THE DANGER OF AN OVERLY RATIONAL MIND

One of my recent word studies in the NT texts involves the distinction of the greek “pneuma” (spirit), sark (flesh), and psyche (mind/soul).

The Hebrews as well as the 1st century Christian Jews had accepted these distinctions when defining the separate characteristics of the human being, which they believed was composed of these three elements.

As apologists, we rely very much on the “psyche” or the mind, in providing reasons for our faith. And as a consequence, we become very reliant on our reasoning and our ability to think and without our knowing, has largely affected the way we conduct ourselves as well as in making critical decisions, which should involve prayer. After all, we have submitted ourselves to a King.

These past few weeks have been very trying and stressful, involving both work and pressures to keep up with demands for my family as well as the workplace. In all this, though I remained prayerful, I have to admit that I may have been overly rational about strategizing and making decisions that I may have overlooked the fact that the One that I was praying to should have remained foremost in my considerations for making these decisions.

What was I to assume? Having come from a shallow worldview and believing that God would shower abundance on me if I “did the right things” and pressed the right buttons – and for a time, it did work that way – and much later on, I am called out for listening to a “prosperity” gospel and believing it.

From there, I begin to assume that it is wrong and presumptuous for me to expect anything extraordinary from the Living God because we should be content with what we have and no more.

Add to that, become very rational in my approach to life because of the extensive training my mind gets in thinking things through as an apologist wanna be, and everything becomes linear and sequential.

What happened just several days ago was to say the least, completely overwhelming.

In a situation where I had nowhere to turn to anymore, and no more reasonable ways to resolve my problems – the Living God manifested Himself in a very huge way: to myself, to my family and a few close friends whom I had asked to pray for us. It was nothing that we were prepared for and something that I thought that I would never again experience, because it was just too much for me to hope for from the One whose resources and providence is always infinite, in contrast to the finitude of our thinking.

To say that I was humbled is an understatement. I still feel like kicking myself and serving my own foot on two slices of bread to myself for underestimating the Living God in terrm of hearing and much more, answering my prayers as well as my family’s and those who prayed with us during this specially trying time.

Many well meaning Western influenced Christian friends always cautioned me in the past for being so presumptuous about God’s favor and always “admonished” me to scale down my expectations and live with what is available and be thankful. Of course, that’s the reasonable thing to do.

But with what just happened for us, I am resolved to address the imbalance in my view and pound on myself to remember – the Living God DOES intervene, as He has in the past and He is the same God that we ALL believe in, no matter how much or little we do. And yes, HE has manifested Himself in a big way in impossible situations in scripture and in our lives in the past and that does not preclude similar possibilities in the future. Even if we don’t think it right to presume that He will do so.

Because He can, He will – when He chooses to. And from what we know, it’s more than half of the time when we pray.

There is nothing wrong in being rational. What is wrong is if we behave that everything should be assumed from that platform and nothing else. Because “…Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.” ( 1 Cor 2:9 Net Bible)

Share:

The Transforming power of Study

"Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect." Romans 12:2

Anakainosis is the greek word for renewal. And the greek equivalent of transformed is metamorphoo. Properly understood, it implies a "changing form in keeping with inner reality".

The past four years of persistent study of apologetics has led my journey of study, research and reflection towards church history, exegesis and the study of the development of theology in church history.

While most of my Christian friends who mean well don't quite appreciate this endeavor very much.  And I hear the usual cliches and responses - "The gospel is a simple message. It doesn't have to be complicated." "Beware of intellectualizing the gospel. You can become puffed up with knowledge." or how about this classic one - "The bible says it, I believe it and that settles it".

I often sigh when I hear these well intended statements, and I've learned not to rebut them anymore as there are those who prefer to be simpleminded and don't want to learn more than what they already know.  

And that's the majority of humanity, not just Christianity.

Of course, they run into trouble when confronted, but that's another story.

But in the process, they deny themselves the opportunity for a transformation that results from the continual renewal of our minds.

