investigated the “out-pouring” of the Holy Spirit in his day.   He did not defend every aspect or even every evangel, but he resisted the critics who were stifling a true revival wrought by the Holy Spirit.

In his works Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New-England (1742) and A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections (1746), Edwards discriminated between the natural and the supernatural effects of the revival. On the one hand, he acknowledged that persons could be saved without the apparent outbursts of enthusiasm and bodily tics which marked some phases of the Awakening and that some aberrant manifestations might be demonic. On the other hand, he defended the revival as authentic religious experience on the basis of the Holy Spirit’s work in changing thousands of individuals’ lives for good and bringing high standards of Christian morality to hundreds of communities.[361]

Edwards called upon other giants of that day such as Isaac Watts to validate the work.  After all, many faithful ministers were not experiencing the same harvest.  Regarding the preaching of these evangels, Watts concluded, “It is the common plain Protestant doctrine of the Reformation, without stretching towards Antinomians on the one side, or the Arminians on the other, that the Spirit of God has been pleased to honor with such illustrious success.”[362]  The source of the Great Awakening was not ministerial novelty but the sovereign moving of the Holy Spirit.  The pastors of that time wrote no book detailing how others might replicate their success because they viewed the Spirit’s moving as a gift and not as an outcome of planning or perseverance.

Another great voice of the time was John Wesley.  As an ordained Anglican minister he lacked inner peace and reality in his religious duties.  Due to the influence of some Moravian missionaries, John found that peace at Aldersgate.  Because his ministry was transformed, the person and work of the Holy Spirit became intensely practical.

He asserted that the Holy Spirit acts through the truth, in distinction from the doctrine that the Holy Spirit works solely through the ministers and sacraments of the church. But in asserting the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual soul, he went too far to the opposite extreme of emphasizing the ability of man to choose God’s service.[363]

John Wesley opened the possibility of subjectivism in the Protestant believer’s religious experience.  The Holy Spirit was given the freedom to speak outside of the recognized authorities of the day.  “The inward testimony of the Spirit is called … the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of Protestant theology.”[364]  In spite of this, orthodoxy recognized that the Holy Spirit does affect the individual believer in a manner consistent with the Holy Scriptures.

Still, it was only a matter of time before experience and pragmatism would threaten the authority of the Scriptures.  As the human dynamic became important in the Holy Spirit’s work, attempts were made to create a Second Awakening in the nineteenth century.  The new evangelists taught that if people would prepare enough, pray enough, fast enough, and mourn enough, the Holy Spirit would be poured out on them as well.

In the First Awakening, Whitefield and Edwards preached a distinctly Calvinistic gospel; they exulted in the surprising salvific action of their sovereign, inscrutable God. Many ministers of the Second Awakening, on the other hand, leaned decisively toward theological Arminianism.  Their far more pragmatic approach to evangelism was succinctly expressed by Charles G. Finney, who argued that a revival of religion was not miraculous in any way, but rather the proper application of humanly contrived means. Believing that the chief end of their ministry was the salvation of their auditors, the Second Awakeners wrenched the initiative formerly thought to be the sole property of the Calvinists’ God, and employed a myriad of “new measures” to attract, convince and “win” the souls of American citizens.[365]

Pragmatism began to wield its influence over the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  Spirituality was now being defined by orthopraxy (measured by the standard of codes of conduct).  The details of doctrine were not important.  What really mattered was that the bars and the houses of ill-repute went out of business because the Holy Spirit brought revival to the town.

One doctrine receiving focus at the close of the nineteenth century was that of “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”  Among the prominent voices was R. A. Torrey.  Whereas Wesleyan teachers tied the baptism to sanctification, Torrey tied it to a special anointing of power to do incredible things for God.  His chief illustration was D. L. Moody.  In his mind, Holy Spirit baptism is a present phenomenon which distinguishes between the anointed and common servants of God.

Other fundamentalist groups led by C. I. Scofield were fashioning the doctrine a different way.  They taught that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was the non-experiential placement of a believer into the body of the universal church at the time of salvation.  It was an activity limited to believers of the church age. 

Still others, who called themselves Pentecostals, had another take on this doctrine.  “At the heart of the Pentecostal experience is baptism in the Holy Spirit.”[366]  Pentecostalism taught that Holy Spirit baptism is both normative and extremely experiential.  A Pentecostal experience validates the personal faith of the believer.  He must receive the Holy Spirit as a later work after he believes. 

For the most part, Presbyterianism tied Spirit Baptism to the sacrament of water baptism.  While some place great emphasis upon the waters, others looked for spiritual truth within the sacrament.  To Charles Hodge, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is another description for regeneration.  “The work performed in us by the Holy Spirit is a baptism. As water in the hands of John was the purifying medium for the body, so the Holy Spirit, as sent or given by Jesus Christ, purifies the soul.”[367]

Morton Smith, on the other hand, views the activity as being poured out upon the Church rather than upon individuals.[368]  Spirit Baptism is a historic event related to Pentecost.

This was the fulfillment of the promised outpouring of the Spirit upon the Church, and it was thus the baptism of the Church visible by the Holy Spirit. … (It is not) repeated in the individual Christian life, rather, it is one that was given to the Church once for all on that occasion.[369]

The exposition of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is key to understanding Holy Spirit baptism.  The Larger Westminster Catechism repeatedly states that this text refers to sacramental or water baptism.[370]  So too, The Westminster Confession states, “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church (1 Corinthians 12:13); but also to be unto him a sign and seal …”[371]  Protestant tradition maintains that sacramental baptism places one into the universal church body.

In the middle of the twentieth century, Pentecostalism was transformed.  One Pentecostal historian identifies five steps leading to the present Charismatic movement: Old-Line Pentecostal, Traditional Pentecostal, Classical Pentecostal, Neo-Pentecostal, and Charismatic Pentecostal.[372]  While he views the transformation as a process of decay, Richard Quebedeaux views the transformation from cultural rejection to cultural embracing.[373]  Old Pentecostalism is “conversionist” in its practice.  “A conversionist sect centers its teaching and activity on evangelism or recruitment.  It is typified by biblical literalism and the demand for conversion as the test of fellowship.”[374]  As such it is viewed as anti-intellectual and lower class.[375]  

In contrast, the Charismatic is tested by his Spirit Baptism rather than by his conversion experience.  The Charismatic is “transdenominational.”  “It has been theologically diverse but generally orthodox unified by a common experience – baptism in the Holy Spirit – with accompanying charismata … to be used personally and corporately in the life of the church.”[376]  However, agreement on the content of saving faith is lacking.  “Activity often centers on an evangelism that calls people to a personal (although variously understood) ‘acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.’”[377] 

Francis Schaeffer notes the impact of this anti-creedal, experience-driven movement:

Often the new Pentecostals put their emphasis on the external signs themselves instead of on content, and they make these external signs the test for fellowship and acceptance. … The rub, of course, is this: there are Unitarian groups and Buddhist groups who also have these external signs. Furthermore, any external sign can be duplicated or counterfeited.[378]

It is fair to say that no century has been as influenced by Holy Spirit doctrine as has the twentieth century.  In spite of this fact, no generation has been more confused as to who He is and what He does.  “Though this attention on the work of the Spirit has been a good thing, it has not always been scripturally guided; thus there exists an even greater need today for careful attention to the biblical teaching on this subject.”[379]

It is no mere coincidence that the three criteria which often propel one’s worship (pragmatism, experience, and tradition) also influence one’s comprehension of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is the energy behind the believer’s worship.  All three criteria have a proper place in submission to Scriptures, but where Scriptural ignorance of the Holy Spirit abounds, pragmatism, experience, and traditions will readily usurp biblical authority.  Jonathan Edwards warned about this in his day.

(The word of God) is the main weapon which Michael uses in his war with (Satan). … And accordingly we see it common in enthusiasts, that they depreciate this written rule, and set up the light within or some other rule above it.[380]

The pragmatist will look at the statistics and assume that growth is evidence that the Holy Spirit is at work.  However, the Bible places this standard in doubt.  For example, the Holy Spirit-filled Messiah asked His last twelve disciples if they would forsake Him as the crowds did.  Likewise, of the seven churches described in Revelation 2 & 3, the Spirit reveals to all that the weakest churches were pure, and that the church with a reputation for being alive was really dead.

The person trusting in experience will also discover flaws.  Most who defend a second blessing or Holy Spirit baptism believe that they have personally experienced the event.  Without a doubt, many have had a spiritual experience that transcends natural explanations.  Still, the Scriptures warn, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world (1 John 4:1).”

If tradition is to dictate one understands of the Holy Spirit, then the modern-day believer is impoverished, for the creeds and councils gave minimal attention to the Third Person of the Trinity.  Jonathan Edwards was accused by traditionalists of individualism.  He was called a “New Light” in opposition to the “Old Lights.”  Jesus warned that man’s traditions can frustrate God’s Word. 

As the energy behind true worship, the Holy Spirit keeps biblical faith from becoming an ancient religion worshiped only for its traditions and stubbornness to yield to progress.  At the same time, He has inspired the word of God to be a timeless, infallible guide in the matter of worship.  True Holy Spirit tradition is not the adversary of true Holy Spirit experience and practice.  They are like parallel rails on a train track.

In the days between the Reformation and the Awakening, one British Baptist dared to move outside of the lines of a tradition-confined Holy Spirit.

I never endeavored to, nor durst make use of other men’s lines (Rom. 15.18), though I condemn not all that do, for I verily thought, and found by experience, that what was taught me by the Word and Spirit of Christ, could be spoken, maintained, and stood to by the soundest and best established conscience; and though I will not now speak all that I know in this matter, yet my experience hath more interest in that text of Scripture than many amongst men are aware (Gal. 1.11, 12).[381]

During the days of darkness, few had a better grasp of the Holy Spirit’s ministry than John Bunyan, but he was rejected because he was outside “the church.”  Long before Wesley, Bunyan’s allegory, The Holy War, reveals how the Lord’s Secretary, (i.e. the Holy Spirit) indwells the life of the individual believer (Mansoul) and becomes the other Comforter in the absence of the King’s Son.

It is my conviction that, while a gaping hole exists in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in church history, the Holy Spirit has never been without sufficient and accurate testimony regarding His work.

Pneumatology finds its source in the teachings of Scripture itself – which teachings were accepted by primitive, orthodox church (which this writer believes to be local Baptist churches. Note: This writer [J. M. Bates] is NOT a Landmark Baptist or a so-called Baptist Brider, but he does believe that there have been local churches going back to the days of Christ which have believed essentially what Baptists believe today).[382]

While it might be exciting to find the stream that traces back to the time of Christ, the Holy Scriptures serve as the exclusive authority regarding Holy Spirit Doctrines.  The task at hand is to focus on the infallible word of God and to ignore the voices of tradition, experience, and pragmatism.

Chapter 14 - The Person of the Holy Spirit

A Spirit Being - The Bible states that the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.  These things are foolish because they require spiritual discernment.  Many today desire a materialistic explanation for all of creation, choosing to believe that every example of “miraculous” phenomenon has a natural explanation.  It is no surprise that the Bible becomes the focus of attacks.

Our generation is overwhelmingly naturalistic. There is an almost complete commitment to the concept of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. This is its distinguishing mark. If we are not careful, even though we say we are biblical Christians and supernaturalists, nevertheless the naturalism of our generation tends to come in upon us. It may infiltrate our thinking without our recognizing its coming.[383]

The Bible reveals the existence of a spiritual realm.  Within that realm dwell innumerable angelic beings, some under the direct command of God and others which are bound to Satan.  Unredeemed man gravitates to one of two extremes when addressing this world.  “Theological liberals are inclined to dismiss the entire subject of angels as though it belonged to an outmoded pattern of thought.”[384]  In contradistinction, others embrace the spirit-world through Gnosticism and mysticism.

The Bible uses two words to identify the invisible Spirit.  He is ruach in the Old Testament and pneuma in the New Testament.  “What is invisible or unseen is difficult to define.”[385]  Still, the believer must realize these words were chosen by the Holy Spirit to describe Himself.   These are not man’s impressions; these are divine revelations, given as the Holy Spirit moved the writers of the Scriptures.

The Hebrew word, ruach, is most easily comprehended as “wind” or “breath.”  “The basic idea of ruach (Gr. pneuma) is ‘air in motion.’”[386]  Ancient scientists considered the wind to be elemental (along with earth, fire, and water).  Today, science has some very natural explanations for air currents.  The modern scientist is less impressed today than were his naturalist friends in the past.  In order for him to be impressed, the wind must take on the form of a tornado or a hurricane.  In spite of his vast knowledge, the wind is still sovereign over mankind.  He may be able, in some measure, to predict the path that the wind will take, but he is still unable to rise up in the midst of the storm and rebuke the wind and the waves.

Ruach also has a very human dimension.  It is used to describe the passage of air in and out of the nostrils of each human being.  “Such breath is a direct result of the divine, creative power of Yahweh graciously bestowed upon his creation. … Thus, to possess this breath is life, but the departure of this breath is death.”[387]  Life in man is, by God’s definition, a spiritual activity.

Natural scientists define life as “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.”[388]  This is unacceptable, because the spirit of man extends far beyond these criteria.  Man is spiritually defined by his disposition, recognition, and volition. 

(Ruach) reveals the manner in which the OT speaks of man: not clinically … but concretely, i.e. the writers take a man as they find him and assess what he does, his behavior towards his fellow-men and the attitude he displays towards the law of God. …The thought implicit in ruach is that breathing, with the movement of air which this involves, is the outward expression of the life-force inherent in all human behavior.[389]

Man’s capacities to feel, to will, and to choose are not mechanical - they are spiritual.  Try as they might, behavioral scientists will never find man’s image in laboratory rats.  However, if they will acknowledge the spiritual realm, they will find the image of God in man.

Ruach also possesses a supernatural dimension.  “Theologically, in the OT the most significant usage of ruach involves its representation of the metaphysical or numinous, specifically the ‘Spirit of God/the LORD.’”[390]  Rarely is the term ruach used to describe false or unclean spirits.  The Old Testament Spirit of God was clearly distinct from any created spiritual form.

The Greek term pneuma is equally difficult.  By definition, it is a neuter noun.  It is rarely thought of as someone - rather as something.  The Greek word expands upon the Hebrew to include non-Trinitarian mystical encounters. 

As the New Testament dawns, evil begins to manifest itself in more personal ways.  The Old Testament speaks of offerings made to devils, but reference to demonic possession first appears in the New Testament.  Some may view this phenomenon as ignorant man’s explanations for psychological disorders.  “These were all understood as experiences of personal forces from the spiritual realm, evil or unclean because they injured and hindered a man’s full relationship with God and his fellows.”[391]  Jesus confirms the reality of these unclean spiritual beings.

At the same time, the angelic hosts who are ordered by God are identified as true spirit beings (Hebrews 1:7, 14).  These are distinctive in their holiness and purity.  Because they are being imitated by the demonic world, discernment is necessary, and every spirit must be tested for truth.  These holy angels are never directed by God to become intermediaries.  Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man.  It is the Holy Spirit who serves as man’s indwelling Comforter.  Any arrangement apart from this is demonic.

Thus, in the realm of the metaphysical, the Bible declares the presence of immaterial beings.  One singular being, the Holy Spirit, is both immaterial and uncreated.  All others are created, immaterial beings serving either God or the devil.

Jesus compared the work of the Holy Spirit to the wind (John 3:8).  The Holy Spirit cannot be examined with material tests, but that does not make His work less fantastic.  “The Spirit, like the wind, is sovereign … invisible while perceptible, real, and mighty … inscrutable …indispensable … life-giving … irresistible.”[392]

A Personal Being - As a spirit being, the Holy Spirit is energetic.  Winds and breath are made of air, but they are ever moving. 

The idea behind ruach is the extraordinary fact that something as intangible as air should move; at the same time it is not the movement per se which excites attention, but rather the energy manifested by such movement.[393]

Two New Testament passages speak of God energizing the believer.  Ephesians 2:1-5 speaks of the energy used to breathe life into a corpse.  The past life was artificially stimulated by the world, the flesh, and the devil just like the lives of everyone else.  By God’s power, the corpse is quickened, or made alive.  While not mentioned specifically in this text, the person of the Godhead who quickens is the Holy Spirit.

The living believer also discovers energy in Philippians 2:12-13.  The believer is called upon to work out (katergeō) his salvation.  Eternal life is not just for the “sweet by-and-by” - it is to be lived practically today.  Still, the power behind this activity is not self-produced.  It is God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, who works in (energeō - energizes) the believer.  As related to worship, the outworking of praise should ever be energized by the Holy Spirit and not artificially stimulated by the world, the flesh, or the devil.

The Holy Spirit is the source of energy, but He is no impersonal force.  He is the source of power, but He must never be viewed in the way one might view a full tank of gasoline.  False teachers seek to rob the Holy Spirit of both His Deity and His personality.

The Mormons and the JW’s think of Him as an immaterial force.  Heretics speak of Him as “an energy” or “an influence” – albeit a divine one.  Liberals and apostates think of Him as “a great something.”  Certainly He is an impersonal force. … He is sometimes seen, especially by liberal theologians, as a personification of power (much like Satan is seen as the personification of evil).[394]

While such reasoned expressions cause believers to shudder, many practice this heresy.  Some view worship services as a time to “charge up their spiritual batteries.”  They come for the purpose of “plugging into the power source.”  Therefore, worship must be a high-octane type of affair, and the more stimulating it is, the better.  Such a person looks for energy, but he has no desire to know the person of the Holy Spirit – just like Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8.  He did not want a relationship with God; he only wanted the access key that would let him into the power plant.  “When you begin to see the Holy Spirit as a person—not as a power or an experience—you have a much different perspective on receiving or getting the Holy Spirit.”[395]

Still, it is difficult for man to grasp the personality of the Holy Spirit.  The problem is aggravated by the fact that the Holy Spirit is unlike any other “person” man knows.  He is an immaterial, non-corporeal person.  Every other “person” man knows exists within a finite, physical body. 

The problem in the minds of many people is that personality can exist only in human beings, as though personality can relate only to finite beings but not to the infinite.  Since man is made in the image of God it is reasonable to expect similar characteristics between God and man. Hence, it is possible to form some conception of divine personality by a study of the human, because man is made in the likeness of God.[396]

Man’s problem with grasping the personality of the Holy Spirit results from the faulty idea that personality is a human quality.  In reality, personality belongs to the Godhead, and man is made in His image.  Human personality is but a scale model of the infinite personality of God.

Lists of proofs of the personality of the Holy Spirit reside in every good systematic theology.  Charles Ryrie organizes his proofs under four headings.  First, the Holy Spirit possesses and exhibits the attributes of a person: intelligence, feelings, and will.  Second, He exhibits the actions of a person.  The Spirit guides into truth by hearing, speaking and showing.  He also convicts of sin, performs miracles, and intercedes.  Third, He receives ascriptions which would be given only to a person.  He can be obeyed, lied to, resisted, grieved, blasphemed, and insulted.  Finally, the Spirit relates as a person to other persons such as the apostles, Jesus, and the Trinity.[397]  “Thus, the Holy Spirit is co-existent with both the Father and the Son (Gen. 1:2), co-equal with them (Gen. 1:26; Mt. 28:19), and co-eternal (Heb. 9:14).”[398]

In the moments before His arrest, Jesus instructed the disciples about the coming of another Comforter.  John 14:15-18 and 26 speak of one who would come to replace Jesus Christ.  It is critical to note that the Father would send “another” Comforter.  The Greek word behind the translation is allos which means “another of the same kind.”  The Holy Spirit would have much in common with Jesus, substituting for Jesus in His absence.

This new Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, was to witness concerning Jesus Christ (John 14:26; 16:7, 14) and to glorify Him. The Holy Spirit is called a Paraclete because He undertakes Christ’s office in the world while Christ is not in the world as the God–Man in bodily form. In addition, the Holy Spirit is also called the Paraclete because He acts as Christ’s substitute on earth.[399]

Jesus further promises that He would not desert the disciples, making them orphans (“comfortless”).  No impersonal force can fulfill such a promise.  Later, in verse 26, Jesus uses a masculine pronoun to identify the Holy Spirit, “He (that very person) shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance.”  Jesus had a personal being in mind.

