QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM
Group Number 64
Why did God command the Jews to eat the pascal lamb at passover in
Leviticus & Exodus ?
The Israelites were not told why this commandment was to be carried out. I understand that it foreshadowed the Person of Christ becoming One with His people -- or "one Spirit" with them, as 1 Corinthians 6:17 affirms. As with all types, there is a transition from the shadow to the reality, or substance, that is accomplished by faith. Under the Law, only the priests ate of the sacrifice. The Apostles referred to this as being "partakers of the altar" (1 Cor 10:18). That equates with being "partakers of Christ" (Heb 3:14), or being "partakers of the Divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4).
Thou shall not steal. Is there NT scriptures that tell us how we are to repay when we have stolen.
There is not. .For those in Christ, such matters are not determined by law, but by humility and sensitivity of heart. The only reference to restitution in the New Testament is a word spoken by Zaccheus to Jesus. He did not say he had stolen, but declared he would give back four times as much to any person he might have defrauded.
All of this hinges on how badly a person wants to please God, and how he wants to appear on the day of judgment. I cannot conceive of the person giving due thought to these considerations failing to do what is right in the matter of stolen goods. But if such an one demands a procedure to follow, there simply isn't one. Further, in my opinion, the demand for one only reveals a defective heart.
You say that the words "do this in remembrance of me" in some way now changes "this is my body" to mean this is a symbol of my body, brother I tell you nothing could be further from the truth.
Good brother, in your zeal to defend your view, do not stoop to the tactic of misquoting me. I did not mention the word "symbol," or suggest the bread were symbols. I do not believe that, and never make such statements. I simply reminded you that Christ declared 'the flesh availeth nothing" to the very people who objected to His statement concerning eating His flesh and drinking His blood. I do not believe that is what you would have said.
In Scripture, neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever related the sayings of John 6 to the Lord's table. Nor, indeed, is the possession of eternal life and being raised from the dead ever associated with the Lord's table. The thrust of Christ's emphasis concerning the table was not what He would do, but what we do: "do this in remembrance of Me," and "as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me" (1 Cor 11:24-25). Paul also said that in this feast of remembrance we 'proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (1 Cor 11:26).
The Lord's supper is a time most sacred, in which undeniable benefits are realized. I too refer to the bread as Christ's body, and the cup as His blood of the new Covenant. I refuse to smear that blessed provision by haggling over the technicalities of if and when the bread and fruit of the vine becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus in an earthly sense. It is not comely to engage in such semantics. If our faith can confess the words of Jesus, and thus lay hold of the truth, there is not point to carrying this matter further. Jesus did not say the bread and fruit of the vine would become His flesh and blood, but that they are His flesh and blood. I accept that, and do not need a tutor to further delineate His meaning.
As to the flesh of Jesus not availing anything, I would never affirm such foolishness. Jesus abolished the enmity "in his flesh" (Eph 2;15). He has reconciled us to God "in the body of His flesh" (Col 1:21-22). The days prior to His death were the "days of His flesh" (Heb 5:7). Having ascended into heaven, He has now consecrated a living way for us 'through the veil, that is, His flesh" (Heb 10:20). That is a depiction of ultimate profit, the realization of which is realized by faith.
I not only have received Christ, He dwells in my heart by faith (Ephesians 3:16-17). According to His own word, Jesus and the Father will make Their home with the one who keeps Christ's word and loves Him (John 14:23). Do not imagine for a moment that this blessed privilege has been withheld from me, or anyone else, who lives by faith.
You are out of order to sit in judgment on my relationship to Christ, and I rebuke you for being insolent enough to suggest I have not received Christ in a proper way, or "may never receive His grace in every way He avails for us." You are not a judge over me, and you are out of order in proceeding as though you were.
I have not impugned your faith, nor have I suggested you are not accepted by God. What is more, I refuse to do so. However, in attempting to sit in judgment concerning me, you have stepped outside of your prerogatives. You have judged another Person's servant.
The town of Bethlehem IS were Jesus was born. The word Bethlehem
in Hebrew means " house of bread ". Jesus is born and laid in a manger
which is an eating trough for sheep. Isn't this a prophetic mystery we are seeing revealed in scripture that the
bread of life Jesus is laid in an eating vessel for sheep ?