In the past four years of continual reading, research and critical and reflective thinking, my appreciation of the Christian faith has come from a mere knowledge of salvation to that of considering it to be a matter of grave importance;  something to be taken very seriously, which ultimately affects our worldview and the day to day decisions that we make in light of the fact that they do impact what we do in relation to the very real, yet invisible Kingdom of God which in fact, is now here.

This has become my default worldview and each day that I continue to study, I find myself changing the way I plan, the way I decide, and the way I conduct myself on a day to day basis, as the reality of doing God's will and how I should consult Him in all that I do matters very much.

And this has become a lifestyle for myself, my wife and daughter - and we are slowly learning to work within the parameters of the Kingdom in this manner.

What gets most of our family and friends who clearly become disturbed because of the way we have come to think as a family unit, and conduct ourselves is that we seem to have become what appears to be "fatalistic" in our approach towards life - but when we are confronted with their questions, we have intelligent answers. No longer just scripture spouting, but solid, reasonable answers that are the result of a cohesive Christian worldview.

Apologetics has become a strong bedrock for the foundation of what we believe about the Kingdom message that the Lord Jesus first began talking about during His earthly ministry.  It has given us a decided confidence because what we know about what we believe is true and certain and the reality of the Kingdom of God is not just a hint of a mystery. It's real and it's here, now.

I lament the continual tirade of the majority that seem to prefer the unexamined life, as well as the less thought out one and content themselves with the thought that the Living God is happy with their lack of knowledge.  

The last I heard regarding lack of knowledge is an actual lamentation from the Living God Himself because His people were destroyed because the sinful priesthood being addressed in Hosea 4 failed to acknowledge Him and give knowledge of Him to His people.

But then again, if it wasn't different then, why should we be surprised if it's the same up to now?

The renewal of the mind is not a mere option. It's a must do. And transformation begins there. And I thank the apologist community for helping me and my family get started there.

Credentials or Competencies

Several years ago, I was invited to help train a set of agents for a call center.

It would have been easy if not for the fact that the people we had to train thought in a different language (Visayan), and had to communicate in English to serve (American) English speaking callers.

It was quite a task, but we managed to get a good team working in around three months. My previous experience in teaching wanna be disc jockeys how to sound good on the air paid off.

Elated with the experience, I decided to offer my services to other call centers in the area. After all, I found out that I could do the job, and well.

It turned out to be more difficult than I thought. And not because the job was going to be more difficult. The Human Resources people turned out to be the difficulty.

As it turns out, they were looking for graduates with a degree in English. A bachelor's degree in English at least or it's equivalent.

It didn't matter if I was able to do the job. They wanted someone with the diploma. And never mind if they couldn't speak English as well. ( I mean, what are they thinking or looking for??)

As it turns out, it was a good thing that I didn't. But I didn't know it then.

What does this have to do with apologetics? A lot.  As we go looking for material to further improve our skills, educate ourselves intently and renew our minds (as we get transformed as well in the process), there is this overwhelming desire to acquire a degree in theology or Christian philosophy in order to be able to be seriously considered as a credible apologist.

However, in this part of the world where I live, there aren't many schools that offer those courses or even subjects.  ( I found out that I already had a more extensive library on this subject matter than a school that I considered enrolling in.)

Realizing that it would be quite a pipe dream to even think about enrolling in a school like Biola, or HBU to get the necessary units to deserve the sheepskin at the end of the term - it would take forty plus Philippine pesos for every dollar required to study in those places, and foreign students have to pay more as well - the desire would remain just that for quite a while. Unless I got a stroke of fortune and picked a winning combination for the weekly lottery.

Or something like that.

However, some recent encounters with various groups of people either wanting some answers to some of the difficult questions that we're exposed to, or those that make it a hobby of heckling believers (until they're confronted by one of us) I realized that most of us aren't really going to be going to debate with Richard Dawkins or Michael Shermer anyway.

Most of us are going to come across a lot of people like us - those who have jobs, those who don't have jobs, those who're struggling with issues, and those who aren't struggling but are looking for meaning.

And when we come across them and are confronted with those questions or challenges, we had better be prepared.  And if someone else who sees that we do have answers and wants them as well, we had better be prepared to equip them as well.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for earning the degrees in theology, apologetics and philosophy.  If you have the opportunity to do so, go right ahead and go for it.