Still, the critic will note that, more often than not, the pronouns and articles used to describe the Holy Spirit are neuter rather than masculine.  In Romans 8:16 & 26, the English translation of the Bible identifies the Spirit as “itself” instead of “himself.”  It is evident that the noun referring to the Holy Spirit is neuter and that any pronoun or article referencing the term pneuma would need to be neuter to be grammatically correct.  More often than not, the translators of the Authorized Version allowed theology to color the translation in this matter.  The personality of the Holy Spirit is a matter of Scriptural revelation, not of grammar.  While the noun, pneuma, would gravitate to a neuter understanding, biblical teaching reveals that the Holy Spirit is indeed personal.  “Several times the writers of the New Testament will use a masculine pronoun to refer to the Spirit (which is neuter).  The clearest example of this exception to normal grammatical usage is John 16:13-14.”[400]  Any exception where masculine pronouns are used is extremely significant.

A Holy Being - As stated before, holiness is God’s self-affirming purity, making Him pure in essence and action.  Such is also a description of the Spirit.  It distinguishes Him from all that defiles.

God is an invisible, personal, and living Spirit, distinguished from all other spirits by several kinds of attributes: metaphysically God is self-existent, eternal, and unchanging; intellectually God is omniscient, faithful, and wise; ethically God is just, merciful, and loving; emotionally God detests evil, is longsuffering, and is compassionate; existentially God is free, authentic, and omnipotent; relationally God is transcendent in being, immanent universally in providential activity, and immanent with His people in redemptive activity.[401]

This designation as Holy Spirit is most common in the New Testament.  The Old Testament term was too precise; it is never used of any “unholy” spirit.  But in the New Testament, the term “holy” sets Him apart from other “spirits” residing in a general spiritual realm.

Jesus warned of the danger of reformation without conversion.  On a national level, the Jews wanted their demons expelled, but they did not want Jesus to reside within them.  He explains how reformation without replacement results in a stronger demonic presence (Luke 11:26).  Many have been delivered of drug addictions only to become possessed by pride and self-righteousness. 

There are other spirits who have influence on the minds of men, besides the Holy Ghost. We are directed not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits, whether they be of God. There are many false spirits, exceeding busy with men, who often transform themselves into angels of light, and do in many wonderful ways, with great subtlety and power, mimic the operations of the Spirit of God.[402]

John ushers a strong warning related to the counterfeit spirits who pose as angels of light and deliverance (1 John 4:1-6).

Christians are to have a healthy skepticism regarding any teaching, unlike some among John’s congregations who were too open minded to anyone claiming a new teaching regarding the faith. Christians are to be like the Bereans who, as students of the Word, examined the Scriptures to determine truth and error (Acts 17:11, 12).[403]

Some false teachers possess the spirit of Antichrist.  Through slander and deception he will endeavor to sell society a false Christ and a twisted gospel, neither of which has the ability to save men or to remove the cloud of darkness from their eyes.

The presence of supernatural signs or incredible prophecies is not proof of the work of the Holy Spirit.  These unclean spirits are capable of deceptive miraculous activity.

The Hebrew and Greek words which describe these spirits have significant meanings. The Hebrew word is shedim which denotes “mighty ones”; the Greek is daimones (or daimonia), i.e., “knowing ones.” Their superhuman power is illustrated in the records of the Gospels and the Acts. … In regard to their knowledge, it is evident that demons have closely observed the ways and doings of men, and the dealings of God with humanity. They have thus been enabled to understand considerably the constitution of man and the conditions of his life. They can have little difficulty, therefore, in impersonating the departed, whose lives they have watched. Their knowledge of human affairs, coupled with the fact that they act under the guidance of Satan, enables them to predict the future to some extent.[404]

The Bible further warns that such activity will increase as the time of Jesus’ return draws near.

Satan, the archenemy of mankind, is called “the deceiver of the whole world” (Rev. 12:9). He is said to “fashion himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). … (The Bible) foretold that during the latter part of the present age there would be a falling away from the faith on the part of some, “through the power of seducing spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1), and that at the close of this dispensation the world would come under a specially organized activity of these beings (Rev. 16:13, 14).[405]

The first line of resistance against this corruption in this present age is the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit.  John states that He who resides within is stronger than the god of this world (1 John 4:4).

Believers need to be aware and alert to false teaching, but not afraid, since those who have experienced the new birth with its indwelling of the Holy Spirit have a built-in check against false teaching (cf. 2:20, 27). The Holy Spirit leads into sound doctrine for genuine Christians evidencing that salvation has actually occurred (cf. Rom. 8:17).[406] 

John calls upon his readers to be discerning.  Jonathan Edwards found five indicators which allow godly people to distinguish between the Holy Spirit and the counterfeit spirits.[407]  In summary, the indicators are five: 1) the person and work of Jesus Christ is fully esteemed.  2) The antithetical nature of the world is resisted.  3) The Holy Scriptures are received as absolute truth and obeyed.  4) The brilliance of the truth is permitted to shine - exposing error.  5) The supernatural love of God is evident.

Whenever the Holy Spirit is poured out you will always find a people preoccupied with two concerns – the Scriptures and the gospel.  The desire will be to bring all things into submission to the Word of God.  This will be the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice.  And the gospel will bring real joy.  Christ as substitute, Christ as high-priest Intercessor, Christ as Sovereign over all will be the center conversation, labor, and worship.  When God’s people are preoccupied with Christ, the Christ of the New Testament, then and then only can we rejoice in the evidence that a great work of the Holy Spirit is under way.[408]

In 1 Thessalonians 5:18-22, the importance of discernment is reinforced in five rapid commands.  The believer is forbidden to quench the Holy Spirit in His leading, especially as it relates to the preaching and exposition of the word.  That prophetic word is not to be despised, but neither is it to be received indiscriminately.  The believer is told to prove all things.  Upon determining the right from the wrong, he is to whole-heartedly embrace what the Holy Spirit has revealed, and to reject the wrong and abstain from its appearance.  Many spirits desire an audience from man today, but only one Holy Spirit is worthy of obedience.

A Triune Being - The doctrine of the Trinity is no more easy or difficult as it relates to the Holy Spirit than as it relates to Jesus Christ.  The Trinitarian relationship of the persons of the Godhead is purely divine – surpassing human comprehension.  Nothing exists in creation that perfectly pictures this mystery.  Therefore, its teaching must be reduced to axiomatic statements.  A. H. Strong declares the doctrine in six statements.

1. In Scripture there are three who are recognized as God. 2. These three are so described in Scripture that we are compelled to conceive of them as distinct persons. 3. This tripersonality of the divine nature is not merely economic and temporal, but is immanent and eternal. 4. This tripersonality is not tritheism; for while there are three persons, there is but one essence. 5. The three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are equal. 6. Inscrutable yet not self-contradictory, this doctrine furnishes the key to all other doctrines.[409]

Grudem declares three irreducible truths: “1) God is three persons.  2) Each person is fully God.  3) There is one God.”[410] 

The Holy Spirit is fully God.  “Whatever is true of the nature of God … is equally true of the Holy Spirit.”[411]  The proofs of this assertion fill the pages of Scriptures.  Michael Bates organizes the proofs under three headings.[412]  First, the Holy Spirit is ranked with the Trinity (Matthew 28:19).  When Jesus revealed Him as “another” Comforter, He used the term allos which indicates “another of the same kind.”  “After all, only God could replace God (the Son).  Thus, the Holy Spirit is co-existent with both the Father and the Son, … co-equal with them, … and co-eternal.”[413] 

Second, He is called “God” in the Bible.  The Holy Spirit is twice credited with speaking the words ascribed to Jehovah God in the Old Testament (Hebrews 10:15-17, Acts 28:25-26), and Peter declared that the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was equally against God and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).

Third, He possesses the “qualities of Deity”.[414]  He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  He is perfect in holiness and love and sovereign in His activity.  He, like Jesus Christ, receives worship and honor due only to God.  It is the Holy Spirit who makes each believer’s body a temple of God.  He performs miracles that only God can do.  He creates, He regenerates, He raises the dead, and He saves the soul.[415]

This list of proofs of the Deity of the Holy Spirit barely scratches the surface.  Time would fail to speak of His activity in the Virgin Birth of Christ and His inspiration of the Scriptures.  One who claims to accept the Holy Scriptures as God’s infallible, written word cannot support any other conclusion.

One of the more common errors related to the Holy Spirit is the adoption of a modalistic Trinity.  It is expressed as one God with three manifestations (not persons).

At various times people have taught that God is not really three distinct persons, but only one person who appears to people in different “modes” at different times. For example, in the Old Testament God appeared as “Father.” Throughout the Gospels, this same divine person appeared as “the Son” as seen in the human life and ministry of Jesus. After Pentecost, this same person then revealed himself as the “Spirit” active in the church.[416]

Modalism denies the reality of the alleged interactions among the Trinity especially during the ministry of Jesus Christ.  “It must say that all those instances where Jesus is praying to the Father are an illusion or a charade. The idea of the Son or the Holy Spirit interceding for us before God the Father is lost.”[417]

The damage to theology is even greater as the atonement of Jesus Christ is trivialized.

Modalism ultimately loses the heart of the doctrine of the atonement—that is, the idea that God sent his Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the Son bore the wrath of God in our place, and that the Father, representing the interests of the Trinity, saw the suffering of Christ and was satisfied (Isa. 53:11).[418]

So, too, the very character of God is diminished.  Grudem identifies a loss of independence on the part of God.[419]  If modalism is true, then God lacked a genuine object for His love prior to the creation of mankind.  Thus it must be concluded that either love is not an eternal attribute of God, or God’s love in eternity past was a sinful, self-absorbed type of love.  It is a righteous act for God to express His love as the Father to the Son and to the Spirit and for each to reciprocate.  This requires a three person Godhead.

Scripture compels us … to maintain that there are personal relations between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, independently of creation and of time; in other words we maintain that Scripture reveals to us a social Trinity and an intercourse of love apart from and before the existence of the universe. Love before time implies distinctions of personality before time. There are three eternal consciousnesses and three eternal wills in the divine nature.[420]

The three persons of the trinity perform differing tasks in the execution of every activity.  In a general way, their interaction may be described as follows: “The Father is the source of all things (1 Cor. 15:28); the Son is the channel of all things (Col. 1:16); and the Holy Spirit is the executor (agent) of all things – He carries out the will of both the Father and the Son.”[421]

God acts as the Father in administration; he is seen as the Son in revelation, but he moves as the Spirit in operation.Though the three Persons of the Godhead are equal in glory and superiority, when the function of power becomes prominent, the activity of the third member of the Holy Trinity comes to the fore.[422]

The visible ministry of the Spirit has varied throughout the history of mankind.  He served in an energizing capacity during the days of creation.  During the Old Testament era, His work was limited.  He was responsible for the birth and anointing of Jesus Christ. 

During the present era, the Spirit performs a ministry of serving the Father and Son, carrying out their will (which of course is also his).  In this respect, we are reminded of the Son’s earthly ministry, during which he was subordinate in function to the Father.  Now this temporary subordination in function – the Son’s during his earthly ministry and the Spirit’s during the present era – must not lead us to draw the conclusion that there is an inferiority in essence as well.[423]

Some expositors point to Abraham’s servant, Eliezer, as a picture of the present economic arrangement of the Trinity.  In Genesis 24, Abraham sent his servant to find a bride for his son.  The father and son picture the first two persons of the Godhead.  Eliezer pictures the work of the Holy Spirit securing a bride for the son.

(Eliezer) did not speak about himself but about his master and his riches (John 15:26; 16:13–14). He gave tokens of his master’s wealth just as the Spirit gives us the “firstfruits” and “down payment” of our spiritual riches in Christ (Eph. 1:13–14). The best is yet to come!  The servant’s job was not to argue or bribe but simply to bear witness to the greatness of his master.[424]

The parallels are remarkable.  What is important to realize is that the Holy Spirit is serving as God’s indwelling representative today.  As real as it was when Jesus Christ walked and worked nearly 2000 years ago, so too, it is real today that the Holy Spirit resides and works in the life of the believer.  His purpose is not to exalt Himself, but to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Personal Spirit and Worship - The spiritual realm is guided by multiple personalities.  It does not follow that if worship takes on a spiritual character it necessarily takes on the character of God.  The human spirit was created in the image of God, but it ceased being a reliable indicator when sin entered the picture.  In Job 20:3, Zophar issued a “spiritual” response to Job’s defense.  Unfortunately, many Christians accept his evaluations as gospel truth, not recognizing the Hindu philosophy known as Karma (“What goes around comes around”).  Zophar’s provocation is similar to many who claim to speak in the spirit.  Their words are not premeditated; rather they flow “supernaturally.”   Without question, Zophar was right in declaring his words to be spiritual, but he was not speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit - a fact revealed in the last chapter of Job.  Instead, he was most likely speaking in honor of his wounded human spirit.

High spirits are impatient of contradiction, and think themselves affronted if all about them do not say as they say; they cannot bear a check but they call it the check of their reproach, and then they are bound in honor to return it, if not to draw upon him that gave it.[425]

The human spirit is capable of greatness, sustaining a person in infirmity, and even propelling him to do what appears to be impossible.  Still, the human spirit is depraved - capable of causing a person to stray.  For this reason, Paul calls upon those who are putting off sin and putting on the new man to be “renewed in the spirit of the mind.”  The human spirit may be a source of great conviction, but without being yielded to the Spirit of truth, it can be a source of great deception.

The impact of demonic spirits upon worship is greatly underestimated today.  It is assumed that supernatural activities are all from God, but this simply is not so.  “For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty (Revelation 16:14).”  The Bible identifies these as the spirits of bondage, world order, and error. 

Perhaps the most subtle is the spirit of whoredom found in Hosea 4:12 & 5:4.  Such is the all-too-common spirit of eclecticism or syncretism.  Gone are the expressions of “The world behind me, the cross before me.”  No longer do converts say, “Whither thou guest, I will go; and where thou lodges, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God (Ruth 1:16).”  Instead, they treasure in their heart the “old flames,” those private vices which no one else knows about.  It is like asking one’s spouse if it is okay to carry a picture of an old girlfriend in his wallet as long as he never makes contact with her.

For some Christians, music is the last area of self-indulgence that continues in their lives.  The music seems so innocuously harmless that it could not keep him from sanctification by the Spirit.  The reality is that the music keeps a bridge between the believer and the flesh.  The flesh always has a basis of operation in the music.[426]

Immorality and infidelity never begin with an action; they begin with a spirit of dissatisfaction - a belief that their chosen spouse is not meeting all of their needs.  Should their spouse be jealous when they look for friendship and satisfaction outside of the restrictions of marriage?

God’s word speaks positively of such a spirit of jealousy (Numbers 5:14).  The outrage that a spouse feels for an unfaithful mate is similar to the outrage God experiences when His people want to find a happy, mediate position between absolute loyalty to God and friendship with the world.  The spirit of whoredom tempts the believer and says, “I can live with such duplicity.  Why cannot your Spouse be as accepting as I am?”  God’s words says, “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15).”  Jealousy for the cherished committed relationship of marriage has always been a part of God’s character.

Whereas there are many finite spiritual beings, there is but one infinite spiritual being.  He is the Holy Spirit.  The polytheist treats all spiritual beings as equally valid and creates a unity which depends upon give and take.  On the other hand, the Holy Spirit who fills believers in the United States also fills believers in the Falkland Islands.  It matters not if the believer is ethnically Anglo-Saxon, Arabic or Asian - the same Holy Spirit indwells each one in like fashion.  For this reason, the Holy Spirit is the true Spirit of unity, forging chains of friendship and fellowship based upon truth, wisdom, power, love, holiness, and liberty.  This Spirit finds unity in one Father, one Savior, one gospel, and one inspired Holy Scriptures.  The worship springing from such a Spirit will draw people to the absolutes rather than leading them away one small step at a time. 

As it relates to the practice of worship, each member of the trinity possesses a special economy.  In his book on worship, David Peterson expands upon his basic definition to reveal the economic activities of the Godhead.  “New covenant worship is essentially the engagement with God that he has made possible through the revelation of himself in Jesus Christ and the life he has made available through the Holy Spirit.”[427]  Worship is not just man acknowledging and rightly responding to the worthiness of God.  Worship is never about the man; it is from beginning to end about God.

Chapter 15 - The Activity of the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is vitally active in mankind’s world.  Throughout the ages, His presence was God’s presence.  In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord empowered ordinary people.  In the present age, He does the same as the Spirit of Christ.  For this reason, the New Testament believer refines the mission statement slightly.  “The Holy Spirit’s primary ministry is to glorify Christ and exalt His work.”[428]

The Creative Spirit

Creation - Jesus identifies Himself as the Beginning and the End.  In the testimony of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit is there as well.

We first meet the Holy Spirit at the dawn of creation (Gen. 1:2). We last read of Him in Rev. 22:17.  Thus, He begins His self-revelation by hovering over the face of the waters, preparing to create physical life; and He completes that self-revelation by calling us unto eternal life.[429]

The second verse of the Bible identifies the Spirit of God as participating in the creative work. 

He was the divine energy bringing into existence and ordering the cosmos as God commanded (cf. Job 26:13). By the same mighty power, God still upholds that which he has made (Psa. 104:30; Isa. 40:12), and apart from the Spirit’s constant renewing, the universe and all its life systems would revert to nothingness.[430]

The nature of His creative activity is uncertain.  Most commentators, from the writers of the Talmud to the present day, view his work as fluttering or brooding, like a bird (Talmud, a dove) caring for its nest.  Others view Him as hovering over creation.  This is the assumed meaning of the qal stem of rachaph. which appears only one other time in Scriptures (Deuteronomy 32:11).

In contrast, some view His activity a bit more energetically (Jeremiah 23:9, the piel stem of rachpah).  Henry Morris declares that “the idea seems to be mainly that of a rapid back and forth motion.”[431]  Morris, a scientist, believes that Genesis 1:2 reveals the origins of energy in this universe.  “The Spirit of God energized the creation; electromagnetic and gravitational energies began to function throughout the cosmos.”[432]

It is significant that the transmission of energy in the operations of the cosmos is in the form of waves – light waves, heat waves, sound waves, and so forth. In fact, … there are only two fundamental types of forces that operate on matter – the gravitational forces and the forces of electromagnetic spectrum. All are associated with ‘fields’ of activity and with transmission by wave motion. … Waves are typically rapid back and forth movements and they are normally produced by the vibratory motion of a wave generator of some kind. Energy cannot create itself. It is most appropriate that the first impartation of energy to the universe is described as the ‘vibrating’ movement of the Spirit of God.[433]

It is imprudent to develop an entire doctrine on a Hebrew word that is cited but three times in the Old Testament with two different stems.  Some might ask, “What did the original author intend to convey?”  It is clear that Moses would have had no concept of electromagnetic waves.  It is impossible at the present time to dogmatically deduce Morris’ interpretation, but its possibility is very curious.  The thought that all energy resulted from the activity of the Holy Spirit upon the created world is consistent with doctrine.

While His part in the energizing of inanimate matter may be disputed, His place in the impartation of life to matter is plainly revealed, especially as it relates to humanity.  “Just as the Spirit (ruach) of God was present to energize the created universe (Gen. 1:2), so He gives to every living soul the ‘breath’ (note Ps. 104:29-30).”[434]  The “spiritualization” of man, apart from the rest of creation is very significant. 

As for man, his very life depends on a special impartation of the “breath (neshamah) of life” (Gen 2:7) and the divine Spirit is behind all the unique powers that he possesses, in distinction to the animals.  The Spirit, or Breath, of God is the source of man’s reason (Job 32:8); of his endowments and gifts (Gen 41:38; Exod 28:3); of his artistic skills as in the case of Bezalel (Exod 36); of his cunning in war as exemplified in Joshua (Deut 34:9); of his heroism displayed in Judges (Judg 13:25); of his wisdom, as celebrated in Solomon (1 Kings 3:28); of his religious and ethical insights as seen in the inspiration of the poets and prophets, … and of his purity as seen in the strength and penitence of the righteous.[435]

All that mankind is and all that he thinks he has achieved finds its source in the Godhead and especially in the work of the Holy Spirit.  His ability to imagine and create art is a testimony to the Holy Spirit.  Man’s “moments of inspiration” (not referring to the theological use of the term) are driven by his spirit, which in turn is given by the Holy Spirit.  It is paradoxical that the materialist uses his non-material cognitive skills to reason his defense for ignoring God.  His very life and human spirit cry out in testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation – God’s Holy Word - Without question, the Bible is the product of the Holy Spirit.  He was and is involved in the key processes that resulted in the present access to the Scriptures.  He participated in the revelatory work of the Bible.  Prophets spoke by His power and knowledge.  This is His most visible activity.  While not given direct credit, He is the person of the Godhead who preserves the word today.  To deny His preserving work is to ascribe the principles of Deism to His most holy revelation.  The Author of the Scriptures is as vital today as He was when He moved the original authors, and He did not fall asleep when human instruments duplicated the inerrant word by hand.  Finally, the Holy Spirit engages in the present ministry of illumination.  If the word of God is to be a living book, then the Holy Spirit must energize the word to impact a society removed by thousands of years.