If that is truly a prophetic mystery, God would surely have moved one of His prophets to expound it in that manner. I will acknowledge such a view could be contrived. However, I do not prefer to approach the Scriptures with this type of emphasis, although I see a faint glimmer of truth in what you have said.
The Word of God is the "sword of the Spirit" (Eph 6:17). As such, it must be handled with godly propriety, and in such a manner as will bring glory to God. Handling the Word of God accurately is a solemn obligation placed upon those who use it (2 Tim 2:15). I am not sure what you suggest is that kind of handling. Further, I do not find the Apostles taking this kind of approach to Scripture.
Then that Christian believes with all his heart that it is Truth, and can support his belief with scripture & traditional teaching of the church, is it wrong for this Christian to share his beliefs with others who call his churches teaching heresy because there tradition or interpretation of scripture teaches a different doctrine?
First, God does not encourage us to share our "beliefs," which term can mean a variety of things. We are encouraged to give an answer for the hope that is in us, not the beliefs we have embraced (1 Pet 3:15). While the church is, indeed, the "pillar and ground of the truth," the truth does not belong to it. The truth is supported and maintained by "the church," not the leaders of the church. That includes people like Acquila and Priscilla as well as Peter, and Philemon as well as Paul.
Truth is referred to as "the truth of the Lord" (Psa 117:2), 'the truth of God" (Rom 1:25), and "the truth of Christ" (2 Cor 11:10), but NEVER as "the truth of the church." It does not belong to the church, but the church is rather a steward of it. The objective of any child of God is not to support what a specific religious body teaches, but to seek to bring honor to God.
The church is the "pillar and ground" of the truth itself, not an explanation or interpretation of the truth. Truth has a power of its own, and it itself is what liberates the soul, not an interpretation of it (John 8:32).
Following His resurrection, Jesus expounded the Scriptures concerning Himself (Luke 24:27,32). He said He spoke in strict concert with what was "written" of Him in Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). The Apostles and holy men supported their teaching with Scripture (Acts 17:2; Acts 18:24,28; 8:35), and those who tested it, tested it with Scripture (Acts 17:11).
I am grateful for your zeal, and would remind you that that the words "oral tradition" are never found in Scripture, under any covenant, or in any writing. It is good to adhere to the practice of the Apostle Paul, speaking "not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words" (1 Cor 2:13).
Technically, of course, there really is no such thing as "oral tradition." Even your own church has reduced their traditions to writing, knowing that God has nowhere revealed Himself as allowing truth to pass from one generation to another through human speech and memory alone. You must question why the record of "oral tradition" has not been formally added to the Scriptures. If it came from God, then why is it not added to the Scriptures. Why did the various councils omit from the canon much, if not all, of the writings that contained these "oral traditions?"
When God spoke to the meekest man in all the earth, Moses, He commanded Him to write it down, not pass it on my "oral tradition." He commanded Moses to both write it down and speak it in the ears of Joshua. "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua" (Ex 17:14). For that matter, God Himself wrote the Law in tablets of stone, reducing it to writing. He told Moses He had both spoken and written it. "And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18). When God told Moses to teach the law, He directed Him to teach what as written. "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them" (Ex 24:12).
The idea that Divine communication is in EITHER spoken or written form needs to be substantiated by something other than the words of men. Scripture represents the spoken Word eventually becoming the written Word. I suggest that you do some more research on the validity of oral tradition standing by itself. That has not yet been substantiated. God will help you in this. Do as David, and ask Him for understanding in the matter.
Shouldn't
we tell the people the truth rather than give them traditions?
First, it is God who DEFINES the truth, not the church. Following the same reasoning you have shared, the people during Jesus ministry should have rejected the Lord Jesus Himself. He contradicted what the official leaders taught. Jesus also acknowledged that they sat "in Moses' seat." He even told the people to do what they said, but to ignore what they did: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do" (Matt 23:2-3). Once the scribes and Pharisees told Jesus His disciples were "transgressing the tradition of the elders." Jesus told them they had transgressed the commands of God BECAUSE of their tradition (Matt 15:1-3). As you can see, He did not adhere to the notion that duly constituted authorities were to be obeyed without exception. You must ask yourself why He did this.
