1 – 5
These verses are a good example of the divine authority which Jesus of Nazareth submitted his claim to. He did not speak on his authority, as a man, but he affirmed that he stood in the place of God himself, and spoke for God himself.

It was customary in Jewish tradition to fast on the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus and his disciples broke bread and ate. He affirmed that he did this by the authority that he had.

As a consequence, they Pharisees became very jealous of Jesus. They constructed a version of him that they could hate.

6 – 11
Their hatred for him expanded through the next few Sabbaths. The house of God was established by such leaders who would come to fulfill their hatred and express their rage. Jesus offered such an opportunity as a man with a deformed hand approached him in hope that he would be healed.

Jesus, knowing the thoughts of the Pharisees, turned to them and asked, “Are good deeds authorized on the Sabbath, or is it a day for evil? Is it a day to save or destroy?” Then he restored the mans’ hand and the Pharisees gathered in their quarters to plan against him.

I would say that this verse demonstrates the difference between Jewish custom and the scripture. The Old Testament did say that we were not to work on the scriptures, but one would be justified in applying their judgment to that. To strictly apply it to every situation would cause sin.

That is why the Bible is meant to be studied. If it were the case that strictly no work could be done on that particular day, the world would become unlivable. Suffering children would be shunned, dying men would be left to perish, preachers would not speak the word of God.

But nobody lives in such a manner. Jesus healed men on the Sabbath and demonstrated the sheer lack of understanding that the religious leaders maintained.

12 – 16
Jesus chose his twelve disciples. Simon Peter. Andrew (Brother of Peter) James. John. Phillip. Batholomew. Matthew. Thomas. James (Son of Alphaeus). Simon (who was called the zealot). Judas (Son of James. Judas Isacariot (who later betrayed Jesus).

17 – 26
Crowds still sought out this man who was said to have healed the sick, repelled evil spirits and performed great signs. So Jesus was not unanimously hated by the Jewish community. To the contrary, he was quite loved and adored by many.

It was the Pharisees who wanted that love for themselves, and they wanted the power that he demonstrated for themselves. What they could not understand was that Jesus wanted to explain to them precisely how they could acquire it. That, of course, is by putting faith into the Lord and completely surrendering.

After healing everybody in the crowd, Jesus turned to his disciples and explained to them that those who weep now will smile later, so long as they surrender themselves.

He went on to explain something that is familiar to especially Christian apologists, but also to many Christians. He said that when the world hates us because we follow the Son Of Man, we ought leap for joy, because our reward awaits us in heaven. He explained that those who reject the Good News today have in their lineage, those who rejected the ancient prophets.

In contrast, Jesus explained that those who delight in their riches and indulge in worldly carnalities will receive no reward.

27 – 36
These verses outline Jesus’ lesson about love for our enemies. He explained that if we love only those who love us, then we are no better than the sinner and the corrupt, for even they love those who love them. But if we love our enemies, we will be as the Father, for he loves all.

I would say that this doctrine is something that Christians know intellectually but do not really reflect through their actions. I would recommend my article Humanity: How It Has Poisoned Everything. Christians do not always express their love. Rather, there are excellent examples of Christians committing terrible atrocities, even in the name of Jesus.

This is a doctrine that the hateful Christian will spite, and the loving Christian will embrace.

I would say that it extends even into our internet debates with atheists, Muslims and other Christians. While some of the things they say may frustrate us, and while they are intentionally rude, Luke 6:29 says that if somebody strikes one cheek that we should offer the other. We are not to strike back. We are to treat them how we would like to be treated, even if they are not treating us in that manner. In this way, we will be like our Father, who feeds even those who rebel against him.

37 – 42
This is a teaching that often offers confusing. Most interpret the first half of the sentence and strangely shun the second half. It does not say, “Do not judge.” It says, “Do not judge, lest you are judged.”

What does this mean? If we judge others by their sins, we will be judged by ours. We will be victim to God’s judgment instead of blessed by his mercy, if that is what we do to others. So we are in no position to make judgments against another persons’ sin.

An excellent example of this would be the man who was being crucified next to Jesus during the time of his death. This man did not live up to the standard of the Old Covenant (he was being crucified) and he did not live up to the standard of the New Covenant (he did not know that it even existed). Therefore by the judgment of human beings, this man would be condemned for his actions.

Instead, Jesus saw that he was coming into true repentance and he declared, “You shall be with me in paradise.”

Our judgments are not reflective of truth. Moreover, we are just guilty are they are. Jesus asked, “Could a blind person lead another blind person? Won’t they both fall into a ditch?”

Instead of judging others, Jesus declared that we should concentrate on our own problems, for everybody has them.

43 – 45
I would begin by distinguishing the difference between what this verse actually says and the ‘works salvation’ doctrine. This verse does not say that good works are necessary for salvation. Rather, it says that from salvation, good works will follow.