But for the majority who either don't have the funds, the time or the proximity to those prestigious institutions that dispense with the letters to affix to your names that affirm your expertise on the subjects - take heart.  The best Apologist for God in the first century was questioned by the scholars of His day for being unlettered. And of course, His credentials that He claimed were not just questioned, but used as evidence for His wrongful conviction and execution.

But then again - the conclusion to that argument came on the third day after His death. Which, provides the evidence that we need to show that what we believe IS true.

The online forum - engaging in the new public square

Of late, I have been challenged regarding a few worldviews that I hold, and mostly by fellow believers - or those who profess to believe in our Risen Lord.

I say this because in our online engagements, it has become pretty clear that most of them hold on to what I refer to as dogmatic views or rhetoric - views that are anchored on cliches that they absorbed from their spiritual leaders during their formative spiritual years and have retained them ever since without finding the substantiation for those views.

While I have not laid claim to having the absolutely correct view on these matters, to a certain degree, I have achieved a degree of satisfaction of knowing that the views that I've come to hold (after changing them when they were displaced by a more superior position, and holding on to those I've cherished, because I found the facts and reasons to uphold them ) can withstand scrutiny and critical examination.

And knowing that, the faith I espouse now has become stonger, substantive and more confident - as I have rational explanations to present the message of the Kingdom as a very important option to consider for holding one's worldview.

And also because it's a very important choice - it spells an eternally significant difference.  While the gospel proclaims grace, it also implies a grace period.  It ultimately comes to an end - after which, there are consequences. And these are dire.

These challenges that rise as a result of my posts on my Facebook wall drive me to go back to the books and review the things I have learned and as a natural consequence, I am forced to remember scripture verses, facts and logical processes to be able to present the argument for the positions that I present publicly.  And it has become a good thing for me, because I continue to internalize what I previously read through cursorily and these become a vivid part of my memory bank, which I can dip into regularly and find whenever I need them.

What I did not realize was that other friends who I did not intend those posts for also read through my wall and absorb the exchanges and the thoughts that are crystallized in the conversation.  These eventually result into private emails, private messages and are brought up in snatches of conversation in casual encounters such as seeing each other in the malls or while doing groceries.  They become more meaningful because the points that they never were familiar with ( exegetical explanations, cultural perspectives, and doctrinal thought ) are made a bit clearer - not necessarily absorbed immediately - but now are explained with more than just a bit of clarity and they are more familiar with the message of the scriptures.

If just for that, I am grateful for the online fora that Facebook has provided for these exchanges.  Because it requires a great deal of planning, organizing and preparation to put a group together and hold their attention for these subjects.

With this access-when-you wish capability, the online fora becomes a good starting point for lengthy (though incomplete) engagements in a coffeeshop to process these thoughts personally, complete with distractions and disturbances.

Much is decried about having the "impersonal" and "e-friendships" that are not as authentic as one where we press flesh and spend time together.  I find that the opposite is revealing itself to be true: online, where it is less "threatening" to be confronted about one's set of beliefs, it provides a platform for people to express themselves better. At least they can take comfort of not being assaulted physically if the discussion turns ugly.

But it also allows each one to get a better read of their thoughts - because you are left with no choice but to be articulate and express yourself comprehensively and accurately. And if the argument fails, you are left with no choice but to accept the superior view or stick to the defective one without reasonable support.

This way, we are forced to become better communicators and should the relationship take a step higher to a more personal one, we are all the better for them. Instead of having a realtime encounter where we maintain a veneer of civility, yet inward are snarling murderously.  I've known a few church small groups that behaved like that.

But hey, it's a great start.

For one dollar apologists, it's a means that we should not discount if we wish to present the message of the Kingdom in a winsome manner, though we should make sure that we can take it to the next level, which is the personal one.

The Controversy (and confusion) that is Christmas

Inevitably, as I drive through bumper to bumper traffic that comes with every December evening, I start muttering: "It's the most horrible time of the year...."