Whenever men ascribe inspiration to human artists, they are right in a limited sense.  Rooted in the etymology of “inspiration” is the word “spirit.”  This spirit could be human - a person achieving a spiritual level of creativity which is his by virtue of creation.  The spirit can also be demonic, enslaving and oppressive.  Unclean spirits promise greater “highs,” but instead draw their slaves into deeper bondage.  One might be inspired by external pressures or even artificial stimulants.  America’s drug culture has influenced its art and music.  These are all “spiritual” activities which have nothing in common with the Holy Spirit.

When theologians speak of inspiration, they are specifically addressing the Holy Spirit’s work in the preparation of the Scriptures.  Biblical inspiration is, “the process whereby the Holy Spirit influenced the writers of Scripture to accurately record His Words, the product being the inspired Word of God."[436]  2 Timothy 3:16 states that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.  In the Greek text, the noun “Scripture” is described by two adjectives.  The first describes its extent, namely “all.”  The second is the word “theopneustos” which simply means “God-breathed (spirited).”  The method of this activity is found in 2 Peter 1:20-21.  The authors of Scripture were moved by the Holy Spirit who energized them in a miraculous way to produce a uniquely divine record, free from man’s own will.  Man served as the tool of writing.  While Psalm 23 reflects the life circumstances of a common shepherd and his devotional thoughts regarding Jehovah as his shepherd, the smallest Hebrew letters (jot) and the smallest part of every letter (tittle) were energized by the Holy Spirit.  All the words of Scripture are God’s Words.

The practical impact of the Holy Spirit’s work on the Bible is astounding.  One can be consumed with the mechanics and miss the purpose of inspiration.  “Do we honor the Holy Spirit by recognizing and relying on his work? Or do we slight him by ignoring it, and thereby dishonor not merely the Spirit but the Lord who sent him?”[437]  According to J. I. Packer, this truth will impact a person’s life, his faith, and his witness. 

In our faith: Do we acknowledge the authority of the Bible, the prophetic Old Testament and the apostolic New Testament which he inspired? Do we read and hear it with the reverence and receptiveness that are due to the Word of God? If not, we dishonor the Holy Spirit.  In our life: Do we apply the authority of the Bible and live by the Bible, whatever anyone may say against it, recognizing that God’s Word cannot but be true, and that what God has said he certainly means, and he will stand behind it? If not, we dishonor the Holy Spirit, who gave us the Bible.  In our witness: Do we remember that the Holy Spirit alone, by his witness, can authenticate our witness, and look to him to do so, and trust him to do so, and show the reality of our trust, as Paul did, by eschewing the gimmicks of human cleverness? If not, we dishonor the Holy Spirit. Can we doubt that the present barrenness of the church’s life is God’s judgment on us for the way in which we have dishonored the Holy Spirit?[438]

While inspiration assures the accuracy of Scriptures, illumination is vital for the application of Scriptures.  The Bible may possess many of the common qualities of human literature, but it is no merely human book.  1 Corinthians 2:12-14 indicates that divine wisdom is communicated through “words” (i.e. human language).  While the vehicle is the same, the character of wisdom from above is diametrically opposed to the wisdom from beneath.  As a result, the natural man treats divine wisdom with contempt.  This word is senseless because it requires spiritual discernment, and the agent of spiritual discernment is the Holy Spirit.

The importance of the Spirit’s witness in men’s hearts, as far as Scripture is concerned, is that thereby the Bible becomes the personal address of God to man.  Otherwise it remains a mere human book, to be read as one of the Great Books of the world, a masterpiece of lit. savored for its passages of great prose.  When the Spirit speaks through Scripture, one discovers that the holy history, which unfolds from the first to the second Adam, engages him in his own destiny.  He stands fallen in Adam and condemned; and, by the grace of God, he stands righteous in Christ.  It is this inward testimony of the Spirit that transforms the formal authority of Scripture … into a material authority, so that it becomes “alive and powerful” to transform lives.[439]

Illumination means to shed light upon that which is naturally dark.  Biblical illumination requires a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit.  This assumes that the person has been obedient to the gospel and is living a life of faithful obedience.  The Holy Spirit will not illumine where He is quenched.  Illumination, secondly, requires a diligent study of the Holy Spirit’s book, the Bible.  Isaiah the prophet warns of false illumination.  “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:20).”

John 16:13 has mistakenly been used to teach that the Holy Spirit is silent with regard to Himself.  If the Holy Spirit never spoke about Himself, man would have no knowledge of His existence.  This verse does not speak of the Spirit’s anonymity, but instead it speaks of His dependence.  “It means simply that the Holy Spirit will not speak independently, i.e. out of Himself as a Source – any more than Jesus spoke independently during His earthly ministry without/apart from the Father.”[440]  The Spirit will not illumine anyone independently of the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:20-21).

If the authority of Scriptures is not established, either ecclesiastical tradition or subjective experience claims to be the Holy Spirit’s practical voice.  Prior to the Reformation, the study of the Scriptures was confined to certain cloisters, and illumination was limited to the church scholars. 

For the Reformers Scripture was both self-authenticating …and self-interpreting (…Scripture is to be explained by Scripture), by which they meant that, through the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, and through what the Westminster Confession calls the “due use of ordinary means,” in and of itself Scripture was both trustworthy and understandable. This is why William Tyndale would argue that, given a vernacular translation of the Scriptures, even a plowboy could have a sufficient if not perfect understanding of God’s Word. No external mediator, such as the teaching magisterium of the church or tradition, was needed to certify Scripture.[441]

Where sacral societies abounded, illumination was limited to a class of experts.  The average person of that society senses safety in not wandering where he does not belong, namely into the Scriptures.  This is tragic.  Whereas there will always be those who wish for no personal illumination, there will also be others who wish for a spiritual activity that borders on Gnosticism.  They want an altered-consciousness experience similar to that of Balaam in Numbers 24.  Personal trances and visions are more precious to them than the written word.  This, too, is troubling. 

Others, of course, use the words “God speaks today” to mean that He guides and directs His people by giving them words of direction through all the same media that the Bible portrays Him as using in the past (e.g., visions and auditions, prophets and angels).  As Deere says, “God can and does give personal words of direction to believers today that cannot be found in the Bible.  I do not believe that he gives direction that contradicts the Bible,”[442]

While some who seek such experiences will deny visions and dreams that are clearly discordant with Scriptures, others express a disdain for the “chapter and verse” demands of fundamentalism.

The Charismatic renewal has rejected … the rational evangelical god of the intellect – the great giver of propositional truth – in favor of a God you can feel, respond to, and love, the God who cares about our present and our future.  It is the knowledge of this God, given through the experience of his Holy Spirit, that has bound charismatics together.[443]

No man can produce a natural, independent criterion for equilibrium between tradition and experience.  Only the divine word of God can accomplish that.  By virtue of His energizing work, the Holy Spirit will make His word living and real to believers today.  The perfect tense verb, “gegraptai,” appears sixty-seven times in the Greek New Testament.  When Jesus quoted Scripture and said “It is written,” the perfect tense of the verb stressed that the action taken in the past had lasting impact upon the present day.  The word was recorded long ago, but it stands written today, as true for the present as it was when the ink was first applied to the parchment.  Any proper teaching regarding the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit must possess contemporaneously both a high regard for His present ministry and a high regard for His inspired word.  Andrew Murray states:

We must rely upon the Holy Spirit to direct and guide us in the understanding and application of God’s will as revealed in Scripture, and we must be constantly conscious of our need of the Holy Spirit to apply the Words effectively to us in each situation.  … As we are the subjects of this illumination and are responsive to it, and as the Holy Spirit is operative in us to the doing of God’s will, we shall have feelings, impressions, convictions, urges, inhibitions, impulses, burdens, resolutions. … It is here, however, that careful distinction is necessary.  The moment we desire or expect to think that a state of our consciousness is the effect of a direct intimation to us of the Holy Spirit’s will, or direction from him, then we have given way to the notion of special, direct, detached communication from the Holy Spirit.  And this, in respect of its nature, belongs in the same category as belief in special revelation.  The only guidance of the Holy Spirit is through the means which he as provided, and that his work is to enable us rightly to interpret and apply the Scripture in the various situations of life, and to enable us to interpret all the factors which enter into each situation in the light of Scripture.[444]

Creativity and Consistency in Worship - The Holy Spirit must be invited to give life to worship.  Poetry and music are worthy tools used to express glory to God, but without life, they are no better than a corpse of an athlete who dies in peak physical condition.  Traditional tools of worship are antiques if they are not energized by the Holy Spirit.  “What we call traditional worship is often a very poor excuse for true worship.  It is not worship in Spirit and in truth at all.  It is often vain repetition.”[445]  It is He who must breathe life into the service, or else it is dead.

Worship must also be true to the Holy Spirit’s written word.  It can never be independent of revelation.  “Your view of worship is colored by your view of Scripture and your view of God.”[446]  Some will try to mask their disdain for the place of Scriptures in worship activities by saying they follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.  The implication is that spiritual Christians are capable, yea even better off, if they cease from demanding a chapter and verse for every practical activity they do.  Such a statement is a contortion of 2 Corinthians 3:6.  The context clearly describes the radical change that has taken place between Old Testament Judaism and New Testament Christianity.  Paul was not instructing them to throw away the written word of God in favor of a transcendent, spiritual experience.  The Holy Spirit who energizes worship energizes His word.  Nothing else used in worship is as alive and powerful in its impact upon those who hear.

The Powerful Spirit

In both the New and Old Testaments, the power of God was visibly evidenced in men through His Holy Spirit.  “Without previous preparation or the possibility of resistance, unknown sons of peasants were stirred up and enabled to perform mighty acts of valor by the Spirit of God.  Thus Israel was delivered from her enemies.”[447]  The Holy Spirit effected the impossible in bravery, skill, administration, and revelation.  Shepherds slew giants, farmers and fisherman manifested inexplicable wisdom, and men from Galilee spoke in unknown dialects from the most remote districts of the Roman Empire.  A converted Pharisee with the Spirit’s power brought blindness upon an intimidating, pagan sorcerer.  The Bible declares God’s pleasure in exalting the things that people would throw away to places of great honor.

While many aspire to be used in such miraculous ways, the Spirit’s moving is eternally sovereign.  Many of the vessels used were yielded for the purpose of ministry, but the Holy Spirit has not limited Himself only to such vessels.

In His sovereignty, He has used some defiled vessels.  A prime example of this is the rebel, Samson.  The Holy Spirit energized him in spite of his profane conduct.  Some were Spirit-energized even though they never knew it at the time.  Caiaphas prophesied regarding the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ without even comprehending his statements (“this spake he not of himself,” John 11:49-52).  The Holy Spirit is able to use a vessel which is insensitive to His work.

The Holy Spirit is able also to use a vessel resistant to His work.  King Saul is such an example.  Twice he is energized in a miraculous way by the Holy Spirit.  The first instance proved his calling, but the second instance revealed his disgrace (1 Samuel 19:23).  A soothsayer from the Hittite city of Pethor was also conquered by the Holy Spirit.  Balaam, who knew much about Jehovah God, became the unwilling prophet on God’s behalf to Balak. In Numbers 24, the Holy Spirit takes immediate control of Balaam.  To be used by God is a special honor, but it does not always indicate resident spirituality or Divine authentication.

Yea, if men should actually receive such external ideas by the immediate power of the most high God upon their minds, they would not be spiritual, they would be no more than a common work of the Spirit of God; as is evident in fact, in the instance of Balaam, who had impressed on his mind, by God himself, a clear and lively outward representation or idea of Jesus Christ, as “the Star rising out of Jacob, when he heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the Most High, and saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance,” Numb. 24:16, 17, but yet had no manner of spiritual discovery of Christ; that Day Star never spiritually rose in his heart, he being but a natural man.[448]

Thus, there is a very real danger when charismatic “miracles” are ascribed meanings that the Holy Spirit never intended to communicate.  The Lord Jesus Christ warned of such deception in the judgment day.  B. H. Carroll describes what the participants in the Great White Throne judgment will witness.

They see the rejection of prophets and miracle-workers like Balaam and Judas and hear the awful colloquy: “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?” — “I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”[449]

In a day when some charismatic teachers are encouraging their followers to “do the stuff” described in Acts, it is critical to recognize that something is far more important that miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit.  When seventy disciples commissioned by Jesus to perform miraculous signs returned, they were excited about what had happened.  Jesus acknowledged the greatness of what they had accomplished, but He said to them that their joy was misplaced.  “Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20).”

A man may have those extraordinary gifts, and yet be abominable to God, and go to hell. The spiritual and eternal life of the soul consists in the grace of the Spirit, which God bestows only on his favorites and dear children. He has sometimes thrown out the other as it were to dogs and swine, as he did to Balaam, Saul, and Judas; and some who in the primitive times of the Christian church committed the unpardonable sin, Heb. 6. … The greatest privilege of the prophets and apostles was not their being inspired and working miracles, but their eminent holiness.[450]

The Spirit of Miracles and Worship - All miraculous activity is directed by the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit.  It is clear from the Old Testament that the miraculous workings of the Holy Spirit were not the result of seeking or pleading for an anointing.

Three things should be noted about this coming of the Spirit upon the great leaders of the historical kingdom: first, it was not always related to high moral character; second, in certain cases its outstanding effects were seen chiefly in the realm of the purely physical; third, and most important of all, it had to do primarily with the regal functions of those who stood as mediators of the divine government of Israel.[451]

Similarly, the distribution of the New Testament “gifts” falls not to the zealous pleas of the worthy recipients.  The Holy Spirit gives them out to each individual according to His will.

Worship is right to expect the Holy Spirit to use people in supernatural ways, but it is wrong to order Him do demonstrate His power at the command of any participant.  As stated earlier, America saw a unique moving of the Holy Spirit prior to the Revolutionary War.  The preachers of the Great Awakening had no clear reason why God used them, and they did not write books to tell how others could share in the success.  They simply rejoiced and praised God that they were the ones the Holy Spirit used.

The Indwelling Spirit

Dispensational Ministries - Critical in comprehending the Holy Spirit is an understanding of His work from the time of Adam until the time of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  The biblical record clearly indicates that the Holy Spirit does not operate in the same way in every age in the lives of the faithful.

An illustration of this is in the exilic prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  Jeremiah promises a new covenant with Israel, distinct from the covenant of Sinai (Jeremiah 31:31-34).  As a part of that covenant, the law of God will be written in the people’s hearts, and they will respond in obedience.  This is a description of the regenerating work that the Holy Spirit performs in lives.  Clearly, this is a prophecy.  The activity described was not taking place at that time.

The Holy Spirit is even more evident in Ezekiel 36:25-28.  After a time of cleansing, God promises to rip out the stony heart and replace it with a fleshy, tender heart.  In addition, God promises to put His Spirit within these people.  The result would be obedience prompted from within.  Again, this appears to speak of a regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in a future day.

The baptizing work of the Holy Spirit received prophetic attention from John the Baptist.  In Acts 1:5, Jesus indicates the prophecy would be fulfilled in a matter of days.  The visible outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost appears to fulfill this prophecy and initiate a new Holy Spirit ministry in that day.

In addition, Jesus spoke of a coming Holy Spirit ministry to each believer in John 7:37-39.  The Scriptures indicate that this ministry would not begin until Jesus was glorified.  Jesus later told His disciples of a coming Comforter.  His ministry could not begin until Jesus left.  While the abiding ministry of Jesus was temporary, this Comforter would dwell with them forever.

Covenant theology and Dispensationalism differ over the nature of the changing of the Holy Spirit’s ministry.  Those with a covenant view of theology endeavor to minimize the distinctions.  Issues such as regeneration and indwelling were active in the same way before Christ.  What changed was the believer’s perception of the person of the Holy Spirit.  “His indwelling of God’s people had, of course, been true in earlier periods (cf. Neh. 9:20); but it had not been contemporaneously revealed, as far as is known.”[452]

Dispensational teachers tend to maximize the distinctions.  Most dispensationalists deny regeneration in the Old Testament.  Holy Spirit enabling of the ordinary Old Testament believer is often rejected.  However, Charles Ryrie warns about making the dispensational lines too broad.

Dispensationalists have often pictured the law as a period when enablement was completely lacking.  It is true that there was a sharp contrast between the enabling under the law and the work of the Holy Spirit today (John 14:17), but it is not accurate to say there was no enabling under the law.  The Spirit indwelt many (Dan. 4:8; 1 Peter 1:11) and came upon many others for special power (Ex. 28:3; Judg. 3:10; 1 Sam. 10:9-10), but there was no guarantee that He would permanently or universally indwell God’s people as He does today.[453]

The Messianic Anointing - An understanding of the Holy Spirit’s ministry in Christ is critical to comprehending the Holy Spirit’s ministry within New Testament believers.  The Holy Spirit’s place in the miracle of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ is well documented in the New Testament.  The work of the Holy Spirit in the life of Jesus Christ also occupies an important place in the Gospel records.

By definition, the ministry of the Messiah or the Christ would be marked by divine anointing.  This anointing took place at conception and was visibly confirmed by John the Baptist. 

Therefore, to accomplish God’s purpose of salvation, ultimately there must be one who would uniquely combine the roles of prophet, priest, and king, and who would be uniquely endowed with the Spirit of God, that is the Messiah, the Anointed One par excellence.  This shoot out of Jesse’s stock, this branch out of his root (Isa 11:1) would receive the gifts of the Spirit in their fullness (Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1).  Thus Jesus would become the ideal Prophet and King, because He was anointed with the Spirit of God above measure; this is what makes Him the Christ.[454]

The Holy Spirit had a visible ministry within the earthly activities of Jesus Christ in four unique ways:

1) Christ was filled with the Spirit (Luke 4:1). …  It was not a momentary thing, but a relationship He had all of His life.  2) Christ was anointed with the Spirit (Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb. 1:9).  This signified that He is the Messiah (Anointed One) and empowered Him for His prophetic ministry.  3) Christ rejoiced in the Spirit (Luke 10:21).  This was perhaps an evidence of His being full of the Spirit.  4) Christ was empowered by the Spirit throughout His life.  This was predicted by Isaiah (Isa. 42:1-4; 61:1-2) and experienced by Jesus of Nazareth in His ministries of preaching (Luke 4:18) and doing miracles (Matt. 12:28).[455]

While much has been written regarding the authority the Son has over the Spirit, very little has been written to describe the submission of the Son to the Holy Spirit during His earthly years of ministry.  “Jesus was filled with the Spirit.  Our minds have difficulty in understanding this relationship.  But we must remember that Jesus had become a human being.”[456]  Jesus Christ submitted Himself both to God the Father and to the energy and leading of the Holy Spirit.  He did so for the same reason He fasted and prayed.  He was demonstrating the holy human walk in the Spirit.  “If the sinless Son of God used these ministries of the Holy Spirit, how can we expect to live independently of His power?”[457]

The Savior depended upon the Spirit in the expressions of His praise (Luke 10:21).  It is instructive to note His activities in light of what is considered Holy Spirit worship today:

Nor does one find any evidence of any type of ecstatic phenomena in Jesus’ life.  There certainly were times when he was seized by a sense of the urgency of the task which was his. … But we do not find in Jesus’ life the type of charismatic phenomena reported in Acts and discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12-14.  Not only is there no report of such phenomena in his own experience, but we have no teaching of his on the subject either.[458]

Neither is there any indication that His worship was mechanical or superficial.  Jesus demonstrates that the worship of the Holy Spirit by obedience and yieldedness is not something that is donned for a few hours at a worship celebration.  Holy Spirit-filling is constant, involving the person twenty-four hours per day, three hundred and sixty-five days each year.  The worship of the Spirit-filled disciple of Jesus Christ ought to then resemble the worship of the perfectly Spirit-filled Master.  The Holy Spirit acted as the energy and the content of the worship of the sinless Son of God. 

The Holy Spirit, through the person of Jesus of Nazareth, marked the arrival of the Messiah.  It is critical to realize that Jesus Christ is the central focus of all Holy Spirit activity - past, present, and future (1 Peter 1:10-13; John 15:26-27).  His focus in not upon the personal empowerment of experience, or upon the maintenance of traditions, nor even upon the visible prosperity of men.  He has always been energized for one ultimate purpose - to testify of the Son of God.