You are certainly in order sharing the truth. You are under no obligation to defend anything other than the Gospel of Christ (Phil 1:17).
I spoke with
someone who told me of an incident in Africa where he got up tight with some ministers because they used orange
Kool-aide, as opposed to the "fruit of the vine" in communion. I did not see the actual choice of the fluid as being grounds for divisiveness. What is your opinion?
On the matter of what is used at the Lord's Table, many who think themselves to be free, have actually run past Jerusalem in their glee. I can sympathize with brother Humphrey, for the activity he saw reflected both the teaching and the spirit of the teaching the people had received.
There is a place for form, particularly when it is ordained by the Lord Jesus Himself. The form is a depiction of the doctrine, as illustrated in baptism. It is called 'the form of the doctrine" in Romans 6:17. It is very precise in its burial and in its resurrection -- and that by Divine design.
It is much the same with table of the Lord. Bread is used because it is made from grain that is "bruised," or pulverized. As the Scriptures declare, "Bread corn is bruised," or "Grain must be ground to make bread" (Isa 28:28). The fruit of the vine is used for much the same reason; the grapes were trodden or crushed in order for juice to be produced. Thus the law spoke of the "winepress" (Num 18:27), as well as Isaiah, who spoke of the Messiah treading the winepress (Isa 63:3).
I understand that a person can take things like this too far. But it is equally true that it is possible not to take them far enough. It was not a casual occasion when Jesus instituted this feast of remembrance, and He was very deliberate in what He chose to associate with His body and blood. I cannot conceive of a Jew using common foods during the Passover, much less a converted Jew during the Lord's supper.
Rather than getting "up tight," so to speak, about the incident brother Humphrey's
mentioned, it was an occasion when people could be taught more perfectly concerning the manners of the Lord. People will do their best to be pleasing to the Lord when they are aware of His nature.
You will note that when Jesus declared that evening would be the last time He would participate with them in this supper, He said, "I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on . . . " (Matt 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 22:18). In my judgment, if the substance made no difference, He would have said "cup" not "fruit of the vine."
Having said all of that, I certainly am unwilling to be divisive about the matter. Notwithstanding, God's people ought to be told the facts in the case, so that when it is possible, the form does match the substance. If it does not, there is really no purpose for the form at all. Otherwise, how can one defend baptism being a burial in water. If form makes no difference, that stance is indefensible.
I do want to underscore that I am not contentious on this matter. But I cannot highly regard any person who brings the element of casualness into something Jesus put into place.
In verse James 1:2, My brethren count it all joy when ye fall
into divers temptations, etc.? Is he changing his thoughts when he gets to verse James 1:14,
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed, etc.?
The first part of James refers to trials of our faith, as when God "tempted Abraham" (Gen 22:1). When our faith is tested, we are actually being brought into a higher realm, and being prepared for a greater blessing -- like Job was. James, as you remember, referred to Job, reminding us of the "end" or outcome of his trial (James 5:11).
The subject of trial, or the testing of our faith, continues through verse 12. In that verse, temptation and trial are equated: "Blessed is the man that endureth TEMPTATION: for when he is TRIED . . . "
The subject changes in verse thirteen, where temptation to sin is brought up. The point he makes here is that while God tries and tests us, He never allures us into sin. That happens when we are drawn away of our own lusts, not moved to sin by God.
I
am inquiring about the writings of Henry Blackaby. Many of the people here are
enamored with his books, yet I am not comfortable with them. He often uses the idea, "Find out what God is doing, and join Him in His work". My own personal view is that I need to learn what God's will is and to do my best to submit to His wonderful will.
I am familiar with the works of Henry Blackaby, though only on an introductory level. I feel he has seen something. However, in his quest to awaken a lethargic church, he appears to have oversimplified the matter. There is certainly an element of truth to finding out what God is doing and joining with Him in the work. Those in Christ are called "workers together with God" (1 Cor 3:9), and have been "called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor 1:9). It is difficult, however, to bring these lofty statements into the arena of human thought -- particular among those who are not aggressive in their faith.