Lest I be misconstrued, I also enjoy the season. But I draw the line when the circumstances border on the absurd - the traffic on the roads are practically unbearable. Everything comes to a standstill, simply because everyone is either holding a Christmas party or attending one.  And the pressures to prepare, purchase and plan for what's supposed to be a holiday become obnoxiously exasperating.

No wonder Ebenezer Scrooge "bah, humbug!"-ed his way through that time of the year.

Despite all that, it does become a great opportunity for finding clarity in all the chaos and confusion.  It's the time of year when good friends draw near and start asking those pointed questions about Christmas.  And as they seek, they find, and as they ask, they are given answers - sometimes not the ones they are looking for.

For instance - my recent discovery that the symbolic representative of the season, Santa Clause - St. Nicholas in a previous understanding -was a prominent Christian apologist who actually was present in the Council of Nicea widens quite a few eyes.  Not only do they get shocked that I believe that Santa exists, but I knew what he did, and how we thought in a similar fashion.  Of course, Rudolph had to fly out the window, but St. NIck deserves his place - never mind if he  didn't really wear that red costume to deliver gifts better than FEDEX.

Another pointed issue that gets taken up is the matter of the date approximating the birth of our Lord Jesus - presumably because it's supposed to be the real reason for the season, right?

Wrong again. (Buzzer sound.)

Take a cue from the nativity narrative.  The shepherds were watching their flocks by night.

In Bethlehem, where the paschal lambs were being raised by Levitical priest/shepherds, the herds were often gathered into small structures with mangers where they were kept warm during winter nights.  When they were brought out in the fields at night, it was clearly a different time of the year - and it was also the time of the year, when they were lambing, or the ewes were delivering their young lambs.  Traditionally, this is during the summertime, making the birth of the Lord Jesus much, much earlier than that of the traditional December.

Furthermore, as Joseph and Mary were travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census declared by Quirinius, it would be much more difficult to travel in the winter time, as opposed to the summer, which would be more a more accomodating time of the year for a very pregnant teenage mother to be - on her way to her in laws to be (remember, they were yet betrothed, not married) and in their cramped residence, delivered her child in the only place they could be accommodated, as the house was packed with family that also arrived for the census.

While everyone now frowns because that time of the year that everyone holds so dear is the wrong one - they miss the most crucial point of the timing of the Lord Jesus' birth.

The Lord Jesus arrives in Bethlehem - the town where the paschal lambs for the passover sacrifice are raised - during lambing season, when the lambs are born.

Thirty three years later, He is killed on a crucifix during the Passover week, and dies at exactly the time when the passover lambs began being slaughtered.

Truly, the Lamb of God.

Which brings me to the point of what makes this all significant, and how we all missed it in a big way.

The Lord Jesus, we know, came to die for our sins to reconcile us with His Heavenly Father.

But we fail to see that He literally came to fulfill the promises that the Almighty God made.

These promises we also refer to as prophecies.  There are approximately over 300 prophecies that the Lord Jesus fulfilled.  Some scholars have narrowed them down to fourty four that directly relate to Him.

But what are the chances of that happening?  That someone would be born of a maiden (alma in Hebrew) in Bethlehem, of the House of David, at the exact moment in history as written down in the book of Daniel some six hundred years before it was projected to happen - in Daniel 9:25 - where the exact timeline is defined, and so many others.

Mathematical calculations cited in “The Case for Christ: The Fingerprint evidence” point to a probability of even just eight of the forty four prophecies confirmed fulfilled would be one chance in one hundred million billion. That would be just for eight!

For one man to arrive at a moment in history in order to fulfill all of those things written in a compilation of books known today as the Old Testament - the Hebrew Tanakh - over a period of several thousand years - the odds are mind boggling. But they were fulfilled - in the person of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

For all of the business that is Christmas, and no matter how trivial the understanding is of most people of the significance what’s supposed to be the season is that it’s not just about the birth of a child in Bethlehem.

It’s the strongest confirmation that the God of the universe, who has made it His project to reveal Himself to His creation, has confirmed that He did what He promised, and provided a way out for humanity, where humanity would never be able to meet Him at His level.

He came down through His Son, and met humanity at humanity’s level.

And kept His promise.