Ministries - Old and New - The great dispensational change between the Old Testament and New Testament eras relates to the evident indwelling of God among His people.  God did indeed dwell with the people of Israel in the Old Testament (Leviticus 26:11-12; Numbers 23:21).  His presence was visibly noted by His glory in the tabernacle or the temple.  While this promised dwelling was exclusive to Israel, it was not permanent.  When the Ark of the Covenant was captured by the Philistines, a child was named Ichabod because God’s glory had departed.  Ezekiel the prophet also witnessed the removal of God’s glory from His temple in his day.

God dwelt in the presence of mankind in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:14).  The title, Emmanuel, declared that He was “God with us.”  This Son of God was indwelt by the Holy Spirit in an unprecedented, perfect and permanent way.  The flesh and blood Son of God became the “Comforter” or “Paraclete” to His followers. 

Jesus declared that His departure would send another (similar) comforter.  He said that this Paraclete, who had dwelt with them, would begin to dwell within the disciples.  The indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit sets off the New Testament believer from the Old.

Jesus defined the difference between the Old and New dispensations in the relationship of the individuals to the Holy Spirit.  He said, “He that dwelleth with you, shall be in you.” … Thus the record of the synoptic gospels stressed the Old Testament involvement of the Holy Spirit with men, but it also pointed toward a permanent relationship in the future.[459]

Within his two letters to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul states that the believers are temples, both individually and corporately.  In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, he addresses the need for personal separation from sin (specifically the sin of fornication).  This text speaks of the individual indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

In 2 Corinthians 6:16, the context argues not for personal separation, but for ecclesiastical or corporate separation.  This is easily missed by most commentators, but the Greek text dispels doubt that this is what the Holy Spirit had in mind.

Note that the word ye is plural in 2 Corinthians 6:16. Paul is here referring to the local church as a whole and not to the individual believer only. … The local church is the dwelling place of God because believers are the people of God (see Ex. 6:7; 25:8; Lev. 26:12; Ezek. 37:26–27). For a local church to compromise its testimony is like a holy temple being defiled.[460]

On the day of Pentecost, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit verified to the Jews at Jerusalem that the corporate body, the church, was His chosen instrument.  As the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle and temple of old, so now the church at Jerusalem became “His new place of presence, worship and service.”[461]

Individually, the spiritual life of the New Testament believer has more in common with the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ than it does with any believer in the Old Testament because the Holy Spirit who indwells him is the same Spirit who indwelt Jesus Christ.  Therefore, to justify any activity on the basis of what David or Rahab or Samson did is foolish.  One’s spiritual activity must mirror the perfectly Spirit-filled example, the Messiah Himself.

Little is recorded regarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the everyday lives of the Old Testament saints.  A superficial reading of the Old Testament might lead one to assume that the Holy Spirit energized only a handful of people at any given time.  The Old Testament record may further lead one to conclude that the Holy Spirit had no ministry among the ordinary people of faith.  This conclusion is flawed.

The New Testament reveals that the Holy Spirit energized many more than those who were specified in the Old Testament.  2 Peter 1:20-21 declares that the Holy Spirit invisibly moved holy men of God to speak the word.  Relatively few Old Testament authors and preachers lay immediate claim to divine inspiration.  Still the New Testament declares that all Scripture is given by God’s inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16).  Whether it was visibly evident or not, the Holy Spirit was far more active in the Old Testament than its record appears to indicate.

Those who interpret events from a covenant perspective will insist that all the Old Testament saints were unwittingly indwelt.  “His indwelling of God’s people had, of course, been true in earlier periods (cf. Neh. 9:20); but it had not been contemporaneously revealed, as far as is known.”[462]  Such an assertion fails to see the progressive nature of God’s dwelling among and within His people.  Abraham walked with God.  His descendents followed the pillars of cloud and fire.  When the tabernacle was erected, the presence of God visibly resided in the center of the camp.  Later His glory filled the temple.  Yet this presence was tenuous, secured by a reciprocal devotion from the people.  Individuals were anointed by God to perform specific tasks, but these anointings were never permanent in character.  Divine wisdom prevented this from happening for good reason.  The Old Testament anointings were not to replace the Christ, but to typify Him in His future prophetic, priestly, and regal anointing which would be permanent in nature.

For the general anointing and permanent indwelling work of the Holy Spirit to precede the Christ is theologically disastrous.  Islam recognizes 12,000 anointed prophets and places Jesus on the same level as Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.  No such confusion exists in New Testament Christianity.  The One who was permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit is the one who sends the Comforter to reside in the believer.  He would be called the Spirit of Christ, but this would not happen before the glorification of Jesus.  If Jesus did not go away, the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit could not begin.

The concept of regeneration which is introduced in the New Testament appears to be foreign in the Old Testament.  This raises the question of whether regeneration, like indwelling, is distinctive to the believers of the New Testament.  The wide variety of opinion is fueled, in part, by an inability to precisely agree on what redemption is and what it accomplishes.[463]  Because regeneration is vital to salvation, its precise identity is critical. 

The English word regeneration is only a word of Latin origin which means “born again, born a second time, generated over again.” … One who is born into this world spiritually dead must be born a second time, of a new Father, into a new family, if he is to have eternal life and is to become the child of God. … If we are to be born into God’s family, it must be through a miracle of a new birth, of a new Father who can give a new nature to us, so that we may be called the sons, or the children, of God.[464]

The one who is regenerated has no part in this work any more than he had a part in his physical birth.

Our regeneration is a creative act on the part of God, not a reforming process on the part of man. It is not brought about by natural descent, for all we get from that is “flesh.” It is not by natural choice, for the human will is impotent. Nor is it by self-effort, or any human generative principle. Nor is it by the blood of any ceremonial sacrifices. It is not by pedigree or natural generation. It is altogether and absolutely the work of God. Practically speaking, we have no more to do with our second birth, than we had to do with our first birth.[465]

Regeneration is one of God’s perfect gifts.  The margin of the AV indicates that being “born again” also carries the idea of being “born from above (cf. James 1:17).”  The new birth is both complete in its effectiveness and permanent in its application, similar to natural birth.  One cannot be partially born, nor can he ever become unborn at a later point.  When a man is in Christ he becomes a new creature. 

While God the Father has a part in regeneration, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is crucial.

Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is the spiritual counterpart of human reproduction in the physical realm. Human generation produces human life; spiritual regeneration produces spiritual life. The Holy Spirit produces the new birth, but He does it through the instrumentality of the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23). The same truth is taught in John 3:6 where Jesus indicates the Holy Spirit produces the new birth in that He regenerates the person.[466]

Herman Hoyt denies the presence of regeneration in the Old Testament.  “Nor during the long Old Testament period did any man ever experience the new birth.”[467]  Until Jesus cried out, “It is finished” from the cross, regeneration was impossible. 

As long as sin separated between God and men, He could not in holiness enter into immediate and vital relationship with sinful creatures (Isa 59:1–2). Once God had dealt with sin, and vindicated His own righteousness, He would then be free to justify men (Rom. 3:25–26). And once men were justified, that is, could be treated as righteous men, then God was set free to enter into immediate and vital relations with them. He could then take up His residence in men by the Holy Spirit and impart to them all the moral and spiritual fullness of His being (Jer 31:33–34; cf. Heb. 8:10–12). In His sovereignty, He might confer upon men blessings without number, and even empower for service and encourage by His presence. But He could not violate His own essential holiness by entering into a permanent and immediate relationship with men until the sin problem had been settled.[468]

The judicial aspects of salvation were present in the Old Testament, but the new birth is reserved for the New Testament believer.  “Relation to God before Pentecost produced no essential or permanent change in men. But since that day, salvation is something other than mere judicial relationship to God. It is that, but it is more than that.”[469]

In diametric contrast, J. Dwight Pentecost reasons regeneration back into the Old Testament.  Unlike Hoyt, who begins with the holy character of God, Pentecost begins where most covenant theologians start, with the desperate and hopeless condition of man.  “No man ever came into the family of God apart from being born into that family. … The Spirit of God is the agent who gave new birth to every one who came into the family of God.”[470]  Since the goodness of good works is impossible without the operation of the Spirit, any reference to good works is evidence of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.  “Any man in the Old Testament who was rightly related to God, was rightly related because of the Spirit’s work.”[471]  To remove the work of the Holy Spirit creates in the Old Testament a system of salvation based upon human reformation and merit.

To reconcile these two opinions is impossible.  Pentecost’s concerns have some merit.  Throughout the Old Testament, the devout followers of God desired more than just a legalistic job description of what He expected from them.  While the law was their delight, they recognized the need for divine energy to accomplish the work.  It was not enough to obey the law outwardly; those who desired God yearned to obey Him from their heart and soul.  The one who could stand in God’s holy place needed to have a pure heart (Psalm 24:3-4) - an achievement which has always been impossible for man to accomplish (Proverbs 20:9).  Without some form of spiritual cleansing, spiritual vitality in the Old Testament was impossible. 

Dispensationalists have often pictured the law as a period when enablement was completely lacking.  It is true that there was a sharp contrast between the enabling under the law and the work of the Holy Spirit today (John 14:17), but is not accurate to say that there was no enabling under the law.[472]

While these points have validity, it appears to be misguided to ever refer to such work as “regeneration.”  The silence of the Old Testament regarding this matter cannot be ignored, nor can the prophetic statement of Jeremiah and Ezekiel be diminished.  While it is true that these prophecies refer to a national regeneration, they never imply that a personal regeneration is available to one who individually resists the hardness of the nation.

The faithful acts of the saints listed in Hebrews 11 are, without doubt, energized by the Holy Spirit even though He is not identified.  To believe that human desire and grit accomplished these great expressions of faith is contrary to Scriptures, but to equate this activity with New Testament regeneration ignores the reality of what Calvary accomplished.  Jeremiah predicted a spiritual revival in Israel after its return from the Babylonian captivity. 

For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.  Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.  And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.  And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive (Jeremiah 29:10-14).

These are the words of one Who has made a conditional covenant, not one Who has given birth.  The transitory nature of Jehovah’s relationship to Israel in the Old Testament is not the same as His promised abiding relationship to the New Testament believer.  It is my conclusion that the Old Testament expressions of piety are best viewed as typical of that which would be fully realized in New Testament regeneration. 

The Second Paraclete - While the finer points of similarity and distinction of the Holy Spirit’s ministry between the New Testament and the Old Testament will forever be a source of debate, one fact is indisputable.  The Holy Spirit was sent to be the second Paraclete to the New Testament disciples.  Jesus’ ministries on behalf of the saints as first Paraclete were both visible and localized.  The new Paraclete would take up residence within each of the disciples of Jesus Christ and would go wherever they went.  Their bodies served as the temple.  In the book of Acts, these traveling “tabernacles” were found in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and in the uttermost parts of the world.  They were temporarily erected in the presence of the Sanhedrin and in the synagogues.  These “blessed tents” stood in the presence of kings and Caesars, but they also brought the radiant glory of Jesus Christ into the dungeon in Philippi.  The first Comforter limited the scope of His deeds and teachings mostly to Galilee and the neighboring lands.  The second Comforter is not similarly limited.

His ministries would be multi-faceted, but they would all center on the believer’s relationship to his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  Jesus’ ministry to His disciples was intensely personal.  “If, therefore, the ministry of Christ the Comforter was important, the ministry of the Holy Spirit the Comforter can scarcely be less important.”[473]

The term Paraclete is difficult to translate into the English because it lacks an exact synonym.  Comforter is a good start, but the concept goes much further.

The thoughts of encouragement, support, assistance, care, the shouldering of responsibility for another’s welfare, are all conveyed by this word. Another Comforter—yes, because Jesus was their original Comforter, and the newcomer’s task was to continue this side of his ministry. It follows, therefore, that we can only appreciate all that our Lord meant when he spoke of “another Comforter” as we look back over all that he himself had done in the way of love, and care, and patient instruction, and provision for the disciples’ well–being, during his own three years of personal ministry to them.[474]

As Paraclete, He assures the believer in time of doubt, and He intercedes for the believer in time of weakness.  He sanctifies the believer by beautifying His temple, and He enables the believer to magnify his beloved, Jesus Christ.

Assurance is marked by the sealing ministry of the Holy Spirit.  This seal relates to two truths.  The seal first and foremost declares ownership, and with that ownership, authority is implied.  In modern terms, it is a tag, affixed with the glue of heaven, which declares an object to be the property of the Holy God.  He alone dictates the use and destiny of that object.  The Holy Spirit reminds the believer that He is bought for the Master’s use.

To receive Christ is to be sealed by the Holy Spirit, who immediately comes to indwell the believer. By this sealing he is set apart to Christ; he belongs to Him (Mark 9:41; 1 Cor. 3:23); he is “Christ’s bondservant” (1 Cor. 7:22). The realization of this enables him to say with the apostle, “I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).[475]

While the tag of ownership might at first appear to be a yoke, the Holy Spirit reminds the believer who the Owner truly is.  The believer is the possession of the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God.  If a sealed object could be lost by its owner, the seal would be meaningless. “If loss of salvation were possible, then the Holy Spirit could be defeated (He would have failed as a seal), which of course is impossible.”[476]  The fact is that the marked property of God is incapable of ever being lost for the seal promises a future day of redemption.

A second assuring ministry of the Holy Spirit relates to the doctrine of adoption.  While the legal aspects of one’s adoption into God’s family are decreed by the Father and secured by the Son, the Holy Spirit has a unique enduring ministry with the adopted ones.

If God in love has made Christians his children, and if he is perfect as a Father, two things would seem to follow, in the nature of the case.  First, the family relationship must be an abiding one, lasting forever. Perfect parents do not cast off their children. Christians may act the prodigal, but God will not cease to act the prodigal’s father.  Second, God will go out of his way to make his children feel his love for them and know their privilege and security as members of his family. Adopted children need assurance that they belong, and a perfect parent will not withhold it.[477]

“It is the Holy Spirit who bears witness to human spirits that they are God’s children (Rom. 8:16), and enables them to call God their father (Rom. 8:15; Gal 4:6).”[478]  He implants the “filial instinct”[479] into the heart of each believer.  While His work is absolute, the Scriptures indicate that His Spirit bears witness within, “that we are the sons of God.”  Thus, human depravity may choose to disregard the divine assurance.  The child of God might choose to live in a far country and despise His Father’s love, but the Spirit will remind the son in his darkest hour that the Father receives repentant sons.  In this world, to be a child of the eternal loving God is a rich position, and “it is the Holy Spirit who enables us to enjoy the privileges of our position.”[480]

As the Holy Spirit assures one of his familial union to God, He is also reminded of his familial relationship to other believers.  Other children do not reduce his standing as a child of the infinite God.  Still, it is the desire of every parent for his children to be unified.  While it is natural for children to be self-assertive, the Holy Spirit energizes believers to esteem others better than themselves.  The Spirit assured the adopted Gentile children and the adopted Jewish children that the natural division was gone.  They are now part of a singular family unit. The Holy Spirit maintains peace in the family, but only when the children yield to His instruction.

As the Savior served as prophet and priest to His disciples, so too the Holy Spirit presently serves in these capacities in the believer’s lives.  This ministry enables the lines of communication between the disciple and His Savior to remain open and free.  The Holy Spirit intercedes, aiding in the communication of the disciple to his Lord.  He also guides, thus communicating the personal directives to the disciple.

Both the Son and the Spirit have intercessory ministries today.  These activities are neither adversarial nor redundant.

Relation of Christ’s Intercession to that of the Holy Spirit.—The Holy Spirit is an advocate within us, teaching us how to pray as we ought; Christ is an advocate in heaven, securing from the Father the answer of our prayers. Thus the works of Christ and of the Holy Spirit are complements to each other, and parts of one whole.[481]

The promised intercessory work of the Holy Spirit is described in the passage relating to adoption.  Believers are called upon to pray, but often those prayers are clouded by weakness.  Those prayers may be selfish or even self-righteous.  Ignorance of the situation and of God’s purpose would frustrate such an activity.  The Holy Spirit steps in and makes intercessions on behalf of the saints.

His intercessory role also extends to guidance.  The Savior accepted the leading of the Spirit.  Immediately after His baptism, He was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tested by the devil.  The Holy Spirit’s leading is not always comfortable and fortuitous.  In fact, it is rarely the path of least resistance.  Occasionally, the path calls upon the believer to trust in the Lord with all his heart, and to reject dependence upon his natural understanding.

It is easy for one to confuse impulse with a genuine Spirit leading.  Too often believers seek for occult leadings from the spirit world as do their ungodly neighbors. 

Earnest Christians seeking guidance often go wrong. Why is this? Often the reason is that their notion of the nature and method of divine guidance is distorted. They look for a will–o’–the–wisp; they overlook the guidance that is ready at hand and lay themselves open to all sorts of delusions. Their basic mistake is to think of guidance as essentially inward prompting by the Holy Spirit, apart from the written Word.[482]

Others seek out counsel from “professionals.”  They act as if direct spiritual guidance has ended, and that the writings of psychology provide the best answer to man’s spiritual and emotional needs.  The experts on the shelves at the Christian book store will have the answer to their questions.  Such was the opinion of the Jews in Jeremiah’s day.  The religious experts had led the people into apostasy by neglecting God’s leading and replacing it with idolatrous practices.  The people rejected the fountain of living waters and hewed out instead cisterns (Jeremiah 2:13).  Instead of accepting God’s gracious unmerited provision, they chose a man-made solution which proved to be cracked and incapable of retaining the water as planned.  “The Holy Spirit … is the source of the overflowing rivers of living water. They are to be living waters, a watered garden in the time of drought. The Holy Spirit lives within!”[483]  The fountain is available; the believer needs only bow down and drink.

The true way to honor the Holy Spirit as our guide is to honor the holy Scriptures through which he guides us. The fundamental guidance which God gives to shape our lives—the instilling, that is, of the basic convictions, attitudes, ideals and value judgments, in terms of which we are to live—is not a matter of inward promptings apart from the Word but of the pressure on our consciences of the portrayal of God’s character and will in the Word, which the Spirit enlightens us to understand and apply to ourselves.[484]

The Spirit indwells the believer as a temple.  At the time of conversion, the body is changed immediately into the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.  In that sense, it is dedicated and set apart for spiritual use.  Theology calls this “positional sanctification.”  This is not the perfection of sanctification, it is only the onset.  Practical or progressive sanctification is a process of renovation, replacing the fleshly patterns of life with spiritual ones.  The Holy Spirit begins the process of bringing glory to Jesus Christ through a changed life.

A key passage dealing with this renovation is found in Galatians 5:16-25.  The Holy Spirit desires to remove all vestiges of fleshly influence in the believer.  One who walks in the Spirit will in no way whatsoever fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Greek construction of ou me makes the negative emphatic).  The flesh and the Spirit are warring parties, and the believer is called upon to choose sides.  He must crucify the flesh along with the affections and lusts to walk in the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit wishes to make His abode an orchard, producing Spirit-energized fruit.  Such fruit is characterized by love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance all at the same time.  According to the teaching of Jesus Christ, the branches are incapable of naturally producing fruit unless they abide in the vine (John 15:4, 5).  All credit for the production of sanctifying, spiritual fruit is due to the indwelling Spirit of Jesus Christ, but the branch must be a yielded participant in order for fruit to appear.

As Paraclete, the Holy Spirit both energizes and enables the believer to supernaturally magnify Jesus Christ in a sin-darkened world.  The believer is called upon to be an ambassador for Jesus Christ.  As Jesus gave the authority for His disciples to perform the ministry of the Great Commission, He also indicated that the Holy Spirit would be sent to give the disciples the ability to do the work.

Martin Luther rightly recognized the poverty of the believer in his battle with sin: “Did we in our own strength confide, Our striving would be losing, Were not the right Man on our side, The Man of God’s own choosing.”[485]  The battle cannot be fought with just human grit and determination.  “Service, doing the will of God, living for Christ, overcoming the flesh – all of these require a spiritual energy innately foreign to natural man, even to believers.  We have not the ability – in ourselves – to do the will of God.”[486]

So, too, the Holy Spirit provides believers with the supernatural, spiritual tools to accomplish the work.  They are sovereignly distributed.  The Holy Spirit gifts were used during the time of Jesus Christ and the time of His apostles to signify the reality of the message.  The activities were called “signs and wonders” because they were verifying events promised to the Jews.  This signifying work is declared by Scriptures to be a temporary ministry.  It is also a ministry that will be counterfeited by satanic messengers.  His followers will be credited with deceiving sign and wonders (Matthew 24:24-25; Mark 13:22-23; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9).  For this reason, the believer is called upon to be discerning and not gullible.