In my opinion, brother Blackaby is leading people to rest in their own understanding rather than in faith. There is too much ambiguity in his phrases about "knowing the will of God." Whether he intended to do so or not, that knowledge is generally viewed as pertaining to human experience on a personal level. As such, it simply is not large enough. There is not enough "breadth, and length, and depth, and height" to it (Eph 3:18). It is also too much characterized by mystery, and encourages the involvement of the intellect more than the heart.
All of this is what has caused it to have a strange sound to your ears. It is what has produced the questions you have. It calls you to occupy a lower realm than what your heart demands.
Most of the people I know who are attracted to brother Blackaby's writings are noted for shallow thought and a general disinterest in the things of God. They are most always sporadic in their spiritual involvements, and live very close to the world. I am grateful that they have been stirred to a deeper consideration of the will of God by brother Blackaby's writings. That, however, is certainly not the pinnacle of spiritual life. I see his writings as having to do with the outer court, possibly the holy place, but by no means the holiest of all. There is a place for his work, but it is not among the mature in Christ.
Where does the word Luck
come from. Why is it used in the church?
The word "luck" dates back to the 15th century, and has its roots
in superstition. Its root meaning is "a force that brings good fortune or
adversity.' Its secondary meaning, and more in use today, is that things happen
by chance, without purpose or design.
As you can see, the very idea is godless, presuming impersonal forces and
influences are at work that cause things to happen. The Word of God reminds us,
"For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever.
Amen." (Rom 11:36). There is no such thing as "luck."
Neither the word nor the idea should be used among God's people. We should,
however, be considerate in our judgment. Many people use this word ignorantly,
not knowing what it means, and simply speaking out of habit. With Christ like
gentleness, we should show them the truth about the matter -- that God is the
great Cause, and always works with His purpose in mind. It was not "luck" when
Joseph landed on the throne of Egypt. It was not "fate" when Job lost all that
he had. It was not "luck" that Daniel served as a political advisor in five
great empires, while he was a captive, and it was not "fate" that found
Nebuchadnezzar in a field eating grass like an ox.
I have every confidence that a little correction will assist honest people in
correcting their vocabulary so God gets more glory.
KJV
Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another:
for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel,
till the Son of man be come. Whatat is the coming to
which this refers?
First, the "coming" of "the Son of man" is frequently mentioned in Scripture.
The phrase "the coming of the Son of man" (Matt 24:27,37,39).
1. As lightning shining out of the East to the West.
2. The times will be as the days of Noah.
3. In that day, like the time of Noah, the wicked will know not, and will be
taken away.
The phrase "the Son of man be come," or "the Son man comes" is used three times
(Matt 10:23; 25:31; Lk 18:8).
1. Disciples would not have gone over the cities of Israel until that time.
2. He will come in His glory with the holy angels, and sit upon the throne of
His glory.
3. Will he find faith on the earth at that time?
The expression, "The Son of man shall (will) come" (Matt 16:27; 25:31; Lk 9:26).
1. He will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, rewarding every man.
2. He will come in His glory with he holy angels, and sit upon the throne of His
glory.
3. Will come in His own glory, being ashamed of those who were ashamed of Him.
The words, "The Son of man coming" (Matt 16:28; 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27).
1. Coming in His kingdom.
2. Coming in the clouds of heaven with great power and glory.
3. Will be seen coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
4. Will be seen coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
The expression, "The Son of man cometh (comes)" (Matt 24:44; 25:13; Lk 12:40;
18:8).
1. He will come in an hour when men do not think He will come.
2. The day or hour of His coming is unknown.
3. A summons to be ready is given because of the uncertainty of the time of His
coming.
4. Will He find faith when he comes?
What is there about these expressions that would lead one to associate them with
a temporal judgment? In what sense is the destruction of Jerusalem is associated
with such things as the following. Lightning shining out of the East into the
West. The days of Noah. The removal of the wicked. Christ coming in His glory
with the angels. Christ sitting on the throne of His glory. Jesus finding faith
on the earth. Jesus coming in the glory of His Father. Christ coming in His
kingdom. The Savior coming in the clouds with power and great glory.