And because of that, we can believe that the rest of the promises/prophecies that were also written down WILL be kept. If we know what these are, we can count on them as well to be kept. Unlike the learned religious leaders at that time, who apparently did not know what to expect - completely missed it and unwittingly played a big part of fulfilling some of those prophecies as well, in the event of the Messiah’s atoning death.

Enjoy the gatherings, the gift giving, the music, and the change of pace.

But don’t miss out on the promises. Because they will be kept.

Defending which faith?

Discussions involving religion are never that easy to navigate, which is why I don't initiate them. That being said, when they do occur, and an unsubstantiated remark comes out of nowhere, I find it absolutely necessary to respond - though in the most gracious and considerate way possible, without taking away from the truth that has to be made clear.

In Cebu City, in the Philippines, where I live - the default position is that of a theist position. Though a lot of it is predominantly flawed, at least there's not much to refute with regard to believing in the diety we recognize as God - though these days there happen to be more who think that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob masquerades as Allah, and quite a few also mistake Him to be Buddha as well.  If we have time for a few cups of coffee, outside of the reason why we gathered, a brief look at comparative theologies is a pretty good starting point for clarity but it usually doesn't end up where we want it to go.

Though most people here have a genuine belief that God does exist, it's a resultant of a fear that if they don't, there's going to be a supernatural penalty if they express otherwise.  And this is quite dominant among the different social classes. More so with the masses, who tend to mix folk superstition quite liberally with their beliefs.

However, when they inevitably get to the point - usually, "Why are you so insistent on posting all those things about God on Facebook??", I oblige them.  And strangely, the responses vary from very receptive to very strange.

Considering that here in Cebu City, we have a heritage of a strict, devout (?) - more like obligatory - and severely condescending practice of a Hispanic form of Roman Catholicism, it isn't too difficult to come to terms with believing in the God that the Lord Jesus referred to as "Our Father".

The difficulty begins when those who've experienced a "born again" incident in their past start to try and "right" the "wrongs" in their theology. And that's when the sparks fly, the misunderstandings ensue and nothing ever gets resolved. And worse, you begin to realize that though the basics of understanding salvation through faith is intact, it ends right there and all sorts of defective theological worldviews start to come into play.

Mind you, I have less problems explaining these things to my nominal Catholic friends.  I've had a great many who began reading the Bible on their own and begin rethinking their positions about what they believe in. I myself came to faith reading the defective King James translation and understood the matter of salvation almost immediately.

However, when working through these issues with those that came to faith in Jesus during the last ten years or so, it seems that quite a lot of them were left to fend for themselves after they were led to pray "THE PRAYER" of salvation and they began absorbing all sorts of things that consequently led to all the wrong ideas about what we can believe about what we are supposed to believe in.

It almost feels like we need to start all over again. (Football coach to losing team: "Men, this is a football...")

Why is this so?  I can think of a few good reasons and they all lead to what the people on the pulpit have been propagating for quite some time. Everything else, EXCEPT the scriptures.

Clearly, there is a need to return to the sources. Ad fontes. And understand them as they were meant to be understood.  Not because Joel Osteen or Rick Warren say so.  Or even my favorites, Dr. William Lane Craig and Mike Licona say so. (Mind you, I admire their orthodoxy, but we have to struggle on our own when we do our exegesis and let the Holy Spirit do His work.)

And this is the reason why we have to do this. It's not enough that we study to defend our faith. We need to know what faith we actually should defend - and it's that legacy of promises made by the Living God which the Lord Jesus came to fulfill, explain further and leave with those who started getting it out in the first century.

I like what Dr. Dan Wallace said in one of his lectures: "Without the scriptures, the God you worship is nothing more than the God of your imagination".

May we come to learn more about the truths of the Living God - and know Him in the process. So that the world will know that He alone is Adonai.

Mismatching Scriptures or Where is it actually said?

(Some supposed contradictions in the Bible)


Being a member of the Apologetics Bloggers Alliance has some benefits for it's challenges.  Being compelled to write more makes you have to read more and more substantively.

I've always come across portions of scripture that skeptics love to point out as parts that are errouneous and hence, you cannot trust the Bible.