Some Holy Spirit gifts are ministry gifts (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-13).  These gifts are enduring in nature and affect the growth and maturity of the people within the local church.  These gifts are common and necessary today.  Such spiritual gifts “… enable us to serve God and His church under the power of the divine energy, openly and publicly.”[487]

As in the time of Jesus, this Holy Spirit ministry was never used for self-ministry or self-promotion.  Jesus never called upon the Holy Spirit to perform any miracle for His own benefit.  He did not ask for stones to be turned into bread.  No miracle was ever done to enrich the treasury of His ministry.  Nor is there any record of His performing “magic” for His own or the disciples’ amusement.  The Scriptures are filled with magic men such as Jannes, Jambres, Balaam, and Simon - who all wanted spiritual powers for their own benefit.

Likewise, the gifts and the gifted offices were never determined by the recipient.  Korah dared to challenge Aaron’s gift in the Old Testament.  Others perished in his rebellious speeches.  Whether or not one accepts the Pentecostal gifts as normative for today is irrelevant.  A gift from the Holy Spirit is sovereignly bestowed.

The ministry of the Second Paraclete is rich and vital today, but it is senseless if the believer becomes a Holy Spirit consumer rather than a steward of Jesus Christ.  The Paraclete brings the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ to every believer in every place.

The Indwelling Spirit and Worship - The indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit is marked by a clear progression.  The glory of God dwelt in the midst of the nation of Israel, the Spirit dwelt within the anointed Messiah, and the Comforter dwells today within and among the disciples both individually and corporately.  The applications regarding the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the church should be addressed under the doctrines of Ecclesiology.  However, individually, each believer is the temple of God because of the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).  This means that each believer is a place of worship constantly, not just for a few hours on Sunday.

Allen and Borror draw three truths out of this unique calling.  “First, the temple in fulfilling its primary function draws attention to the deity it contains, not to itself.”[488]  While not one of Israel’s worship centers was ever plain or unworthy of honor, some were more elaborate than others.  Still, it was the presence of God that made the structure the temple.  Every aspect of its furnishings and design pointed to God.  So, too, every aspect of the believer’s life ought to point to Jesus Christ.

“Second, the priests were in the temple to see that it was kept clean.”[489]  Cleanliness is not natural; pollution is.  The Levites gave all diligence to make sure that the place of worship was in order.  Likewise, the Spirit-filled worshiper needs to keep the temple orderly.  The Levites also made sure that the oil did not run out, that the shewbread was kept fresh, and that the coals never died.  While much is said of the spontaneity of worship, a large part of worship involves personal preparation and sanctification.

Acceptable worship does not happen spontaneously.  It requires preparation. … We cannot rush into the presence of God with a double-minded heart and a preoccupation with self.  Fellowship with God demands purity; therefore, true worship cannot occur when unconfessed sin reigns in the heart of the believer.[490]

“Third, the temple location is always important.”[491]  The Temple in Jerusalem was set upon a hill for all to see.  Throughout ancient civilizations, it is clear that even the pagans placed temples in the prime locations.  While it might be tempting for the Christian to plant his temple in the most conspicuous spot, it is the Holy Spirit who strategically places the individual temples.  The temples of the Holy Spirit are able to be erected in places the Tabernacle of old could never go: into offices, government buildings, and schools.  The purpose of the temple is to let its light shine and let the presence of God become obvious wherever He sovereignly places it.

The Promised Spirit

Ryrie states, “Confusion surrounds this area of pneumatology, causing divisions among believers and obscuring this great truth.”[492]  Few doctrines have changed as radically in the last century as has the doctrine of Holy Spirit baptism.  That which is embraced by evangelical Christianity today bears little resemblance to that which was taught before 1850.

Most theological works before the twentieth century gave little attention to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  There was a general consensus that six Bible references described this event, all of which surrounded the events at Pentecost and subsequent “baptisms” in the book of Acts.  The baptism of the Holy Spirit was viewed as an important, historic, one-time event similar to the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.  Its practical value appeared only in the debate over the mode of water baptism.

Near the end of the nineteenth century, a Presbyterian scholar, James Dale, published a monumental set of books challenging the accepted meaning of the word baptizō.  Non-immersionists embraced the work as a defense of their traditional practices, but few realized how radical his work really was.  Dale began to distinguish between what he called “ritual baptism” (the sacramental practice of protestant evangelicals) and “real baptism” (the non-experiential transforming work of the Holy Spirit).  Dale began to question the presence of water in most of the New Testament statements regarding baptism.  In His mind, the reference to baptism in Matthew 28:19-20 referred to real (Spiritual) baptism, not to ritual (water) baptism.

Influenced by Dale’s work, Lewis Sperry Chafer began writing a new non-denominational, fundamentalist theology.  One of the centerpieces would be a new understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  The impact of these individuals upon the present teachings regarding Holy Spirit baptism in fundamental circles can not be overstated.

The new understanding was accompanied by a verse that, for the prior centuries, had been understood as referring to water baptism: 1 Corinthians 12:13.  This seventh verse is critical to the current non-Pentecostal explanation of the doctrine.  It usurps everything taught in the previous six passages.  “The baptizing work of the Holy Spirit may be defined as that work whereby the Spirit places the believer into union with Christ and into union with other believers in the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).”[493]  Eventually other baptism verses would become dehydrated as well (Romans 6:4; Galatians 3:27).  These now proclaim the spiritual oneness of all believers in Christ.  Dale’s radical thesis has in the last century succeeded in changing the ordinance of baptism into a good suggestion in many Baptist churches.

Coincidently, Pentecostalism and the tongues movement were also influencing the thought of Holy Spirit baptism in a different direction.  Spirit baptism became a second experiential blessing.  Unlike Chafer, the practices of Pentecostalism were rooted in the six undisputed references to Spirit baptism.  Grudem summarizes the Pentecostal teaching:

Christians today, like the apostles, should ask Jesus for a “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and thus follow the pattern of the disciples’ lives.  If we receive this baptism in the Holy Spirit, it will result in much more power for ministry for our own lives, just as it did in the lives of the disciples, and will often (or always, according to some teachers) result in speaking in tongues as well.[494]

Ryrie, a current champion of the Chafer approach, believes that there are discernable reasons why confusion continues to exist in this matter.  “Sometimes baptism of the Spirit and filling of the Spirit are not distinguished.”[495]  When second blessing teachings and tongues is added the confusion grows.  Another reason for the confusion comes from tradition, where there exists, “an unclear conception of the body of Christ.”[496]  When the church body is either local or denominational, it is exclusive; but when it is viewed as the realm of regeneration, it includes all believers from all churches (variously defined).  The final and greatest source of confusion relates to water baptism.  “Overemphasis on water baptism, particularly by immersion, often obscures or even obliterates the doctrine of Spirit Baptism.  If the two truths are not distinguished, usually the truth of Spirit Baptism gets lost.”[497]  Spirit baptism removes one of the most contentious doctrines in all of fundamental Christendom.  It also alters the meaning of the term, “church.”

It would be helpful at this point to give a definition of the Church. It is the totality of all individuals saved from Pentecost to the rapture, …, and is formed by the distinctive work of the Holy Spirit who at the point of their salvation through Christ joins individuals to the living Head, and to each other as sharers in Him (1 Cor. 12:13). An individual automatically becomes a member of the Church, as the Body of Christ, at the point of exercising faith.[498]

Whereas Ryrie cites water as a key reason for confusion, those who follow a more traditional interpretation see the problem differently.  To them the question is whether the doctrine relates to Soteriology, becoming the springboard for all of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and regenerating ministries, or whether it relates to Ecclesiology, relating to the identification of the church (variously understood) as God’s chosen institution for worship and service.

This Spirit Baptism by Christ was for the authentication, accreditation and attestation of His ekklesia to the Jews that the ekklesia was His new place of presence, worship and service, as He included in it Jews, Samaritans, Romans, and Greeks.[499]

A traditional Presbyterian scholar similarly writes:

The point is that this was the fulfillment of the promised outpouring of the Spirit upon the Church, and it was thus the baptism of the Church visible by the Holy Spirit. In other words, Hoekema does not think that this event is one that is repeated in the individual Christian life, rather, it is one that was given to the Church once for all on that occasion.[500]

As late as the 1910’s, Baptist writers were unapologetically citing 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a text describing the local church elements of believer’s baptism by immersion and the Lord’s Supper.[501]  The present-day call to return to the former stand is part of a larger call to return to the local church ideology that was prominent in Baptist churches a century ago. 

The Awaited Spirit and Worship - One’s understanding of the doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit directly impacts one’s understanding of worship as it relates to the local church.  Therefore, the applications for worship on this point are better addressed under the study of Ecclesiology.  Still a few general points are worthy of note.

If one is a member of the universal church, the attendance to and care of the local body is not necessary.  Many mega-churches view their mission as being similar to the super-stores. They provide a limited number of essential, doctrinal distinctions at a cheaper price than the small, denominational church can.  If both are only outlets for the same universal church, it matters not if the smaller light is extinguished.

The ordinances of believer’s baptism by immersion and the Lord’s Supper are two of the greatest casualties of universal church thinking.  Today, pastors are having a hard time convincing people that believer’s baptism is not “ritual” baptism.  Many will attend, but few wish to commit to become members of the local assembly.  They are convinced that such activity is nice, but not necessary.  One’s view of Spirit Baptism will affect the way he worships with other believers. 

The Convicting Spirit

Jesus describes the impact of the coming Spirit in John 16:8-11 upon the world.  He will convict the world of their rejection of Jesus Christ as Messiah.  Some dispensationalists view this as a future work of the Holy Spirit.  “Certainly there was no indication that the Spirit convicted the world of sin in Old Testament times (as He does now, John 16:8).”[502]  Such teaching appears to be at odds with Genesis 6:3.  Those who suggest such a vacancy teach that the Spirit strove only through inspired preachers of righteousness like Noah. 

The word of God clearly delineates between the New Testament and Old Testament ministries of the Holy Spirit for the believer, but did the exaltation of Jesus Christ also create a new ministry of the Holy Spirit with regard to unregenerate humanity?  In one sense, the answer is yes.  The content of the rebuke would extend beyond man’s personal unworthiness.  It would now relate to the rejection of the remedy: “they are not believing (present tense) on Me … I am going (present) to my Father and ye are seeing me no more … because the prince of this world stands condemned (perfect tense).”  While the content has clearly changed, the character of His conviction has not.

God’s revelation may have progressively improved the tools which the Holy Spirit uses to convict lost man of His sin, but His convicting ministry has not changed.  “Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit would reprove or convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:7-11).  As He ministered in the times of Noah, so He ministers today.”[503]  The dispensationalist often places Noah’s peers in the age of Conscience, for this was the tool He used in that day.  One must be careful to distinguish between a redeemed conscience (Noah) and the generally depraved conscience of that day.  It is wrong to think that if that generation had let their conscience be their guide that God would have bestowed His favor upon them.  Romans 1:21-32 indicates that the depraved conscience mindset is alive and well today.  What light the Holy Spirit gives to them, they extinguish.  For this reason, He gives them over to their passions and ceases to strive with them regarding their sins.

Immediately following the age of Conscience is the age known as Human Government.  Such people accept the concept of morality.  They recognize God’s wisdom in permitting humans to rule over each other and to hand down judgments regarding the law, but depraved human government frees itself from personal morality.  It finds satisfaction in judging the failures of others while ignoring personal guilt.  Such people exist today living in the condemnation of Romans 2:1-16.

The era known as the Age of Law provided the external Holy Spirit with some very powerful tools for conviction.  The Torah became the standard, and the Temple became the place where God and man might meet on common ground.  However, sin and its effects separated between man and God.  Instead of hearing the convicting voice of the Spirit, the depraved legalist found satisfaction in his own position and self-righteousness.  Such people exist today living in the condemnation of Romans 2:17-3:8.

Add to this condemnation now the revealed Messiah.  Sin’s penalty has been paid and the adversary stands defeated, but a depraved Christianity is deafened to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.  It worships the symbols, ordinances, and traditions of its “faith” but ignores the need for personal salvation.

The convicting work of the Holy Spirit has always existed.  Without it Rahab would have never looked for rescue, and the publican would have never cried, “Lord, be merciful to me a sinner.”  While His tools have become more powerful and sophisticated, man’s resistance has become more obdurate.  The condemnation for those who resist the fullest revelation today will be greater than it was for the sinners in Noah’s day.

The Jewish leaders in Jesus’ day were charged with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  A similar offense is found in Hebrews 10:29.  The sinner actively and intentionally insults the Spirit by insulting the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Stephen accused his judges of resisting the Holy Spirit.  No group up to that time had more evidence to prove the validity of the claims of Jesus Christ.  The Holy Spirit was convicting them at the highest possible levels (John 16:8-11), yet they incredibly resisted His convicting work.  With the presence of the completed Scriptures, the Holy Spirit’s tools are only more convincing.  Still the insulting and resisting of His work continues.  Unto whom much is given, much shall be required.

The Convicting Spirit and Worship - To the sinner, his greatest act of worship must be the acknowledging of his need for the Savior.  Perhaps the greatest hurdle to leap is that of self-righteousness.  The Apostle Paul testified of the day he counted all of his self-righteous merits as trash – the day he exchanged his self-righteousness for the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.  As worshipful as any or all of these acts may have appeared to humanity, they were not accepted as worship before God.

Thus, it is critical that one who uses worship as a tool of evangelism recognizes that such activities may actually frustrate the work that the Holy Spirit is trying to accomplish.  The Holy Spirit is trying to bring the person to repentance.  If on the other hand the church is trying to make the sinner feel “at home,” it may be working against the Holy Spirit.  If the church is trying to give the unregenerate man a taste of spiritual power before he deals with his sin, this too may be counterproductive.  Even the straight-and-narrow traditions can dull the Spirit’s sword, for if an unrepentant man can find confidence in the flesh by living up to man-made standards, the Holy Spirit becomes muted.

On any given Sunday, the likelihood of unrepentant sinners being present is always great.  It is critical that the worship of God be, above all else, genuine.  The presence of sinners ought not to be as critical as the presence of God.  If the worship is what is should be, then the Holy Spirit will be able to convict as the word of God is preached without apology, as the Savior is magnified enthusiastically, and as the church bows its head in prayer without doubting.  “If lost people see true believers worship, they should have a sense of the awesomeness of God and the holiness of God and recognize that they do not know Him as these other people do.”[504]  The secondary goal of worship is never to make the sinner feel at home - it is to make him thirsty for reality.

Chapter 16 - The Acceptable Response to the Holy Spirit

Be Filled / Walk - The Bible commands believers to walk in the Spirit and to be filled with the Spirit.  Such activity does not come naturally; in fact, it violates every lust of the fleshly existence.  Jesus pictured the Spirit’s work in regeneration as being invisible, yet perceptible, like the wind.  The same is true for Spirit-filling.  If one has not perceived the Spirit’s work in his life, it ought to be a cause for alarm.  “Do you lack assurance? … Do you lack victory over sin? … Do you lack the fruits of holiness? … Do you lack power for service? … These and many other deficiencies would be met, if only we were filled with the Holy Spirit.”[505]  Spiritual poverty is perfectly normal to the world at large, but is an anomaly to one who professes Jesus Christ as Savior.  The three most common reasons for this poverty are ignorance (one does not know what Spirit-filling is), fleshly dominance (carnality), or spiritual deception (one has never truly been saved).

The command to be filled with the Holy Spirit appears only once in Ephesians 5:18, but its impact is expressed throughout the New Testament.  If left to the book of Acts, one might assume that such filling is dictated by divine sovereignty, or that it is achieved by persistent begging for Holy Spirit-filling.  What is Spirit-filling and how does one participate in the activity?  If the command is to be comprehended, it is critical that it be understood in the context of Ephesians.  The verb pleroō and the noun pleroma appear in six times in Ephesians (1:10, 23; 3:19; 4:10, 13; 5:18).    Fullness is related to all members of the Godhead.

The prayer of Ephesians 3 is a call to believers to experience the love of God in Christ so deeply that Christ resides in and directs their lives. In turn, His direction means that one’s life reflects the presence and attributes of God. … Ephesians 4–6 specifies the walk that grows out of this filling and which produces the work of God’s transforming power in the life.[506]

In its immediate context, the filling of the Spirit is set in contrast to inebriation.  For this reason, most Bible teachers relate the matter of filling to the Holy Spirit’s control of the individual.

In summary, Paul’s use of the expression “Be filled with the Spirit” in Eph 5:18 in contrast to being drunk with wine enjoins believers to exhibit a wise, maturing lifestyle which is to be expressed in corporate praise and worship as well as in proper Christian relationships.[507]

  What does being filled look like?  Some will point to the passage at hand and then to the accusation made on the day of Pentecost.  The critics of the Holy Spirit’s Pentecostal work accused those who were filled of being drunk.  The conclusion is then reached that Holy Spirit-filling loses all sense of decorum and may appear drunken and disorderly to the uninitiated.  The context of Ephesians paints a different picture.  The imperative “be filled” is followed by five participles which appear to describe the actions resulting from Spirit-filling. 

The first three participles are found in Ephesians 5:19.  A Spirit-filled person is first marked by joyful corporate praise.  This “speaking” is spontaneous, and yet the contents are items of sacred beauty.  The precise distinctions among the Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are uncertain.  Some believe that this refers only to the 150 Psalms.[508]  Others speculate that the content was a bit broader.  Psalms were originally songs accompanied by the harp.  The original Hebrew “hymnal” was the book of Psalms.  It is assumed that these Holy Spirit inspired verses are what are being spoken and sung (“making melody”, participle three) in this verse.  Hymns would be musical expressions which were exclusively sacred in character.  It is assumed that hymns have the praise of God as their chief focus.  If distinguished from the Psalms some suggest that the hymns of the first century had Jesus Christ as the specific theme.  Spiritual songs are specifically verses that are sung (the Greek noun and participle behind “song” and “singing” also come from the same root).  It is nearly impossible to independently determine what “spiritual songs” are especially as related to Psalms and hymns.  Some see this last category as any song of a spiritual nature that is neither a Psalm nor a hymn.  If this position is accepted, one must not neglect 1 John 4:1 in distinguishing truth from error.  While the precise distinctives of the three expressions are in doubt, the fact that a Spirit-filled Christian is filled with the expressions of joy surrounding his God and Savior is without dispute.  A Spirit-filled Christian is vocal.

The fourth participle is found in Ephesians 5:20.  A Spirit-filled Christian is a grateful person.  He gives thanks for all things.  This includes not only the blessings, but it also includes the trials and the persecutions.  Jesus never complained of lacking food in the wilderness.  The accommodations for the fowls and the foxes surpassed those of the Son of Man.  Still, He never looked with envy upon the financial prosperity of the Pharisees, nor did He aspire to have the political clout of the Sadducees.  The Apostle Paul learned contentment whether he was abounding or being abased.  He would instruct the Thessalonians to give thanks in every thing, for this is God’s will.  Spirit-filling is never covetous or discontented.  It always thanks God for what He has given.

The fifth participle related to Spirit-filling speaks of submission to authority.  Such was the testimony of the Savior.  The Spirit-filled Son of God submitted Himself to His heavenly Father’s will while concurrently submitting Himself to His earthly parents - His mother and His adoptive father.  A Spirit-filled Christian will be cooperative within the local church (Ephesians 5:21).  Spirit-filling will also express itself in this special way in the home (Ephesians 5:22-6:4) and in the workplace (Ephesians 6:5-9).  This self-assertive world is daily manifesting the works of the flesh in its activities and relationships (Galatians 5:19-21).  In contrast, Spirit-filled Christians demonstrate the reality of the Spirit’s fruit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.  In its essence, the Spirit-filled life is a Christ-like life.

It is also interesting that Spirit-filling is not a deeply introspective activity.  Spirit-fullness cannot be found in a monastery.  Ephesians 5:19, 21 uses reflexive pronouns to indicate that these activities are public, not for the public in general, but for others who share the same faith.  In this context this group is the local church.