While the destruction of Jerusalem was an awesome and heartbreaking event, where
is it associated with glory? Or the revelation of the Son of man? It seems to me
a stretch of the imagination to attempt to press this event into a millennial
mold. Further, the Word of God never clearly applies the coming of the Son of
Man to His resurrection, the day of Pentecost, or a temporal judgment of great
magnitude, such as that of Jerusalem. Those are all associations men have made
to justify their theological views.
If this was the destruction of Jerusalem, is someone suggesting the cities of
Israel had not heard the Gospel by the time Jerusalem was destroyed, when Paul
said in the middle of the first century that the Gospel had been "preached to
every creature under heaven" (Col 1:23). I do not believe such a postulate can
be supported.
Rather than the text speaking of the cessation of preaching the Gospel among the
cities of Israel, it appears to me to mean such preaching was not intended to
cease. It would continue until the Lord comes again in power and great glory, to
bring an end to all preaching as we know it. In this view, the coming of the Son
of Man can be understood as normally represented, and the Apostleship to the
circumcision, together with the Gospel being the power of God unto salvation to
the Jew first, acknowledged with no reservations.
The language of this verse (Matt 10:23) is more the language of faith than of
time. Faith has a language of its own. It speaks of long and arduous sufferings
as light and momentary(2 Cor 4:17). It scans the horizon of time and shouts,
calling the enormous gap between Christ's ascension and return "a little while"
(Heb 10:37). It views the final and total subjugation of Satan as taking place
"shortly" (Rom 16:20).
This text presents a sense of urgency to preaching the Gospel. It also confirms
our labors are to be expended in view of the coming of the Son of man, and that
they will not conclude until that grand and glorious day. The coming, in my
judgment, is the only one for which the saints are to long, and the only one
they can anticipate. Only within the framework of that coming will our labors be
consistent and effective.
What
does the bible say about the rapture?
There is no reference to "the rapture" in the
Bible. Those who use this expression site 1 Thessalonians 4:17 as a proof text,
where believers who are "alive and remain" in the world at the time of Christ's
return are said to be "caught up" with believers raised from the dead, to "meet
the Lord in the air."
A whole body of theological dogma has been wrapped around these words which
include the supposition that the saints will be suddenly, secretly, and
mysteriously removed from the world, causing great consternation among those who
remain. Some of this is supposedly buttressed by our Lord's teaching in Matthew
24:37-42. There He refers to two being in the field, one being taken, and the
other left. Again, He says two will be grinding at the mill, one will be taken
and the other left. This is thought to mean the believer will be taken and the
sinner left behind. However, Christ's point in the passage was that the sinners
would be separated from the saints. This confirmed by His reference to the flood
which, He said, "took them all away." The "them" were the sinners, not Noah and
his family. The point of Christ's teaching was that believers would survive His
coming, while sinners would not. It would eventuate in their destruction.
The above reference parallels Christ's teaching in the parable of the tares of
the field. There He said the order was given to "First gather together the tares
and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn" (Matt
13:30). He explained this part of the parable by saying, "the harvest is the end
of the age, and the reapers are the angels. Therefore as the tares are gathered
and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The Son of Man
will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things
that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the
furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous
will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to
hear, let him hear!" (Matt 13:39-43). Christ's point is the separation of the
wicked from among the just, for they are the intruders.
In addition to this rather elementary observation, the Scriptures teach that the
wicked will be punished "WHEN" Jesus comes to be glorified in His saints, and to
be admired among all those who believe (2 Thess 1:10). All of this will happen
"in a moment" and in the "twinkling of an eye." Jesus will not come secretly, as
He did the first time, but publicly, with "every eye" beholding Him (Rev 1:7).
Rather than being unnoticed and undetected, He will come in all of His own
glory, the glory of the Father, and the glory of all; of the holy angels (Mark
8:38; Luke 9:26). It is most difficult to conceive of that being secret.