Well really, if the most part corresponds properly with other areas that are cited and are corroborated by archaeological evidence, possibly beyond 90 percent, the scriptures can be counted on to be generally reliable and trustworthy.

However, it didn't stop me trom trying to continue to ferret out the reasons for the supposed incompatibility with some New Testament accounts with their counterparts in the old testament, namely these:

1. The shewbread incident involving David and the High Priest in Mark 2:26 - the names don't correspond to the OT accounts

2. Matthew 2:23 - he would be called a Nazarene. 

3. Matthew 23:35 - where there's another name mismatch again

4. And finally the matter of "springs of living water" - in John 7:38, as there is no direct scripture in the OT that is quoted.

Fortunately, being a part of the same group has the benefit of being able to connect with learned scholars such as Dr. Tim McGrew, who was generous enough and gracious to provide possible explanations to these problems.

Dr. Tim answered:

As for your particular questions:

1. Probably "Abiathar the high priest" is mentioned in Mark 2:26 because (a) he is more prominent than his father Ahimelech (1 Sam. 23:6), who was the high priest at the time referred to (1 Sam. 21:1), and (b) he is associated with David, whose side he took when David and Saul were at war. 

As for the designation "Abiathar the high priest," he did become high priest subsequently, but the phrase "the days of" may be taken merely to indicate that this was within his adult lifetime. It is a manner of speech used commonly enough in secular historical writings. For instance, Herodian (Roman History 1.2) says that “to Marcus the emperor were born several daughters and two sons,” though some of these children were born before Marcus became emperor.

2. Probably "Nazarene" here is a play on the word "netzer," i.e. "root." 

3. As Alfred Barnes notes in his commentary on Matthew, some have thought that it was the Zecharias whose death is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, where he is called the son of Jehoiada. But it was common among the Jews to have two names: as Matthew is called Levi; Lebbeus is called Thaddeus; and Simon is called both Cephas and Peter. Another possibility is that Jesus referred to Zecharias the prophet, who might have been massacred by the Jews, though no account of his death is recorded. If so, Jesus was referring to a tradition that has not come down to us in writing.

4. Again, Barnes has a useful note here, which I will simply quote: 

*****
Jesus probably intended to say, not that there was any particular place in the Old Testament that affirmed this in so many words, but that this was the substance of what the Scriptures taught, or this was the spirit of their declarations. Hence, the Syriac translates it in the plural - the Scriptures. Probably there is a reference more particularly to Isaiah 58:11, than to any other single passage: "Thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters fail not." See also Isaiah 44:3-4; Joel 3:18.
*****

He also said: "some objections are curious and difficult to answer with certainty, but we have a great mass of evidence for the substantial historicity of the Scriptures. So there is no reason to be "thrown" by a few minor difficult passages that we cannot be certain of explaining satisfactorily."

Another explanation for number 4 was provided by my good friend and pastor Earl Opinion, of Doxo Dunamis, a small congregation where my family and I attend worship gatherings. Earl specializes in exegesis - a subject that he's mastered and teaches very well, and I must admit, I've developed a love for as well.

Earl gave me this possible explanation some time ago:

"But it appears that another passage about living water was also associated with Tabernacles, if rabbinic material may be relied on for this conclusion.20 This passage was Ezekiel 47:1–11. According to this text, Ezekiel reports, “Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar” (Ezek. 47:1).

It is surprising that there has not been a much stronger tendency in the literature to settle on this passage as the one cited in John 7:37–39. Most commentators are well aware of the water ceremonies which marked the Jewish observance of Tabernacles and which seem obviously to furnish the backdrop for Jesus’ words. The ritual is well described by Morris.

On each of the seven days of the feast a priest drew water from the pool of Siloam in a golden flagon and brought it in procession to the temple with the joyful sounding of the trumpet. There the water was poured into a bowl beside the altar from which a tube took it to the base of the altar. Simultaneously wine was poured through a similar bowl on the other side of the altar.21 To be carefully observed here is the link between the altar and the water ceremony which quite readily evokes a recollection of Ezekiel 47 in which the waters issue forth at the right side of the altar of the millennial Temple!