The Holy Spirit is the One who animates the body. … The gifts of the Spirit are for the edification of the Church (1 Cor 14:12).  Christians love one another in the Spirit (Col 1:8); they have fellowship in the Spirit (Phil 2:1); they worship God in the Spirit (Phil 3:3); the Church is comprised of Christians who are built up together as a habitation of God in the Spirit (Eph 2:22); thus the Church becomes an epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor 3:3).[509]

The concept of Spirit-filling is parallel to the practice of walking in the Spirit as described in Galatians 5.  The difference between the two is simply a matter of perspective.  The command in Galatians 5 is actively focusing on what the believer does, and Ephesians 5 is passive focusing on what he becomes.  The believer allows the Spirit to act by yielding to His work.  When people were filled with the Spirit in the book of Acts, the focus was not upon what they did, but upon who was in control.    While there is an aspect of Holy Spirit sovereignty in filling, the fact that it is an imperative indicates that there is a participatory aspect on the part of the filled man.  “This is not something for some select few, but an expected and possible requirement of the normal Christian life.”[510]

From man’s perspective, Spirit-filling is simply yielding in obedience to the Holy Spirit’s work.  Such yielding may manifest itself in crisis experiences, but it is generally manifest in the mature, Spirit-guided choices a believer makes.  He recognizes that even though good works do not save, they are to be a part of his life by design (Ephesians 2:8-10).  For works to truly be good, they must be energized by the Holy Spirit.  “The ‘Spirit-filled’ man is one in whom the Holy Spirit so assumes the ascendancy that at every point his life is guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit.”[511]

Sins that Prevent Filling - When the Holy Spirit is perceived to be a force rather than a person, the pursuit of Spirit-filling has room for compromise.  Fleshly forces and spiritual forces can be combined to produce an effect that one or the other is incapable of producing alone.  A hybrid worship is created that appeals both to the flesh and to the Holy Spirit at the same time.

Conversely, when the Holy Spirit is perceived to be a person, His cohabitation with the flesh becomes impossible.  His Holy character cannot allow sin to have any place.  The flesh and the Spirit are warring parties.  For this reason, personal separation from sin becomes a vital prerequisite of Spirit-filling and the Spiritual walk.

Long before the command is issued to be filled, the believer is instructed first to separate himself from the sin which characterized the flesh prior to salvation.  Ephesians 4 begins with Paul begging the believers to walk in a manner consistent with their calling.  This walk is distinct from the normal Gentile walk (4:17).  They exist perpetually in a state of darkness, alienation, and callousness that reflects the judgment spoken of in Romans 1:21-32.  The believer is called upon to cleanse himself by putting off the old man, being renewed spiritually, and putting on the new man (4:22-24).  Twenty-one imperatives appear between this passage and Ephesians 5:18, all instructing what to put off and what to put on.  Ephesians 4:30 says, “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.”  Before one can be effectively filled, he must put off his natural inclination to offend the Holy Spirit.

The New Testament refers to two common sins against the Holy Spirit which are committed by God’s own children.  As already cited, grieving Him is one sin.  Quenching Him is the other sin (1 Thessalonians 5:19).  The latter is accomplished by shutting off one’s self from the Spirit’s instruction - specifically the instruction of the inspired word of God.  The former is committed when that which is dedicated for His use is used for profanity.  In the context of Ephesians, one’s speech ought to be used gloriously, but when it is used to spread corrupt communication, the Spirit is grieved.  Bitter speech is the fruit of a bitter heart.  All sin grieves the Holy Spirit.

Sin can no more stand against the presence of the Holy Ghost than darkness can resist the gentle, all-pervasive beams of morning light.  If however He is grieved, or resisted, or quenched, so that His power and presence are restrained, there is no deliverance for the spirit, however bitter its remorse, or eager its resort to fastings, mortifications, and regrets. The law of the Spirit of Life, which is in Christ Jesus, can alone make us free from the law of sin and death. But it can, and it will if only we yield ourselves to its operation.[512]

The Flesh that Resists the Spirit - The Holy Spirit is supposed to be the divine power that drives worship.  In Philippians 3, the Apostle Paul commands the believers to continuously and repeatedly rejoice in the Lord.  He reminds them to beware of three types of individuals who would destroy this joy and worship.  Dogs would be morally impure people who viciously attack those who are pure.  Evil workers are people who are actively engaged in activities that God considers iniquity.  The concision is contrasted to circumcision; these were religious mutilators.  The context yields the prospect that these were not three different groups, but the perfect description of the legalistic Jews of Paul’s day.  They attacked the worship of the Philippian believers while concealing their own impurities.  To them, the Spirit-filled worship described by Paul was a poor substitute for their self-righteous activities and rituals.

Paul’s answer is two-fold.  In one sense, he challenges his readers to compare his fleshly worship scorecard against any that would be produced by these “religious giants” (Philippians 3:4-6).  Paul was not merely devout; he was the class valedictorian when it came to the practice of self-righteousness.  His second part of the answer is that the righteousness of God by faith demands that self-righteousness by the flesh be trashed.  It is in this context that Philippians 3:3 is set.  "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."

Within this verse, God becomes the object of worship, Jesus is the focus of worship, and the Holy Spirit serves as the energy of worship.  Worship embraces all members of the Godhead, but not all in the same way.  When the Holy Spirit energizes worship, confidence in the fleshly deeds of the religion evaporates.  Paul gave his good works a vote of no confidence so that He might know Jesus Christ powerfully.  “When one is saved, he has the privilege of true worship.  The Holy Spirit makes worship real.”[513]

Contrary to pragmatism, Holy Spirit worship has no confidence in the results of the flesh.  Spirit-filling does not always produce positive numeric outcomes.  Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry ought to be evidence enough of this truth.  No person knew more perfectly how to manipulate people than did He, yet no human has ever been more perfectly Spirit-filled than He.  He did not measure His success by numeric results.

Is it not amazing: though we know the power of the Holy Spirit can be ours, we still ape the world’s wisdom, trust its forms of publicity, its noise, and imitate its ways of manipulating men! If we try to influence the world by using its methods, we are doing the Lord’s work in the flesh. If we put activity, even good activity, at the center rather than trusting God, then there may be the power of the world, but we will lack the power of the Holy Spirit.  The key question is this: as we work for God in this fallen world, what are we trusting in? To trust in particular methods is to copy the world and to remove ourselves from the tremendous promise that we have something different - the power of the Holy Spirit rather than the power of human technique.[514]

Following the Holy Spirit led Jesus to places that the flesh would have questioned.  The flesh would not have led Jesus into the wilderness to fast for forty days and be tempted by the devil.  It took the leading of the Holy Spirit to do this.  Following the Holy Spirit may, according to the flesh, be costly instead of being beneficial or productive.

The more the Holy Spirit works, the more Christians will be used in battle, and the more they are used, the more there will be personal cost and tiredness. It is quite the opposite of what we might first think. People often cry out for the work of the Holy Spirit and yet forget that when the Holy Spirit works, there is always tremendous cost to the people of God — weariness and tears and battles.[515]

Contrary to experience, Holy Spirit worship has no confidence in the deification of the flesh.  Such was the wish of Simon the Sorcerer.  He wanted the power demonstrated by Peter and John so that He might be enriched.  In this way, both he and Balaam shared much in common.  Pentecostalism has been plagued by many “Holy Spirit” merchants who, in the name of the Spirit of God, become the mediator to health and wealth.  They have set themselves up as modern day messiahs.  Pay their price and receive God’s blessing.  This is blasphemous.

Still less obvious, and more pervasive, is pursuit of the ultimate transcendental experience by the individual believer.  It is thought that if the believer can achieve ecstasy by freeing his spirit from the confines of ordinary mental process, he has experienced the Holy Spirit.  His spiritual high is similar to that which is experienced mechanically by drinkers or drug-users.  It is akin to the rush experienced at a rock concert.  In fact, some believe that the more one appears to be inebriated, the closer he is to Pentecost.

At the age of seventeen Howard-Browne asked God for His power and “the fire of God came upon me” (p. 22). Intoxicated on the wine of the Holy Spirit he was instructed to get people “saturated,…drunk in the Holy Ghost.” When he prayed for them, people jumped out of their wheelchairs, and some were picked up and thrown by the “Holy Ghost tornado.” One woman fell to the floor and became stuck there for several hours by “Holy Ghost glue.”  Howard-Browne got a number of major breaks when he was invited to participate in meetings of Benny Hinn, Karl Strader, Charles and Frances Hunter, Marilyn Hickey, and Richard Roberts. These Christian superstars were all overcome by laughter in the Spirit or spiritual drunkenness.[516]

The “laughing revivals” have been attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit.  Methods used by transcendental meditation have become “Christianized” and are now credited with deeper spiritual experiences, but any “spiritual experience” that can be replicated without reference to Jesus Christ must be treated with suspicion.  Satan poses as an angel of light and is willing to help people become as gods if it will lead them away from the true God.

Contrary to tradition, Holy Spirit worship has no confidence in the empty patterns of the flesh.  This application is derived from the very context of Philippians 3:3.  One must never ascribe permanent sanctification to the people and things God has used in the past.  King Hezekiah was responsible for a great revival in his day.  To accomplish this, all pagan items of worship were destroyed.  In the midst of the cleansing, Hezekiah was faced with a relic from Israel’s past.  The brazen serpent of Moses’ day had been preserved, and it was being used as an object of veneration.  Israel’s godly king ordered it to be destroyed.  He rendered it powerless by calling it “Nehushtan:” a thing of brass.

The eternal God has not promised to preserve this world and its contents, but He has promised to preserve His word, His people, and His church.  While those who shepherd His flock should be honored for their work, they must never be venerated.  One may learn from their example and follow them as they follow Christ, but great men are no substitute for the personal work of the Holy Spirit.  Organizations and building may have been used in the past, but past success is no guarantee of present or future filling with the Spirit.  It is possible for those Spirit-filled vessels to become idolatrous substitutes for God.

Tradition too often cherishes the tools God has used in the past.  In worship, the hymnals change with time.  Songs with imagery that was rich in the nineteenth century (i.e. lighthouses and railroads) require the singer to absorb the background of a previous day.  To lose these songs is as painful as saying farewell to a beloved grandfather.  The true traditionalist will insist that extreme measures be undertaken to keep the hymn on life support, for surely it deserves such care.  While sympathetic to the sentiments, the hymnal publisher may remove it from use.  The traditionalist will associate such activity with apostasy when it truly is not so.  Because God’s word is eternal, the importance of the reader grasping the background is vital, but the same care must never be given to a hymn, for its purpose is not eternal.

Expository preaching can become an empty tradition.  While the pattern is clearly biblical and therefore timeless, the practice can become fleshly.  Diligence in the study is critical to right exposition, but right exposition without Holy Spirit empowerment is a shell of what biblical preaching should be.

Having been refreshed as to the call to preach the Word, preachers next need a fresh dependence on the Holy Spirit’s enabling power.  Ironically, “exposition” so-called can be a cold-blooded, lifeless affair.  It is possible for a preacher to follow the expository method and never preach in the power of the Holy Spirit.[517]

Traditions of Scriptural fidelity are not enough.  “Let the preacher ever remember that in preaching the Gospel he is but the mediate agent by whom the Spirit is immediately using His own instrument, the Word of God.”[518]

The Spirit-Filled Believer and Worship - Worshiping the Spirit is more than just singing His name in “Holy, Holy, Holy.”  It is the constant practice of yielding to Him, letting Him fill the believer’s life.  It is treating Him as a precious companion, always careful neither to grieve nor to quench Him.  Jesus did not orphan God’s children; He sent another Comforter who is in every way equal to Himself.

Where possible, a church is enriched when one can dedicate his time and attention to directing the worship aspects of church services.  It is critical that this one be capable of leadership and that he is theologically in step with the pastor.  He needs to keep the worship focused and fresh.  However, while all of these are important, one matter must never be overlooked.  The person in charge of worship must be Spirit-filled himself.  One music director stated this conviction:

Be faithful in your relationships.  We should guard certain relationships at all costs.  First and foremost is our relationship with our Heavenly Father.  Be faithful to read your Bible every day and spend time in prayer. … Without daily time with the Lord, true success in the ministry is not possible.[519]

When the leaders are not Spirit-filled, it is impossible to lead by example.  One can only point in the right direction and hope that others will find their way.

Chapter 17 – The Trustworthy Spirit of Worship

The Holy Spirit is the source of life, and therefore the source of living worship.  He is the person of the Godhead who energizes and quickens.  Worship is not really the product of man; it is the Holy Spirit moving and using man as an instrument of praise to God.

He wants to lead us on in our love for Him who first loved us.  He wants to cultivate within us the adoration and admiration of which He is worthy.  He wants to reveal to each of us the blessed element of spiritual fascination in true worship.  He wants to teach us the wonder of being filled with moral excitement in our worship, entranced with the knowledge of who God is.  He wants us to be astonished at the inconceivable elevation and magnitude and splendor of God.[520]

If worship is to be truly biblical, then a Scriptural understanding of the person and work of the Holy Spirit is critical.  This is not to say that the sovereign Spirit cannot engage someone who is ignorant or simple in doctrine in true worship.  During the day when He entered Jerusalem as the Son of David, Jesus rebuked the leaders stating that the mouths of babes became the instruments of perfect praise (Matthew 21:16).

Knowledge of the person and work of the Holy Spirit is critical because many false, lying, deceiving, and antichristian spirits counterfeit His work in order to lead the worshiper astray.  They demand that men yield to them as they would the Paraclete.  The Bible reveals that only one eternal, uncreated, divine Holy Spirit exists.  Not everything in the spiritual realm is energized by the Holy Spirit of God.  Likewise, the spiritual nature of man is corrupted from birth.  To be the tool God intended it to be, that human spirit must be regenerated and constantly renewed.  The spirit of man is not a trustworthy compass in spiritual matters.  He is in need of a far greater and more trustworthy authority.

1 John 4:1 commands believers to put the “spirits” to the test.  1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 warns the believer not to quench the Holy Spirit.  Testing the spiritual nature of the message is critical.  That which is genuine must be embraced because the believer is obligated to yield to the Holy Spirit.  That which is false must be shunned.  Knowing the Holy Spirit is critical in discerning His work.  The work of the Holy Spirit is distinguishable from all false spiritual activity.  John’s first epistle provides five criteria for this testing.

The person and work of Jesus Christ is fully esteemed (1 John 4:2-3).  While the Holy Spirit is worthy of the same worship and honor as any other member of the Trinity, still His chosen activity is to magnify the Lord Jesus Christ, and not Himself.  Christian worship is all about Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit will not lead worship away from Him.

To the sinner, this Spirit will convict him of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.  The Holy Spirit will not edify or enlighten the sinner; He will press the sinner’s back to the wall, fill his heart with the righteous fear of the just wrath of God, and enable Him to discover escape in Jesus Christ.

To the saint, this Spirit will minister as the Second Comforter, doing for him personally what Jesus would do, were He there in person.  He illumines, encourages, and when necessary rebukes the child of God.  He prepares that one to anticipate the Bridegroom and to love His appearing, and fills the heart with godly expectation so that the saint can echo, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

The antithetical nature of the world is resisted (1 John 4:4-5).  The Holy Spirit energizes the believer in a way that is adversarial to the world, the flesh, and the devil.  The Holy Spirit is the quickening energy of the new birth.  Sin can be spiritually stimulating but only in an artificial way – one that is incapable of providing life.  It allows the dead man to walk according to the course of this world and according to the spirit that energizes the children of disobedience.

In order to be filled with the Spirit or to walk in the Spirit, one must reject the stimulants of the world.  Galatians 5:16 states that when one walks in the Spirit it is thoroughly impossible for him to fulfill the lusts of the flesh.  The Holy Spirit and sinful flesh are antithetical; they can never be combined.  One might ask, “How do I know if my activity is fleshly?”  The answer is given in Galatians 5:19-23.  The flesh is identified by its variety of works and by its barrenness of spiritual fruit.  Spiritual worship recognizes that this vile world is no friend of grace to help the saint unto God.

Pragmatism, experience, and tradition are capable of operating independently of the Holy Spirit and in league with the flesh.  Paul explained he exchanged his fleshly, traditional worship of God for a Spiritual worship that finds its confidence in the work of Jesus Christ.

The Holy Scriptures are received as absolute truth and obeyed (1 John 4:6).  The word of God is the product of Holy Spirit inspiration.  It serves as the absolute standard by which all that claims to be truth must be compared.

The word remains alive and powerful due to the continuing work of the Holy Spirit.  In perfection, the word was delivered so that whatever was spoken over two thousand years ago remains as true today as it did when first penned.  Such endurance indicates the infinite brilliance of the Author and His present ministry of illumination.

While many seek inside information from the Holy Spirit, the written word of God which He has provided is fully sufficient.  The best way a redeemed man can worship the Holy Spirit is to absorb what He has written in the pages of Scriptures and act upon it.      

The brilliance of the truth is permitted to shine - exposing error (1 John 4:6).  The spirit of error leads men away from God and from His Son.  The Holy Spirit will not guide men of truth to seek common ground with error.   The Spirit of truth will make a man more sensitive to God and the eternal truths contained in His word.  Conversely, that which darkens man’s understanding and thirst to know the God of the Bible is the spirit of error.  When light shines, the error is revealed, and the wicked heart loves darkness rather than light.  Error succeeds if it can cast a shadow or dim the light.  The worship of God must be worship in Spirit and in truth.

The supernatural love of God is evident (1 John 4:7-19).  The love of God is never selfish or self-serving.  The Holy Spirit does not lead the believer to ask, “What is in this for me?”  Instead, the Holy Spirit energizes the heart of man with an appreciation for who God is and what He has already done on man’s behalf. 

Therefore, when the spirit that is at work amongst the people tends this way, and brings many of them to high and exalting thoughts of the Divine Being, and his glorious perfections; and works in them an admiring, delightful sense of the excellency of Jesus Christ; representing him as the chief among ten thousand, and altogether lovely, and makes him precious to the soul; winning and drawing the heart with those motives and incitements to love of which the apostle speaks in that passage of Scripture we are upon, viz., the wonderful free love of God in giving his only–begotten Son to die for us, and the wonderful dying love of Christ to us who had no love to him but were his enemies, it must needs be the Spirit of God.[521]

In turn, the Spirit energizes the believers to love the other born-again brothers and sisters.  Such Holy Spirit love is described in 1 Corinthians 13.

The eternal, indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of every individual believer is unique to the New Testament age.  The Apostle Paul twice alludes to the Holy Spirit’s indwelling as that of the glory of God within the temple.  The Holy Spirit fills the individual lives of each believer, but He also energizes each believer in a corporate body known as the local church.  By His indwelling work, the Holy Spirit transforms a person’s being into a place where God is worshiped.

It is impossible for any of us to worship God without the impartation of the Holy Spirit.  It is the operation of the Spirit of God within us that enables us to worship God acceptably through that Person we call Jesus Christ, who is Himself God.[522]

Jesus Christ serves as the perfect model of Spirit-filled worship and service.  Even though He was the sinless Son of God, this did not stop Him from depending fully upon the work of the Holy Spirit.  The word of God was critical in His answers and the Spirit’s guidance was critical in where He went.  Visibly absent from Jesus’ work are many of the “Pentecostal” experiences which are frequently attributed to the Spirit today.  As the perfect model of the Spirit-filled life, the believer needs to emulate his Savior and make the Savior’s patterns his own.

Chapter 18 – Summary

Every week, people leave their homes and travel to some sacred building for the purpose of worship.  Some view this time as the highlight of their week, while others are dragged inside to do their duty and then get on with life.  The signs on the outside of the buildings announce various types of services: traditional, contemporary, seeker-friendly, blended.  One would assume from the American culture that the activity of worship is necessary, but how a person worships is a matter of personal taste.

The reason worship has become so subjective in its practice is ignorance.  First, there is ignorance of what worship really is.  Few participating in it are able to give a concrete explanation of what they are doing.  Secondly, there is an ignorance of the object of worship.  Many identify the object as God, but few can explain who He really is.  Confusion is compounded when asked how worship relates to the Trinity.  Thirdly, there is an ignorance of the instrument of worship.  Man is called upon to give worship to God, but God refuses some of man’s activities as legitimate expressions of worship.  Fourthly, there is an ignorance regarding the place of worship.  Worship is both personal and corporate.  The local church appears to be in competition with the mega-churches and the home churches.  Is this right?

As a result of this ignorance, three extra-biblical influences control what is called worship in churches today.  Some are controlled by pragmatism, a philosophy which determines worth on the basis of a quantifiable outcome.  As related to worship, pragmatism measures success by size and numeric growth.  If more are attending this week than last week, then the worship is successful.  Experience judges success on the basis of enthusiasm.  If people believe that they have met God in a supernatural way, then the worship has been a success.  Tradition serves as the third influence.  Its yardstick measures how little it has changed with time.  The patterns of worship are sacrosanct – sometimes as changeless as God.

Missing from most discussions on worship is the question of theology.  Worship is divorced from this for a number of reasons.  First, worship is considered a practical and personal matter.  Theological training is not a biblical requirement before one can participate in worship.  Second, theology is divisive.  Worship can unite diverse people but only if all agree to leave their differences at home.  Thirdly, theology is tedious.  One can spend a vast amount of time and energy exploring the depths of doctrine and never find a reason to worship God.  Most people who read books on worship are looking for fresh ideas on how to make the experience of worship more meaningful.  Theology does not provide fast answers.