So people are not working to receive salvation. But after receiving salvation, and being made anew by God, we will do good works as a consequence of our salvation. This is how the world will know us.

46 – 49
Jesus explained in this verse that his apostles are measured by their reaction in the time of trouble. When the flood waters come, do we scream to the heavens and curse the name of God? Or do we remain faithful in him? That is dependent on the foundation which we build now.

I wrote about this a few weeks ago. It was my article entitled, Where Is God!?.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

Jesus’ ministry lasted only three years before the public began to turn against him, which was seen in the last chapter. When the end of his ministry drew near, he began to recruit disciples to expand his ministry, for he knew by God that the stage was almost set for his death.

He approached a fisherman who had worked all day and had nothing to bring home. His name was Simon. Jesus told him that if he tries again to catch some fish, he will succeed.

Though skeptical, Simon followed Jesus’ suggestion and threw his net into the water. When he began to pull it out, he was extraordinarily surprised to find a bit of weight had been added onto it. He quickly realized that his net was overfilled with fish. This brought him so much joy that he began to tear.

Then Simon fell to his knees before Jesus and confessed, “Please leave me. I am too much of a sinner to be graced by your presence.”

Instead, Jesus invited Simon (also known as Peter) and his partners, James and John, to follow him, and they did.

12 – 16
Jesus traveled into the villages with his new disciples and began to execute miracles for the sick and the diseased. A man with leprosy came and requested to be healed. So Jesus healed him, but commanded that he credit God for the healing, and not himself.

But instead, the man ignored Jesus’ command, and the story of his power gained speed.

The skeptic or the Muslim might reply that a verse such as this is evidence that Jesus was not God, for he insisted that he not be credited for the miracle of this mans’ healing. But this would just be to nit-pick verses that seem to support one case, and ignore the verses that oppose it. For if you are assuming that the New Testament is an accurate account of the historical Jesus, one would have to consider all of the verses and claims that he made, including those of being the Messiah.

This verse cannot be taken to mean that Jesus was indicating that he was not God, except by the presupposition that he is not God. So long as it is even possible that it means something else, it follows logically that this verse is not evidence of Jesus not being God.

Further, the next section of this chapter (and most throughout the New Testament) defeats the presupposition that the New Testament does not record Jesus claiming to be God.

17 – 26
Men began to come from afar to hear Jesus of Nazareth speak. It would be difficult to determine that they believed if he was the promised Messiah. They only knew what they had been told; that this man was performing sermons with an unprecedented authority, and that he was performing miracles.

Some men carried a paralyzed friend on a mat all the way to Jesus, because they had faith in him and in God that he would be healed. Seeing this faith, Jesus responded ideally. “Young man,” he said, “your sins are forgiven.”

The Pharisees and church leaders were indignant, as they did not believe that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins. The felt justified in referring to what Jesus had said as blasphemy. But in response, Jesus offered proof that he had the authority to forgive sins.

“Stand up, pick up your mat, and go home,” and the paralyzed man did.

27 – 31
Jesus approached a man that the world would describe as corrupt. He was a tax collector named Matthew. But Jesus said to him, “Get up and follow me. You are my disciple.”

Later that night, the Pharisees found Jesus eating supper at the home of Matthew, and he was surrounded by tax collectors are terrible sinners. So they questioned his judgment and they asked, “Why do you keep such company?”

But he replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call those who think that they are righteous, but those who know that they are sinners and need to repent.”

This verse, I think, summarizes the purpose of Jesus’ coming into the world. He did not come to give the sinners justice, but to give them mercy. This principle expands into modern man. It is not those who think that they are righteous who come into Jesus. It is those who know that they are sinners.

It is only by admitting sin and corruption can one also admit their need for a Savior, and that is what Jesus was trying to express. The Pharisees did not think themselves to be sinners or corrupt, and therefore they did not see any need for a Savior.

We must learn to assess ourselves and reflect properly, for we are all sinners in God’s sight. Those who see that they are sick will go to the doctor.

33 – 39
The Pharisees, in their great jealousy toward Jesus, were very critical of him. They searched constantly for methods of attack against him. One day they approached and asked why his disciples never fast.

He replied that because they had him, they had no need of fasting. He added that when he is taken from them, they will begin to fast again.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

1-13
Full of the Holy Spirit, Jesus ventured into the wilderness that John had lived, and spent much time fasting. He did this as a sacrifice to God; a display of his dedication and this strengthened his faith.

Though while he was enduring this struggle, he became very hungry. He was tempted to eat, and the devil offered food to him. But though Jesus was tempted, he replied, “No, men do not live by bread alone.” In saying this, Jesus meant that men live by spiritual bread and by faith.