Since, moreover, the waters of Ezekiel’s prophecy have vivifying properties—“every thing shall live whither the river cometh” (Ezek. 47:9)—those waters are properly described as living waters! Additionally, in the Septuagint text of this passage the Greek word ποταμός (“river”) is found five times (vv. 6, 7, 9 twice, 12) as a rendering of the Hebrew ַנַחל. Obviously this furnishes an additional link with John 7:38 in view of the use of נןפבלן there.22

But of special importance is the suitability of Ezekiel’s vision in the light of John’s explanatory comment in verse 39. According to the Fourth Evangelist the real significance of Jesus’ words lay in their reference to the gift of the Holy Spirit which believers had not yet received.23 It is precisely this post-Pentecostal gift from a glorified Savior that transforms the believer into a “temple” of God! As Paul described it, “What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19–20).

20 20.     Dodd observes: “It may be recalled that among the scriptures most frequently quoted in rabbinic authorities with reference to the libations at Sukkoth [Tabernacles] are Is. xii. 3, Ezek. xlvii. 1 sqq., Zech. xiv. 8” (Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 349). Cf. the rabbinic tractate Sukkah iii as cited by Guilding (The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship, pp. 105–6).

21 21.     Morris, The Gospel according to John, p. 420. Cf. also George W. MacRae, “The Meaning and Evolution of the Feast of Tabernacles,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 22 (1960):273; and J. Blenkinsopp, “The Quenching of Thirst: Reflections on the Utterance in the Temple, John 7:37–9,” Scripture 12 (1960):45–46.

22 22.     It may be worth noting that once (in Ezek. 47:9), the Hebrew dual ַנֲחַלִים is used. Could the Greek נןפבלן of John 7:38 reflect this?

23 23.     On the ostensibly difficult expression in verse 39, ןὔנש דὰס ἠ̂ם ׀םוץ̂לב¢̔דיןם (modern editors usually omit ἅדיןם), Barrett’s statement is good: “John does not mean to deny the earlier existence of the Spirit, nor indeed that he was active in the prophets; and he says expressly that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus himself at the beginning of his ministry (1:21). He means rather that the Holy Spirit was not given in the characteristically Christian manner and measure until the close of the ministry. ƒ He himself recognizes clearly the dependence of the gift of the Spirit upon the completed work of Jesus (The Gospel according to John, p. 272). Cf. also the study by S. H. Hooke, “ ‘The Spirit Was Not Yet,’ ” New Testament Studies 9 (1962–63): 372–80, esp. 378–80.

Bibliotheca Sacra : A quarterly published by Dallas Theological Seminary. 1996, c1955-1995 (248). Dallas TX: Dallas Theological Seminary.

Earl concluded with this: "The quote from the O.T. fits rightly but only as an epo [(eipen = said) Scripture "said"] because John does not say "it is written."  When Jesus is quoted as saying it is written it is more specific unlike when he just says (epo) it is from Scripture."

In any case, I've become more confident in addressing these issues when they arise - as these are often cited by skeptics, atheists and agnostics influenced largely by what they read on the internet, and are motivated mostly by anger and other mixed emotions against God that they do their best to discredit the Living God that we've come to know as our Father, the way the Lord Jesus has told us to refer to Him.

It doesn't mean that they are persuaded by the argument, but those that are monitoring our conversations inevitably see the validity of the propositions that I hold to and come closer to the knowledge of the saving grace of the atonement made by the Risen Jesus.

While I do acknowledge that this kind of knowledge requires more than the usual approach of study, it is available, and with dedication, resolve and persistence, anyone can find the answers that ARE available and the God who skeptics accuse of being invisible, reveals Himself in a magnificent way.

The King James version of the bible challenges the reader to find God in a vivid way in Jeremiah 29:13. But when I saw the translation in the NET bible, I was floored - the challenge is different: When you seek me in prayer and worship, you will find me available to you. If you seek me with all your heart and soul.

Findong God is not just a matter of poring over the books and resources. Prayer and worship is involved. And the Lord God will be found. He will be there. If you seek Him with ALL of your heart and soul, or the inner man, as the Hebrew word "lebab" implies.