Theology is to worship what the foundation is to a building.  Few realize the importance of the foundation because it is rarely seen.  It is the superstructure that is viewed and admired by men; therefore, great attention is given to the patterns and colors chosen.  However, it matters not how much a building is admired if the foundation is flawed.

The purpose of this work has been rudimentary.  Its goal has not been to provide new ideas, but to provide tools for laying a solid foundation for worship.  In order for the practice of worship to be what God desires it to be, a philosophy of worship must be in place.  That philosophy begins by discerning where the worshiper is.  This is determined by the study of Systematic Theology.  Its purpose is to establish a point of reference based upon solid truth.  Next, the philosophy seeks to discern where worship should be.  Biblical Theology will seek to follow the theme of worship from Genesis to Revelation, noting the developments as time passes.  Its goal is to discern how worship is conducted in the New Testament.  The third step in establishing a philosophy of worship is to plan the route.  When one knows where he has been and where he is going, he is then able to look at the idea books and discern which suggestions will bring him to his destination.  The final step is to build the superstructure upon a foundation that will last.

Before anyone can intelligently and biblically worship God, he must answer the question, “What is worship?”  While many good definitions exist, I have adopted the definition given by David Peterson.  “The worship of the living and true God is essentially an engagement with him on the terms that he proposes and in the way that he alone makes possible.”[523]  Too often, those who define worship begin with man.  Peterson’s definition has wisely left man out of the immediate picture because, in reality, worship has very little to do with man.  Worship is first of all about God.  It is an engagement with Him.  Secondly, the terms of worship belong to Him as well.  In the Old Testament, if one wished to worship God, he needed to precisely follow the patterns of mediation set by God.  Finally, worship is an activity which provides no merit for man, for even the energy and ability to worship God is supplied by Him.

The three-part arrangement of the definition is not accidental.  New Testament worship is Trinitarian at its core.  God the Father is the object of worship, God the Son is the incarnation of worship, and God the Holy Spirit is the vitality of worship.  “New covenant worship is essentially the engagement with God that he has made possible through the revelation of himself in Jesus Christ and the life he has made available through the Holy Spirit.”[524] 

New Testament worship must also be described as Christological.  While all members of the Trinity deserve the praise and adoration of man, the Godhead draws man to focus primarily on the Lord Jesus Christ.  He is the centerpiece of worship.

To worship God the Father worthily requires knowledge of God.  God has chosen specific names and titles so that man might grasp who He is.  He has revealed His attributes in the pages of Scriptures.  Some attributes are limited only to His nature; other attributes are perfected in Him but evident in the moral nature of man.  The first three of the Ten Commandments reveal that the true worship of God is exclusive, image-free, and reverent of His name.  The object of worship is marvelous and awesome in the best use of the words.

To worship God the Son worthily requires an acceptance of Him.  Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega.  He is fully God – perfectly possessing the attributes of God.  In order to redeem mankind, God the Son took on human flesh so that He could atone for sin.  This selfless act of grace led Him to Calvary and death.  Three days later, Jesus arose from the dead.  His victory makes resurrection available to all mankind.  Jesus then ascended and engaged Himself in His present ministry – that of Mediatorial Priest.  The Bible reveals that Jesus will one day return to fulfill all the promise made concerning Him.  He deserves all the praise of man because He is both God and Savior.

To worship God the Holy Spirit worthily requires man to yield to Him.  He is the energy of Creation and the giver of life.  His current indwelling ministry in the life of the believer makes that one a temple of God today.  For that temple to be the place of worship, the believer must separate himself from the world, the flesh, and the devil and then yield to the Holy Spirit.

Worship, from beginning to end is all about God.  God the Father conceives the symphony of praise, the Son produces and conducts the masterpiece, and the Spirit plays upon each instrument so that creation can marvel at the greatness of God.  The trumpet, viola, piccolo and cymbals all are visibly moved and used in the process, but none is central and worthy of praise.  Worship, therefore, is Trinitarian.  All glory belongs to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  To be used as an instrument of praise to God is a great honor.  When worship grasps the true nature of the object of worship, man is rightly humbled.  When the work of Jesus Christ is understood, every instrument should yield fully to the work of the Holy Spirit in worship.

Who may we expect will come to worship God?  It is that woman who has read words describing His majesty and who desires to respond rightly to Him.  It is that man who through the liberating words of Scripture has experienced His wonder.  It will be boys and girls whose parents refuse to allow them to be molded in the spirit of today’s trivializing age, but who rather are helping their children to be transformed by the renewal of their minds to the majesty of God.[525]

Comprehending God in His fullness will enrich the worship of every believer, “making sure that mindless, heartless, passionless is not a part of what we are doing.”[526]

Set my heart, O dear Father, on Thee, and Thee only,

Give me a thirst for Thy presence divine.

Lord, keep my focus on loving Thee wholly,

Purge me from earth; turn my heart after Thine.

Father, fill with Thy Spirit, and fit me for service,

Let love for Christ every motive inspire;

Teach me to follow in selfless submission,

Be Thou my joy and my soul’s one desire.

A passion for Thee; O Lord, set a fire in my soul,

And a thirst for my God.

Hear Thou my prayer, Lord, Thy power impart –

Not just to serve, but to love Thee with all of my heart.[527]

----

[1] David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 20.

[2] A.W. Tozer, Whatever Happened to Worship? (Camp Hill, PA: Christian Publications, 1985).

[3] Ronald Allen & Gordon Borror, Worship: Rediscovering the Missing Jewel, (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1982).

[4] Brad Berglund, Reinventing Sunday: Breakthrough Ideas for Transforming Worship, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2001).  (Note: This writer shares his name with me.  We are two different people)

[5] Rick Warren, The Purpose-Driven Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).

-- The Purpose-Driven Life, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).

[6] Peterson, Engaging with God.

[7] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994).

[8] D. A. Carson, ed., Worship by the Book, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).

[9] A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God: Their Meaning in the Christian Life, (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible Broadcast, 1971).

[10] J. I. Packer, Knowing God, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973).

[11] John M. Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1996).

[12] Jack W. Hayford, “Charismatic Worship: Embracing a Worship Reformation,” Experience God in Worship, (Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, Inc., 2000), 133-150.

[13] Warren, Church.

[14] Sally Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism: Inviting Unbelievers into the Presence of God, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).

[15] George Barna, “Worship in the Third Millennium,” Experience God in Worship, (Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, Inc., 2000), 13-29.

[16] Paul Basden, The Worship Maze: Finding a Style to Fit Your Church, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999).

[17] Warren, Church.

[18] John Makujina, Measuring the Music, (Salem, OH: Schmul Publishing Co., 2000).

[19] Tim Fisher, The Battle for Christian Music, (Greenville, SC: Sacred Music Services, 1992).

[20] Kent Brandenburg, Sound Music or Sounding Brass: The Issue of Biblically Godly Music, (Xlibris Corporation, 2001).

[21] David Cloud, Contemporary Christian Music under the Spotlight, (Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 1998).

[22] Leonard Payton, “How Shall We Sing To God?”  The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, ed., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 189-206.

[23] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Christian, the Arts, and Truth,  D. Bruce Lockerbie, editor, (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1985).

[24] Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983).

[25] Ronald M. Enroth, Edward E. Ericson, Jr., C. Breckinridge Peters, The Jesus People: Old Time Religion in the Age of Aquarius, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 84.

[26] Warren, Church, 209.

[27] Warren, Church, 236.

[28] Warren, Church, 239.

[29] Warren, Church, 250.

[30] Warren, Church, 240.

[31] Warren, Church, 245.

[32] George Barna, “About the Authors,” Experience God in Worship, (Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, Inc., 2000), 9.

[33] Basden, Worship Maze, 89-90.

[34] Sally Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism: Inviting Unbelievers into the Presence of God, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 44.

[35] Joe Zichterman, “An Exhaustive Study of the Teachings of Leith Anderson, Rick Warren, and Bill Hybels Comparing and Contrasting their Ecclesiological Model of Doing Ministry with the Ecclesiological Model of Doing Ministry Prescribed by the New Testament,” (Ph.D. dis., Pensacola Christian College Graduate School, 2003).

[36] Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism, 9.

[37] “Falwell Calls BJU Music ‘Terrible,’” Calvary Contender, March, 1999.

[38] Warren, Church, 65-67.

[39] Warren, Church, 171.

[40] Warren, Church, 253-54.

[41] Warren, Church, 254.

[42] Zichterman, “Warren, Hybels, Anderson,” 275.

[43] Zichterman, “Warren, Hybels, Anderson,” 274.

[44] C. H. Spurgeon, Men and Women of the Old Testament, Book 2, Charles T. Cook, ed., (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1995 & 1998 – Electronic Ed), “Rebekah: No Compromise.”

[45] Dan Lucarini, Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement, (Webster, NY:  Evangelical Press, 2002), 62.

[46] Morgenthaler, Worship Evangelism, 44.

[47] Hank Hanegraaff, “Modern-Day Mesmerists,” Christian Research Institute (July 6, 2004). www.equip.org/free/DP2445-4.htm.

[48] Hanegraaff, “Modern-Day Mesmerists.”

[49] Alan Morrison, “Lies, Damned Lies: The Hallmarks of the New Spirituality,” Diakrisis (October 29, 2003). www.diakrisis.org/Hallmarks.htm.

[50] This testimony is found replicated throughout the internet on web pages for Vineyard churches.

[51] Hayford, “Charismatic Worship,” 139.

[52] Hayford, “Charismatic Worship,” 141-42.

[53] John S. Miller, “Gen-X Worship: A Model for a New Generation,” Experience God in Worship, (Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, Inc., 2000), 157.

[54] Berglund, Reinventing Sunday, xii.

[55] Lucarini, Why I Left, 43.

[56] John Goodwin, “Testing the Fruit of the Vineyard,” Solid Rock Christian Fellowship (July 6, 2004). www.deceptioninthechurch.com/KJCVINEY.HTM.

[57] Lucarini, Why I Left, 51.

[58] John MacArthur, Matthew: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 453.

[59] Morton H. Smith, Westminster Confession of Faith, (Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996), XXI, 1.

[60] John Allen Delivuk, “Biblical Authority and the Proof of the Regulative Principle of Worship in The Westminster Confession,” Westminster Theological Journal (Fall, 1996): 239.

[61] Frame, Worship, 38.

[62] Frame, Worship, xii-xiii.

[63] Warren, Life, 66.

[64] Interview with Les Ollila, Northland Baptist Bible College, Dunbar, Wisconsin., July 22, 2004.

[65] Interview with Wynn Kimbro, Northland Baptist Bible College, Dunbar, Wisconsin, July, 20, 2004.

[66] William J. Federer, Great Quotations, (St. Louis: AmeriSearch, 2001 – electronic ed.), “Adams, John Quincy.”

[67] Mark Belletini “Worship in Unitarian Universalist Congregations,” Unitarian Universalist Association (2002).  http://dev.uua.org/pamphlet/3064.html.

[68] Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), xix-xx.

[69] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 812.

[70] Harris, Archer, Waltke, TWOT, 238.

[71] The MT records the death of 50,070 men.  Josephus suggests that only 70 died.  While the huge number defies our comprehension, our doctrine demands the accuracy of the record.  See Dr. Thomas Strouse, “Old Testament Passages as Examples of Doctrines Changed by Textual Alterations,” Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, Kent Brandenburg, ed., (El Sobrante, CA: Pillar and Ground Publishing, CA, 2003), 158.

[72] John MacArthur, Drawing Near: Daily Readings for a Deeper Faith, (Westchester: Crossway Books, 1993), November 7.

[73] James I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenney, William White, eds., Nelson’s Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980), 198.

[74] Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 1997), Vol. 1, Chap 1, Section 9.

[75] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2003), I., 325-26.

[76] Schaff, History, Vol. 1, Chap XII., Sect 94.

[77] MacArthur, Matthew, 134.

[78] Margery S. Berube, ed., Webster’s II New College Dictionary, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001), 1273.

[79] Allen & Borror. Worship, 25-26.

[80] Warren W. Wiersbe, Real Worship: It Will Transform Your Life, (Nashville: Oliver Nelson Books, 1986), 21.

[81] Carson, Worship by the Book, 26.

[82] Peterson, Engaging with God, 20.

[83] John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Ultimate Priority, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 7-10.

[84] Tim Keller, “Worship Worthy of the Name,” Changing Lives through Preaching and Worship, Marshall Shelley, ed., (Nashville: Moorings, 1995), 181.

[85] Tozer, Worship, 9.

[86] Barna, “Worship in the Third Millennium,” 16.

[87] John F. MacArthur, Jr., “How Shall We Then Worship?”  The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, ed., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 183.

[88] Tozer, Worship, 23.

[89] Interview with Darrell Bevis, Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, Owatonna, Minnesota, Aug. 19, 2004.

[90] Barna, “Worship in the Third Millennium,” 15-16.

[91] Brandenburg, Sound Music, 81-82.

[92] Doug Bachorik, “Rooted in the Word,” Frontline (March / April, 2004): 6.

[93] Peterson, Engaging with God, 21.

[94] Bevis, interview.

[95] Os Guinness, Dining with the Devil: The Megachurch Movement Flirts with Modernity, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 84.

[96] Tom Ascol, “The Pastor as Theologian,” Founder’s Journal (Winter, 2001).   http://www.founders.org/FJ43/editorial_fr. html.

[97] Ascol, “Pastor Theologian.”

[98] Ascol, “Pastor Theologian.”

[99] Mark Minnick, “Deviant Worship, Part 2: The Motivations of Deviant Worship,” Frontline (May / June, 1997): 20.

[100] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997 – electronic ed.), John 4:24.

[101] Franklin M. Segler, Understanding, Preparing for, and Practicing Christian Worship, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996),48.

[102] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God the Father, God the Son, (Westchester, IL:  Crossway Books, 1996), 47-48

[103] Tozer, Knowledge, 8.

[104] Tozer, Knowledge, 8.

[105] Tozer, Knowledge, 7.

[106] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research System, 1997), I., 367.

[107] MacArthur, Priority, 46.

[108] J. Michael Bates, Theology Proper: Professor’s Edition, (Newington CT: Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary: Unpublished class notes).

[109] Bates, Theology.

[110] W. E. Vine, The Collected Writings of W. E. Vine, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1996), IV., 39.

[111] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 187-188.

[112] Bates, Theology.

[113] Bates, Theology.

[114] Packer, Knowing God, 38-39.

[115] Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology, (Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996 – electronic ed.), Chap. 8, III.

[116] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 197.

[117] Smith, Systematic Theology, Chap. 8, III.

[118] F. B. Meyer, “The Shepherd Lord,” A Heritage of Great Evangelical Teaching, Charles Erlandson, ed., (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996).

[119] Bates, Theology.

[120] The Westminster Larger Catechism, (Oak Harbor: Logos Research System, Inc, 1996), “Questions 112 & 113.”

[121] Tozer, Knowledge, 18, 19.

[122] Bates, Theology.

[123] Tozer, Knowledge, 23.

[124] Robert L. Dabney, Topical Lectures on Scripture, (Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996 – electronic ed.), Chap. 13, “Definition of Trinity.”

[125] Morton H. Smith, Westminster Confession of Faith, (Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996) Sect. II., 1.

[126] I am aware that advocates of both the Critical Text and the Byzantine Textform dispute the origins of this verse.  Theology is clearly degraded by this omission.  “Though the New Testament contains no explicit statement of the doctrine of the triunity of God (since 1 John 5:7 is apparently not a part of the genuine text of Scripture), it does contain a great deal of evidence (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 52).”

[127] Dabney, Topical Lectures, Chap. 13, “Definition of Trinity”

[128] Packer, Knowing God, 243.

[129] Enns, Handbook, 194.

[130] Bates, Theology.

[131] William Shakespeare, As You Like It, II., vii., 139ff.

[132] Tozer, Knowledge, 55.

[133] Tozer, Knowledge, 85.

[134] John F. MacArthur, Jr., Ashamed of the Gospel, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993), 154.

[135] Bates, Theology.

[136] Tozer, Knowledge, 115.

[137] Federer, Great Quotations, “Penn, William.”

[138]Tozer, Knowledge, 109.

[139]Tozer, Knowledge

[140] Bates, Theology.

[141] Wiersbe, Worship, 45.

[142] Michael P. Green, Illustrations for Biblical Preaching, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989 & 1996 – Electronic Ed), “Defiance Toward God.”

[143] Wiersbe, Worship, 45.

[144] Wiersbe, Worship, 43.

[145] Harris, Archer, Waltke, TWOT, 723.

[146] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907), 269.

[147] Tozer, Knowledge, 94.

[148] A. H. Strong, Theology, 268.

[149] Packer, Knowing God, 135.

[150] Packer, Knowing God, 137.

[151] Packer, Knowing God, 138.

[152] Bates, Theology.

[153] Tozer, Knowledge, 93.

[154] Bates, Theology.

[155] Bates, Theology.

[156] Walther Gunther, Hans-Georg Link, “Love,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Colin Brown, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976) II., 539.

[157] Gunther, “Love,” 539.

[158] Packer, Knowing God, 106.

[159]MacArthur, Priority, 78.

[160] Ernest Pickering, The Kind of Music that Honors God, (Decatur, AL: Baptist World Mission, [n.d.]), 4.

[161] Tozer, Worship, 13.

[162] Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1991), 25.

[163] Curtis Lee Laws, “Introduction” Baptist Fundamentals: Being Addresses Delivered at the Pre-Convention Conference at Buffalo, June 21 and 22, 1920, Gilbert N. Brink, Secretary, (Boston: The Judson Press, 1920).

[164] John Marvin Dean, “Northern Baptists and the Deity of Christ,” Baptist Fundamentals: Being Addresses Delivered at the Pre-Convention Conference at Buffalo, June 21 and 22, 1920, Gilbert N. Brink, Secretary, (Boston: The Judson Press, 1920), 82.

[165] Henry T. Sell, Studies in Early Church History, (Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing, 1906 & 1998 – electronic ed.), Study 8, “Causes”

[166] D. A. Reed, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Answered Verse by Verse, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986 & 1997 – electronic ed.), Isaiah 9:6.

[167] D. A. Reed, Jehovah’s Witness Literature: Critical Guide to Watchtower Publication, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 166.

[168] Richard Abanes, Defending the Faith: A Beginner’s Guide to Cults and New Religions, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 82.

[169] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Jesus Christ: Who Do We Say that He Is?” This We Believe: The Good News of Jesus Christ for the World, John N. Akers, John H. Armstrong, John D. Woodbridge, eds., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), 62.

[170] World Wide Web - Susan Polege, (no longer available).

[171] Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief, (New York: Random House, 2003), 51.

[172] Pagels, Beyond Belief, 52.

[173] Pagels, Beyond Belief, 52.

[174] John Piper, Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ, (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001), 11-12.

[175] Key to 2 Corinthians 11:4 is the contrast between allos and heteros.

[176] Makujina, Measuring the Music, 222.

[177] Cloud, Contemporary Christian Music, 119.

[178] Everett Shropshire, To Everyone an Answer: How to Share the Authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ with Religious People and Skeptics, (Loomis, CA: TruthQuest Institute, 1997), 76.

[179] J. Michael Bates, Christology: Professor’s Edition, (Newington, CT: Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary: Unpublished class notes).

[180] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 47.

[181] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 6.

[182] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research, 1997), John 1:1.

[183] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 6.

[184] Robertson, Word Pictures, John 1:1.

[185] John MacArthur, Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible, (Nashville: Word Publishers, 1997 – electronic ed.), John 1:1.

[186] Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), 273.

[187] Erickson, Word Became Flesh, 20.

[188] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 547.

[189] Paul S. Karleen, The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987 & 1996 – electronic ed.), Section 11, #1 “His Titles.”

[190] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986), 248.

[191] James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996 – electronic ed.), #G2962.

[192] Smith, Systematic Theology, Chap 8, IV.

[193] Erickson, Word Became Flesh, 28.

[194] Dabney, Topical Lectures, Chap 14, “Divinity of Christ in the Old Testament.”

[195] Enns, Handbook, 130.

[196] Carson, Worship by the Book, 41.

[197] Tim Dowley, ed., Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), 81.

[198] Vanhoozer, “Jesus Christ,” 66.

[199] Cullmann, Christology, 111.

[200] Karleen, Handbook, Sect. 11, #1 “His Titles.”

[201] Vanhoozer, “Jesus Christ,” 66.