"The rapture," as ordinarily conceived, is a myth created by men. It speaks of
the coming of the Lord in a way never clearly declared in Scripture. Its
emphasis is not the coming of Christ, but the snatching away of the righteous.
The Holy Spirit, however, always emphasis the return of Christ Himself. That
return will be attended by a glory that simply cannot be hidden.
Are we to ask God for
forgiveness or are we to just confess our sin and accept that he already has
made a sacrifice for our sins?
Both are true. It was Jesus who taught us to pray, "Forgive us
our sins" (Lk 11:4). John also wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1
John 1:9). I do not believe a person can substantiate that it is not right to
ask God to forgive us. We do so, however, not in a sense of pleading or begging,
but in the attitude of believing.
On the same note, even though God has "has given to us all things that pertain
to life and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3), we are still to "ask" for them (Matt 7:7).
In fact, James said some do not receive because they have not asked (James 4:2).
I do not know what would eliminate forgiveness from things asked for or sought.
Too, John spoke of a case where one person asks God to give life to another
person who has sinner, and God gave life because the person asked (1 John 5:16).
God will not despise a person who asks Him to do what He promised He would do.
In fact, this is one of the ways He works (Ezek 36:36-37).
If a person asked God to forgive, doubting that He would, and hoping the prayer
would change God's mind, that would be something less than good. But if they
"ask in faith, nothing doubting," that is comely (James 1:6). That promise, in
my understanding, would include asking for forgiveness.
I
have the Pulpit Commentary. I recently read something in it that caused me
concern . What are your thoughts on this statement. "on such passages no
unlearned and untrained person should profess the
ability to form an opinion of any value. The
discovery of the true meaning of many pages of Scripture, the power of
looking at it in its right perspective, is only
rendered possible by the acquaintance with the original
languages, and with the historic and other
conditions under which the Scriptures were written."
The Pulpit Commentary is an excellent study
resource. I have had it in my library for over forty five years. As with all the
works of men, it is not an infallible resource. The uniqueness of this
commentary is that it is a compilation of many writers. The statement you have
wisely questioned does not represent the thinking of the many authors who have
contributed to this work. You have made a wise investment, yet must weigh and
evaluate what you read, much like you do when hearing a sermon or listening to a
teacher.
It is NOT true that the understanding of a single word of Scripture (much less a
passage) depends upon acquaintance with the original languages and historic
conditions under which Scripture was written. Such a view demeans God and
hinders His people. It encourages reliance upon men and the wisdom of men, a
practice that is strictly forbidden by God Himself (1 Cor 2:5).
We are expressly told that God teaches us (John 6:45; 1 Thess 4:9), Jesus
teaches us (Eph 4:20-21), and the Spirit teaches us (1 John 2:20,27). No facet
of salvation, particularly understanding the Scriptures, commands or encourages
us to trust in men. We can derive benefit from the expressions of various godly
people, but we are not wholly reliant upon them.
Your practice of comparing your own persuasions and inclinations with what other
godly men have said is good. It reveals a humble spirit that God will bless.
Your faith is the key to understanding, not language and historical expertise.
The statement that caused you difficulty should simply be discarded -- treated
as though it did not even exist.
If the Holy Spirit is
the third person of he trinity, will you see Him someday? ( If the Holy Spirit
is a He)
Jesus said the pure in heart would "see God" (Matthew 5:8). Job knew He would
eventually "see God" (Job 19:26). God "is a Spirit" (John 4:24), and so is the
Holy Spirit. You may rest assured, if we will see God, who is a Spirit, we will
also see the Holy Spirit. We are not told how all of this will take place. We
are to understand all things will be made clear to us on the other side of
death.
Some
say that God the Father and Jesus Christ has always existed: If so, how was it
decided that who would be the Father and who would be the Son?
First, before He became a man, the Lord Jesus was called "the word" (John
1:1,14). Who the Father and the Word (or Jesus Christ, or the Son) are was not a
matter of decision. That is who they are by nature, not what they became at some
point in time. Neither of them had a beginning, or a point at which they began.
This is something that goes beyond human understanding. We receive it by faith,
believing things we need to know about it will be made known to us in eternity.
Go to next page
