PNEUMATOLOGY 101

With my juniors, I just finished our section on Pneumatology [the study of the Holy Spirit]. It was a really sweet time, especially since most Christians in the south are scared of the Holy Spirit.

We got to discuss how, in Jesus, there is a New Exodus. The Hebrew people got much of their identity from the old exodus. This included an innocent lamb's blood, freedom from bondage, passing through waters, receiving the Law, and being led by God's presence. In this New Exodus [Rom 5-8], all its blessings flow from the slain and risen Lamb. We are unfettered from sin, death, and Satan. We pass through the waters of baptism. We must now live by the Law of God written on the heart. This is done by knowing we can't on our own, but knowing we can by the presence of God guiding us. He guides because He indwells. He is the New Covenant, New Exodus, Holy Spirit of God [Jer 31, Ezk 36-37].

We were able to talk about how Peter's sermon in Acts 2 shows that the Spirit's presence means we are now living in the last days. So, the Spirit's presence looks back to the exodus and is also the down payment of future glory that has entered into our hearts in the present [Eph 1, Eph 4].

Obviously, some of the most fun talks we got to have were over the gifts of the Spirit. Deconstructing the absurd arguments of cessationists in 1 Cor 13.8-10 was healthy for them to witness. Paul's three pleas to the Corinthians to "earnestly desire" the gifts are huge [12.31, 14.1, 14.39]. Nobody prays like that: "Spirit, grant us to speak in the tongues of angels. Cause us to prophesy." It sure sounds biblical though if you read 1 Cor 12-14. This is particularly convicting if you read 12.1. "About spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant."

When we pondered the deity of the Spirit, we logically turned to St Paul. One of the primary things that I wanted them to see was that Paul rarely sought to prove that the Spirit was fully divine. This fact seems assumed to him. Rather, Paul seeks to show that the Spirit's divinity means something. The fullness of God - dwelling in sinners! Paul is floored by this and longs for the experiences of life that will come from it. This is how Paul talks about the Spirit's deity.

So... I had to give him half credit.

Question 7 on their test read, "What did we say in class about how the Apostle Paul writes about the deity of the Spirit?" His thoughtful answer:

He writes with a feather, lightly dipped into the ink, and carefully strokes the papyrus.

THE KiNGDOM OF GOD

I love tracing the kingdom of God through the OT with my Redemptive History students [10th grade]. Some of them totally get it and others just write stuff down to pass the next test. We've talked about how important this idea of the kingdom is to the God's story and the storyline of the Bible.

In creation, man is described in kingly terms; creation is about the kingdom [Gn 1.26-31].

When the people sing and dance after being freed from the clutches of Pharoah, the last line of their song is about YHWH as the King of the kingdom [Ex 15.18].

The covenant YHWH makes with them at Sinai is about them becoming a kingdom of priests [Ex 19.4-6].

When they finally get into the land and struggle through 200 years of deliverers [the book of Judges], the last verse in Judges is about them lacking a king and how problematic this is for them as YHWH''s people [Jdgs 21.25].

The people then beg Samuel for a king so they can be like the other nations. YHWH tells Samuel that this is because they have rejected Him as king and have lost their vision of His call to them to be a kingdom of priests [1 Sam 8.4-7].

YHWH then initiates an unconditional covenant with David in which He promises David that one of his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandkids will be YHWH's king over His kingdom forever [2 Sam 7.8-16].

David finds these promises so sweet and good that he won't shut up about it. He wrote scores of songs rejoicing that God is King and will prove it one day in a HUGE, covenantal way! Some of these are: Ps 24.7-10, 47.5-9, 93.1-2, 95.1-5, 97.1, 99.1, 100.4, 103.19-22, 145.8-13, 149.1-14, and others.

After the kingdom split, the prophets continued to declare that God's kingship was coming in the same way David sang about. However, for those who were rebellious and did not delight in YHWH as king, His kingly coming would be judgment for them. Some of these prophetic texts are: Is 6.1-3, Is 9.6-7, Is 44.6-8, Is 52.7, Jer 23.5-6, Ezk 1-2 [the throne imagry], Ezk 34.23-24, Dan 4.34-35, Dan 7.9-22, Obad 1.21, Zeph 3.14-17, Zech 14.9-21, and others. And, like Jesus said, all the prophets prophesied until John [Mt 11.13].