[202] R.H. Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, (Bellingham, WA: Logos Reseach Systems, Inc., 2004 – electronic ed.), “The Testament of Simeon 7:1-3; The Testament of Reuben 6:7-8.”

[203] Sell, Studies in Early Church History, Study 8, “The Antagonism of Judaism.”

[204] Karleen, Handbook, Sect. 11, #1 “His Titles.”

[205] Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, (Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1974), 279.

[206] Karleen, Handbook, Sect. 11, #1 “His Titles.”

[207] Karleen, Handbook, Sect. 11, #1 “His Titles.”

[208] Walter A. Elwell and Phillip W. Comfort, eds. Tyndale Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, IL, 2001 – electronic ed.), 1214.

[209] Erickson, Word Became Flesh, 19.

[210] Elwell & Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 1214.

[211] Cleon L Rodgers, Jr. “The Promises to David in Early Judaism” Bibliotheca Sacra (July, 1993): 301.

[212] Karleen, Handbook, Sect. 11, #1 “His Titles.”

[213] Herbert M. Wolf, “Servant of the Lord,” Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996 & 1997 – electronic ed.).

[214] Cullmann, Christology, 60.

[215] John Bunyan, The Holy War, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1948), 86.

[216] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Theology of the Old Testament”  Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 1., Frank  E. Gaebelein, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 303.

[217] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, Neva Miller, eds. Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), 228.

It is instructive to note that in each of the other four uses of this verb in the New Testament (Romans 4:14; 1 Corinthians 1:17; 9:15; 2 Corinthians 9:3), the idea of “removing the contents of something” is ill suited.  In every NT passage, the verb is used metaphorically.

[218] Vine, Collected Writings, II., 300.

[219] John F. Walvoord, “The Humiliation of the Son of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra  (April, 1961): 100.

[220] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 252.

[221] William Evans, The Great Doctrines of the Bible, S. Maxwell Coder, ed., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974 & 1998 – electronic ed.), “The Work of Jesus Christ.”

[222] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 563.

[223] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 39.

[224] John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), 97.

[225] Packer, Knowing God, 51.

[226] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986 & 1996 – electronic ed.), 46.

[227] Pagels, Beyond Belief, 144-45.

[228] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 105.

[229] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 38.

[230] E. J. Young, “Immanuel,” New Bible Dictionary,  J. D. Douglas, N. Hillyer,  D. R. W. Wood, eds., (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 1982 & 1996 – electronic ed.), 501.

[231] Young, “Immanuel,” 501.

[232] Bates, Christology.

[233] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 38.

[234] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 100.

[235] Packer, Knowing God, 50.

[236] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 250.

[237] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 107.

[238] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 250.

[239] Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Soteriology,” Bibliotheca Sacra (January, 1945): 24.

[240] Erickson, Word Became Flesh, 21.

[241] Bates, Christology.

[242] Packer, Knowing God, 50-51.

[243] Keller, “Worship Worthy,” 182.

[244] A. A. Hodge and Charles Hodge, The Confession of Faith, (Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996 – electronic ed.), Chap. 8, Sect. 1.

[245] Walter C. Kaiser, “Prophet, Prophetess, Prophecy,” Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996 & 1997 – electronic ed.).

[246] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 625.

[247] Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997), Chap. 19, “A Diligent Exhortation to Converted and Unconverted Alike to Give Heed to the Words of This Prophet.”

[248] Jimmy Williams, “The Jesus Seminar,” Probe Ministries (2001).  http://www.probe.org.

[249] a Brakel, Reasonable Service, Chap. 19, “A Diligent Exhortation to Converted and Unconverted Alike to Give Heed to the Words of This Prophet.”

[250] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 263.

[251] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 538.

[252] C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, II., 457.

[253] Enns, Handbook, 237.

[254] J. I. Packer, “Incarnation,” New Bible Dictionary,  J. D. Douglas, N. Hillyer,  D. R. W. Wood, eds., (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982 & 1996 – electronic ed.), 504.

[255] Erickson, Word Became Flesh, 22.

[256] Robert P. Lightner, “The Savior’s Sufferings in Life,” Bibliotheca Sacra (January, 1970): 36.

[257] Evans, Great Doctrines, “The Work of Jesus Christ.”

[258] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 782.

[259] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972 & 1995 – electronic ed.), Chap. 7, “The Death of Christ.”

[260] Piper, Savoring Jesus Christ, 91.

[261] Enns, Handbook, 323.

[262] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 56.

[263] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 107.

[264] J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., “The Vicarious Atonement,” Westminster Theological Journal (Fall, 1973): 80.

[265] Erickson, Christian Theology, 817.

[266] Bates, Christology.

[267] Ryrie, Survey, Chap. 7, “The Death of Christ.”

[268] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 580.

[269] Bates, Christology.

[270] Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed.(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 54

[271] Enns, Handbook, 324.

[272] Enns, Handbook, 324.

[273] Erickson, Christian Theology, 814-15.

[274] Ryrie, Survey, Chap. 7, “The Death of Christ”

[275] Ryrie, Survey, Chap 7, “The Death of Christ.”

[276] Ryrie, Survey, Chap. 7, “The Death of Christ.”

[277] Packer, Knowing God, 166.

[278] Enns, Handbook, 325.

[279] Ryrie, Survey, Chap. 7, “The Death of Christ.”

[280] P. K. Jewett, “Propitiation,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenney, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), IV., 903.

[281] J. C. Connell, “Expiation,”  The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,  Merrill C. Tenney, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), II., 451-52.

[282] Packer, Knowing God, 172.

[283] Packer, Knowing God, 163.

[284] Erickson, Christian Theology, 772.

[285] Packer, Knowing God, 162.

[286] Brandenburg, Sound Music, 82.

[287] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Henry Beveridge, transl., (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997 – electronic ed.), II., xvi., 13.

[288] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 191.

[289] Calvin, Institutes, II., xvi., 13.

[290] Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 12.

[291] Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 11.

[292] J. A. Schep, “Resurrection,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenney, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), V., 72.

[293] Reginald H. Fuller “Resurrection of Christ,” The Oxford Bible Companion, Bruce M. Metzger, ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 648.

[294] Schep, “Resurrection,” 71.

[295] J. A. Schep, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenney, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), V., 75.

[296] Reginald Fuller, “Resurrection of Christ,” 647.

[297] Schep, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 75.

[298] Ryrie, Survey, Chap. 3, “The Resurrection and Ascension of Christ.”

[299] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 614.

[300] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 614.

[301] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 615.

[302] Evans, Great Doctrines, “The Work of Jesus Christ.”

[303] Evans, Great Doctrines, “The Work of Jesus Christ.”

[304] John F. Walvoord, “The Present Work of Christ – Part I: The Ascension of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra (January, 1964): 4.

[305] Kenneth Alan Daughters, “The Theological Significance of the Ascension,” The Emmaus Journal (Winter, 1994): 163.

[306] A. H. Strong, Theology, 708.

[307] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 618.

[308] C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, II., 630.

[309] Evans, Great Doctrines, “The Work of Jesus Christ.”

[310] Elwell & Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 116.

[311] MacArthur, Priority, 92.

[312] Brandenburg, Sound Music, 81.

[313] David J. MacLeod, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Myth, Hoax, or History?” Emmaus Journal (Winter, 1998): 165.

[314] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1981 & 1997 – electronic ed.), V., 509-10

[315] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 226-53.

[316] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 226.

[317] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993 & 1995 – electronic ed.), Part 2, #21 “Mediation.”

[318] Packer, Concise Theology, Part 2, #21 “Mediation.”

[319] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 66.

[320] C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, II., 466.

[321] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 258.

[322] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 68.

[323] Roy B. Zuck, ed. A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994 & 1996 – electronic ed.), 397.

[324] A. H. Strong, Theology, 774.

[325] Zuck, New Testament, 397.

[326] Jonathan Edwards, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996), Part 3, Sect. 4, Para. 13.

[327] Enns, Handbook, 376.

[328] Evans, Great Doctrines, “The Second Coming of Christ.”

[329] Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997 – electronic ed.), “Introduction: What Are the Four Views?”

[330] Mazie Nakhro, “The Meaning of Worship according to the Book of Revelation,” Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan – Mar, 2001), 77.

[331] Vine, Collected Writings, V., 315.

[332] McGee, Thru the Bible, V., 946.

[333] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 273

[334] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1989 & 1996 – electronic ed.), Revelation 6:9.

[335] McGee, Thru the Bible, V., 946.

[336] Piper, Savoring Jesus Christ, 105.

[337] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 273-74.

[338] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1142.

[339] Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord, 290.

[340] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1009-10.

[341] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1156.

[342] Piper, Savoring Jesus Christ, 15.

[343] Evans, Great Doctrines, “The Person of Christ.”

[344] Evans, Great Doctrines, “The Person of Christ.”

[345] MacArthur, Priority, 112.

[346] MacArthur, Priority, 112.

[347] Earle E. Matteson, The Biblical Plan for Power, (Lakewood, CO: Matteson Ministries, 1989), 14-15.

[348] Erickson, Christian Theology, 846.

[349] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 634.

[350] Erickson, Christian Theology, 847.

[351] Greek word translated “Comforter” in John 16:7.

[352] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 346.

[353] J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 173.

[354] John F. Walvoord, “The Person of the Holy Spirit: Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra (April, 1940): 179.

[355] T. S. Caulley, “Holy Spirit,” The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter Elwell ed., (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1984), 524.

[356] Caulley, “Holy Spirit,” 524.

[357] John H. Armstrong, “Introduction: Two Vital Truths,” John H. Armstrong, ed., The Coming Evangelical Crisis, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 23.

[358] Caulley, “Holy Spirit,” 525.

[359] Michael S. Horton, “Recovering the Plumb Line,” John H. Armstrong, ed., The Coming Evangelical Crisis, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 247.

[360] George W. Peters, “Perspectives on the Church’s Mission: Part 2,” Bibliotheca Sacra (April, 1979): 103.

[361]Daniel G. Reid, “The First Great Awakening,” Dictionary of Christianity in America, Daniel G. Reid, editor, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990 – electronic ed.).

[362] Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Edwards on Revival, (Simpsonville, SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996), “A Narrative of Surprising Conversions: Preface,” paragraph 6.

[363] A. H. Strong, Theology, 816.

[364] Paul K. Jewett, “Holy Spirit,”  The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible,  Merrill C. Tenney, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976),  III., 195.

[365] Daniel G. Reid, “Second Great Awakening,” Dictionary of Christianity in America, Daniel G. Reid, editor, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990 – electronic ed.).

[366] Richard Quebedeaux, The New Charismatics II, (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1983), 12.

[367] C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, III., 532.

[368] Smith, Systematic Theology, Chap 40.

[369] Smith, Systematic Theology, Chap 40, II.

[370] Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 161-67.

[371] Smith, Westminster Confession, Chap. 28, 1.

[372] O. Talmadge Spence, Charismatism: Awakening or Apostasy? (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1978), 19.

[373] Quebedeaux, New Charismatics, 175-92.

[374] Quebedeaux, New Charismatics, 176.

[375] Quebedeaux even implies racism, Old Pentecostals being more “black” in practice, and Charismatics being more “white” have dropped the “cultural baggage.”

[376] Quebedeaux, New Charismatics, 4-5.

[377] Quebedeaux, New Charismatics, 9.

[378] Francis A. Schaeffer, The New Super-Spirituality, (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1972 & 1996 – electronic ed.), “The New Pentecostalism.”

[379] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 343.

[380] Edwards, On Revival, “The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God,” III.

[381] John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 1995 – electronic ed.), Paragraph 285.

[382] J. Michael Bates, Pneumatology: Professor’s Edition, (Newington, CT: Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary: Unpublished class notes).

[383] Francis A. Schaeffer, True Spirituality, (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1971 & 1996 – electronic ed.), “The Supernatural Universe.”

[384] Payne, Theology, 284.

[385] Willem A. VanGemeren, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997 & 2001 – electronic ed.),  H8120.

[386] Harris, Archer, Waltke, TWOT, 836.

[387] VanGemeren, NIDOTTE, H8120.

[388] Berube, Webster’s Dictionary, 633.

[389] Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, (Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), III., 691.

[390] VanGemeren, NIDOTTE, H8120.

[391] Brown, NIDNT, III., 694-95.

[392] Bates, Pneumatology.

[393] VanGemeren, NIDOTTE, H8120.

[394] Bates, Pneumatology.

[395] Charles F. Stanley, Relying on the Holy Spirit, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996 & 1997 – electronic ed.), Lesson 2, “The Holy Spirit Is a Person.”

[396] Enns, Handbook, 245.

[397] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 343-44.

[398] Bates, Pneumatology.

[399] Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1992 & 2000 – electronic ed.), G3875.

[400] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 344.

[401] Enns, Handbook, 188.

[402] Edwards, Treatise, Part 2, IV., Paragraph 8.

[403] MacArthur, Study Bible, 1 John 4:1.

[404] Vine, Collected Writings, V., 333.

[405] Vine, Collected Writings, V., 333.

[406] MacArthur, Study Bible, 1 John 4:1.

[407] Edwards, On Revival, “The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God: Scripture Evidences.”  Note: the headings reflect the content of Edwards, not his precise words.

[408] Armstrong, “Vital Truths,” 25.

[409] A. H. Strong, Theology, 304.

[410] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 231.

[411] Bates, Pneumatology.

[412] Bates, Pneumatology.

[413] Bates, Pneumatology.

[414] Bates, Pneumatology.

[415] Bates, Pneumatology.

[416] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242.

[417] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242.

[418] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242.

[419] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242.

[420] A. H. Strong, Theology, 326.

[421] Bates, Pneumatology.

[422] Robert S. Coleman, “The Promise of the Spirit of the Great Commission,” Evangelical Review of Theology: Vol. 16., Bruce J. Nichols, ed., (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: World Evangelical Fellowship Theological Commission, 1992 & 2000 – electronic ed.), 272.

[423] Erickson, Christian Theology, 847.

[424] Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Obedient, (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991 & 1996 – electronic ed.), Genesis 24:10.

[425] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991 & 1996 – electronic ed.), Job 20:1.

[426] Brandenburg, Sound Music, 159.

[427] Peterson, Engaging with God, 100.

[428] Armstrong, “Vital Truths,” 23.

[429] Bates, Pneumatology.

[430] Coleman, “Promise of the Spirit,” 272.

[431] Bates, Pneumatology.

[432] Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 247.

[433] Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 52, quoted in Bates, Pneumatology.

[434] H. Morris, Biblical Basis, 370.

[435] Jewett, “Holy Spirit,” 184.

[436] Thomas M. Strouse, Bibliology, (Newington, CT: Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, Unpublished Class notes).

[437] Packer, Knowing God, 63.

[438] Packer, Knowing God, 63.

[439] Jewett, “Holy Spirit,” 195.

[440] Bates, Pneumatology.

[441] Daniel B. Clendenin, “Orthodoxy on Scripture and Tradition: A Comparison with Reformed and Catholic Perspectives,” Westminster Theological Journal (Fall, 1995): 390.

[442] R. Fowler White, “Does God Speak Today Apart from the Bible?” The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, ed., (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 79.

[443] Quebedeaux, New Charismatics, xiv-xv.

[444] R. F. White, “Does God Speak Today,” 188-89.

[445] Bevis, interview.

[446] Bevis, interview.

[447] Jewett, “Holy Spirit,” 184.

[448] Edwards, Treatise, Part 3, I., Paragraph 32.

[449] B. H. Carroll, Baptists and Their Doctrines, (New York: Flemming H. Revel, Co., 1913), 201-02

[450] Edwards, On Revival, “The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God: Practical Inferences,” III., Paragraph 4.

[451] McClain, Kingdom, 93.

[452] Payne, Theology, 174.

[453] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 112.

[454] Jewett, “Holy Spirit,” 184-85.

[455] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 350.

[456] Matteson, Plan for Power, 39.

[457] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 352-53.

[458] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 354.

[459] Matteson, Plan for Power, 40-41.

[460] Wiersbe, Exposition, 2 Corinthians 6:11.

[461] Thomas M. Strouse, I Will Build My Church: The Doctrine and History of the Baptists, (Newington, CT: Emmanuel Baptist Theological Press, 1998), 37.

[462] Payne, Theology, 174.

[463] See Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, 3-40, and Strong, Systematic Theology, 809-829 to grasp the disparate understandings of this vital doctrine.

[464] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things Which Become Sound Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1965), 31.

[465] Evans, Great Doctrines, “Regeneration, or the New Birth.”

[466] Enns, Handbook, 252.

[467] Herman Hoyt, “Introduction to the Study of the New Birth,” Grace Theological Journal (Spring, 1960): 22.

[468] Hoyt, “New Birth,” 23.

[469] Hoyt, “New Birth,” 23.

[470] Pentecost, Comforter, 64.

[471] Pentecost, Comforter, 64.

[472] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 112.

[473] Packer, Knowing God, 59-60.

[474] Packer, Knowing God, 58.

[475] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 118.

[476] Karleen, Handbook, Sect. 16, #1 “Works of God at the Time of Salvation.”

[477] Packer, Knowing God, 204.

[478] Jewett, “Holy Spirit,” 187.

[479] Packer, Concise Theology, Section 3, #10 “Adoption.”

[480] Ryrie, Survey, Chap. 7, “Some of the Benefits of Christ’s Death.”

[481] A. H. Strong, Theology, 774

[482] Packer, Knowing God, 212.

[483] Francis A. Schaeffer, No Little People, (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1974 & 1996 – electronic ed.), “Chap 13: A Spiritual Torrent.”

[484] Packer, Knowing God, 214.

[485] Martin Luther, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” Stanza 2

[486] Bates, Pneumatology.

[487] Bates, Pneumatology.

[488] Allen & Borror, Worship, 105.

[489] Allen & Borror, Worship, 105.

[490] Kurt Stephens, “Leading in Truth,” Frontline (March / April, 2004): 12.

[491] Allen & Borror, Worship, 105.

[492] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 362-63.

[493] Enns, Handbook, 266.

[494] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 765.

[495] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 363.

[496] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 362.

[497] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 362.

[498] Karleen, Handbook, Sect. 17, #1 “The Universal Church.”

[499] Strouse, I Will Build My Church, 36-37.

[500] Smith, Systematic Theology, Chap. 40, II.

[501] A. H. Strong, Theology.

E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion, (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1908), 238-40.

Charles A. Jenkins, ed., Baptist Doctrines, (St. Louis: C. R. Barns Publishing, Co., 1890), 83.

J. M. Frost, Baptist Why and Why Not, (Nashville: Sunday School Board – Southern Baptist Convention, 1900), 115.

[502] Ryrie, Basic Theology, 349 – Genesis 6:3 is dismissed as referring to the human spirit rather than the Holy Spirit.

[503] Matteson, Plan for Power, 24-25.

[504] Bevis, interview.

[505] F. B. Meyer, “The Fullness of the Spirit,” A Treasury of Great Preaching, Vol. 6., Clyde E. Fant and William M. Pinson, eds., (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1995 & 2000 – electronic ed.), 378-93.

[506] Zuck, New Testament, 313.

[507] Andreas J. Kostenberger, “What Does It Mean To Be Filled with the Spirit?” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (June, 1997): 235.

[508] Payton, “How Shall We Sing,” 190.

[509] Jewett, “Holy Spirit,” 188.

[510] Ryrie, Survey, Chap. 4, “The Work of the Spirit in the Life of the Christian.”

[511] Jewett, “Holy Spirit,” 188.

[512] Meyer, “Fullness,” 379.

[513] Matteson, Plan for Power, 46-47.

[514] Schaeffer, No Little People, “Chap. 4: Trusting God’s Methods.”

[515] Schaeffer, No Little People, “Chap. 4: Getting Things Done.”

[516] David J. Macleod, “Counterfeit Revival,” Emmaus Journal (Summer, 1998): 74.

[517] R. Kent Hughes, “Preaching: God’s Word to the Church Today,” John H. Armstrong, ed., The Coming Evangelical Crisis, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 96.

[518] Vine, Collected Writings, IV., 147.

[519] John Tracy, “Growing the Music Program,” Frontline (March / April, 2004): 15.

[520] Tozer, Worship, 26.

[521] Edwards, On Revival, “The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God,” V.

[522] Tozer, Worship, 44-45.

[523] Peterson, Engaging with God, 20.

[524] Peterson, Engaging with God, 100.

[525] Allen & Borror, Worship, 45.

[526] Interview with Joe Zichterman , Northland Baptist Bible College, Dunbar, Wisconsin, June 8, 2004.

[527] Joe Zichterman, “A Passion for Thee,” (used by permission).