But Jesus was tempted by the devil. From this it follows that being tempted is not a sin. The flesh can be drawn to something, but so long as the heart declines, and favors God over the desires of the flesh, no sin has been committed.

In contrast, when a man feels lust for a woman, he wants her, he just cannot have her. But being tempted means to want something by the flesh, but to decline it by the heart. So feeling lust for another person is different from being tempted.

For instance, when a person quits smoking cigarettes, they will feel tempted to light one. But that temptation is not a sin. However, if they want to light one up, just do not have any money to buy a cigarette, this is a sin.

So the hunger and temptation that Jesus felt was not a sin. During the time that Jesus spent in the wilderness, the devil offered many temptations, and Jesus rejected them all, quoting scripture and portraying great wisdom and great strength.

14-30
When Jesus returned, he was rejected in his own hometown. He exclaimed that he had been anointed by God; that he meant to heal the sick, the blind, the starving. But they were indignant and jealous.

He explained that healers and great men of God are always rejected in their hometown, because those who have known them throughout their entire lives have little faith in them. So, he explained, many prophets have sent foreigners to their hometown to give them the blessings that they need.

In fury and jealousy, the crowd attempted to capture Jesus. But he escaped.

31-44
So he went to another town and began his ministry, and people were astonished with him. For he spoke with an unprecedented authority. He spoke in what seemed to be God’s place. In visible demonstration, he executed an array of miracle workings.

A man in the Temple was possessed by a demon, and he rose to his feet and began to scream at Jesus. Jesus calmly replied, “Quiet. Come out of that man,” and the evil spirit obeyed him. It fled in terror.

This story quickly began to spread through the villages of Galilee. In response to the story of a miracle worker, obviously, people came forth to see this man and watch him perform miracles. People lined up with their sick relatives, and just a touch from Jesus’ hand healed them.

Despite the protest of the townsfolk, Jesus left the next day, for he had many villages to visit and he had to preach the Good News.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

1
People neglect to notice how thorough these writers were. Yet this is a strong indication of how important these events were to them. They ensured that their accounts were accurate and detailed before recording them. Also to give others an idea of the setting of his story, Luke began his third chapter with a basic outline of the government during that period.

2-6
John, son of Zechariah, lived in the wilderness. He sacrificed his quality of life entirely to the end of serving God. This might bring the modern westerner great shame when they contrast this with their walk with God and their sacrifices. What we sacrifice and what we throw temper tantrums over are nothing compared to John’s sacrifice.

John emerged from the wilderness after receiving a message from God. He began preaching near the Jordan River, and he pronounced that the Messiah was nigh. He told the people that they ought to be baptized to show God that they have turned from their sins and receive forgiveness. (It was John that Isaiah spoke of in Isaiah 40.)

7-20
John began to the lecture the crowd after he baptized them, for he knew that they had evil hearts. The crowd would continue to live in sin and think that they were saved. So John warned that they must turn from their sins as well.

Note well that this does not suggest a salvation by works doctrine. Those who were baptized and asked God for forgiveness, and went on their way, trusting alone in God, received salvation instantly. John was trying to express that from the new birth that they experienced, comes new life, and the old life had passed away. If they cling to the old life, they are not children of God.

Though it was not only the crowd that John criticized. He publicly condemned Herod, the ruler of Galilee for adultery. Soon after, Herod had John imprisoned.

21-22
Prior to John’s arrest, Jesus came to the Jordan Riven and was baptized by him. This was not because Jesus had sinned, and needed repentance, but because he wanted to lead by example.

As he was praying, the heavens opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in the form of a dove. A voice from heaven spoke, “You are my beloved son, and you bring me great joy.”

23-38 lists Jesus’ ancestral lineage, which includes King David, Abraham, Noah, and Adam.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

1 – 8
Remarkably, (to build on my notes of Luke 1) God inspired even further failure and despair in the lives of his people to the end of fulfilling the greater good. In Micah 5:2 it was written that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, which is the ancestral home of King David.

In the final few months of Mary’s pregnancy, the Roman Emperor commanded that a census be taken of all citizens. So Joseph and pregnant Mary were forced to retreat into Bethlehem where they would have their son. When Jesus was born, he was wrapped in thin cloth and placed on a manger, as there was no housing available for them. So God certainly inspired troubled times. But Joseph and Mary remained strong in faith.

8-14
To mark the importance of this occurrence, and to inform the people, a gathering of angels appeared before shepards, and they said that the Messiah had been born. They said that he had been wrapped in cloth on a manger. The angels then began to worship God, and they returned from where they came.

I find this passage remarkable. The angels began to worship God. It is written that they said, “Glory to God in heaven, and peace to those whom he is pleased with.” Why did the angels worship God on earth? They went beyond the boundaries of their task (delivering the message) and worshiped.

I think this is reflective of what it is that God expects of us. Even if we are living in God’s will, praying, fasting, reading the Bible, and just being Christians, we need to remember to glorify God.