But then.

He arrives.

YHWH's King. David's Son. Isaiah's Servant-King. Ezekiel's Shepherd-King.

In the NT, the first thing we have recorded from the mouth of John the Baptist and from the lips of our Lord is shattering: "Repent! The kingdom is at hand!" [Mt 3.2, Mt 4.17]

This changes everything. Roman oppression will die. YHWH's people will finally be a kingdom of priests. All covenants will be totally fulfilled. All wrongs will be righted. Justice will finally be served!

But it didn't happen exactly like they thought.

However, there is still hope [this is where it clicked for a lot of my students]. We went to Gen 1-2 and saw that in creation, the kingdom is seen in its perfection - man reigning with God, like God and for God over His created order. Then, we flipped to the end of the story in Rev 21-22. Can we see anything in the New Creation that was similair to the creation in Gen 1-2? Yes. We see man reigning and ruling with God, like God, and for God over the new heavens and the new earth.

If we know that this snapshot will be the fruit of God's gracious promises in Jesus, we must have humility and confidence to live as His kings and priests right now. This hope is the lens through which we must view the word of God and the world around us, serving the King of all kings.

the ontological reasons i want JESUS to come back

Being and doing are a package deal. You can't have one without the other. However, one necessarily precedes the other. The pure existence of a thing is the most logical starting point to that thing fulfilling its role.

Examples:

Jesus is not the Savior of the world because He died on the cross. He is the Savior of the world; SO He died on the cross.

You don't breathe, eat, poop, sleep in order to be a human. Because you are human, you breathe, eat, poop, sleep. This is also what would qualify us as human beings.

In Exodus 3, this is why God reveals Himself to Moses as the "I AM" and not the "I DO" or the "I WILL" [more here].

I just feel that our 742 TV channels, 26 drive-thru restaurants down the road, 9 remote controls per living room, damning materialism, and iThis and iThat are all uniting to subtly betray the purity of this paradigm: being always births doing. I feel like the culture I live in daily whispers to me, "Do A, B, and C and then you can be X, Y, and Z." I guess these feelings come from the fact that I'm not home yet.

Maranatha.

YHWH and PARMENiDES OF ELEA

Aristotle's Unmoved Mover concept likely had its roots in some of the thought of Parmenides of Elea [c. 515-450 BC]. Parmenides always spoke about the One, the unity that is hidden behind the diversity of our world of experience. He never ascribed to it relatability, but frequently spoke of it in terms of Being.

Jonathan Edwards thought deeply here as well. He said that we cannot think of God as a being because that would subliminally suggest that we or other things that have being are made of the same stuff. Edwards posited that God is "Being in general." In truth, to use the word "is" in the previous sentence is to begin to undefine the fact.

But back to Parminedes. He sought to delineate between what is, what truly is, and what seems to be. He thought that knowing this distinction was only available through reason. Leszek Kolakowski has commented on these ontologically gnostic ideas in Parmenides. Kolakowski says that for Parmenides,

what truly is cannot have been created, or that would mean that something comes from nothing, and that is impossible. Nor can it change, decay, or die: it is perfectly fulfilled and unchanging, with no beginning or end. Nor can it be said to "have been" or to be "going to be"; it simply is, beyond time, without time.... He means that Being is full and sufficient unto itself.

I'd like to point out a couple of things here. I would almost completely agree. However, it really is impossible for something to come from nothing, unless the Unity or Being causing the something is Divine, Wise, and wholly Good. Additionally, all his talk of Being and the essence of the One behind all we comprehend.... this is precisely how the God of the Bible defines and reveals Himself. That is the definition of YHWH in Exodus 3 - "I AM WHO I AM." This name comes directly from the Hebrew "to be" verb, hayah.

Lastly, there is more beauty in untainted Being than can be found anywhere. This is why the Michelangelo's statue of David is naked. David purely is. He just is. This is why trying to define affectionate relationships is so hard. They just are. And they're beautiful. So then, how much more excellent, radiant, right, and lovely is the Being that has never not been. "He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature and He upholds all things by the word of His power" [Heb 1.3].