Now, some might be indignant at this remark. They might think that God is self-centered or insecure. To this I would only reply that God has no delusions about who he is. He knows that he is God, and therefore he knows that he is worthy of worship. As followers of God, this is a duty.

15-20
The shepards immediately went to the village and found Mary and Joseph and Jesus, just as the angels had illustrated. They told them the story of what had happened. For ever after, Mary kept that story close to her, as she was filled with love for God for the blessings that he had given her.

Amazed that they saw what the angels had described, the shepards returned to their flocks and worshiped and praised God for what he had done for them.

21-24
Eight days later, the baby was named Jesus at the Temple. This name, ‘Jesus’, was actually derived from the Hebrew name Yeshua. Yeshua is defined as meaning “to rescue” or “to deliver”. Further, it is a name that God offered to Moses (In English we refer to it was Jehovah) has the form of a compound of “Yeho-” and “shua”. Essentially, what this means is that the names “Jesus” and “Jehovah” are the same names.

Also this was not a name that Mary and Joseph chose. The Holy Spirit told Joseph that he will name his son Jesus.

25-35
During this time, there was a devout Jewish man named Simeon, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. Simeon made a radical claim. “I will not die before I see the Messiah,” he said. That day, the Holy Spirit led him to the Temple where he found Jesus.

Simeon took Jesus in his arms and he prayed for him. He claimed that Jesus was the light for all nations, the glory of all people, and Joseph and Mary stood in amazement at the things he was saying.

But in prophecy, he added, “This child has been sent as a sign from God. But many will oppose him. As a result, the deepest thoughts of many will be revealed, and a sword will piece your soul.”

I can scarcely conceive of a man approaching me, or anybody, even in a church, and saying things like this. While there were many spiritual experiences surrounding the birth of Jesus, they were certainly taken aback by such bizarre declarations.

Certainly, these things left the parents in thought. For the meaning of the statement, “the deepest thoughts of many will be revealed” would not be revealed until Jesus’ death. (I think it is referring to the jealousy, and the anger, and the hatred in the Pharisees that would be revealed.)

36-40
A prophet named Anna also began to speak of the baby Jesus as the Messiah. So with all of these prophets, with the shepards, the angel Gabriel, the immaculate concept, that Jesus was special was clear to Joseph and Mary. I cannot say that they necessarily knew in what way he was special, or what message he would bring, or that he was the promised Messiah (that would be a bit bold of a claim for parents to make of their new baby).

So they raised him as a member of the Jewish community, and he grew into a healthy lad.

41-52
When Jesus was twelve years of age, he and his parents attended the Passover celebration. After the celebration, they went home to Nazareth, but Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But when he did not arrive home that evening, Joseph and Mary became frantic.

They search among friends and relatives but alas, to no avail. Three days passed before they went to the Temple, where they found him, sitting among religious teachers, and asking them questions. Even they were amazed at his understanding for his age.

Jesus turned to his parents, and he could see how relieved they were. “Why did you need to search for me?” he asked. “You should have known that I would be in my Father’s house.”

Jesus spent the remainder of his youth studying the word of his Father, and he ascended to adulthood in wisdom, and in favor with God’s people. The stage was set for his ministry, and so it begun.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

1 – 4
It was actually Lee Strobel, a Christian reporter, apologist and author, who suggested that I restart regular Bible studies with Luke. He told me that Luke was a reporter of sorts, and for that reason, Lee always favored him.

I found this so interesting because it was something that I had not before noticed. Yet it is very obvious in Luke 1:1-4. Luke writes that he went through a rigorous process of what we would rightfully refer to as investigative journalism. So Luke was an apologist of the story of Jesus in a way that unique when compared against the other disciples.

5-25
Luke began the summary of his investigation in explaining the birth of John The Baptist, who was said to have fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah. (Malachi 4:5 – “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.”)

John’s parents were called Zechariah and Elizabeth. Both were very old in age, and Elizabeth, at least, had been pronounced sterile long ago. During his service one evening, an angel, who called himself Gabriel appeared before Zechariah and endowed him with a responsibility greater than he could bear.

The angel told him that the Lord had given his wife a son, and that he was to name him John; that he would be kept from alcohol, that many would rejoice in his life, and that he would be filled with the Holy Spirit even before birth. Zechariah protested, “No, I am too old to raise a son!” In response to his indignant objection, the angel punished Zechariah in putting some sort of spiritual mute on him. “You will not be able to speak until the child is born,” the angel assured him.

Though, Elizabeth was not indignant. “How kind is the Lord!” she cried.

26-56
Luke discovered that the angel, Gabriel actually visited a relative of Zechariah and Elizabeth. It was Mary, who was engaged to a peasant named Joseph, who was the descendant of King David. I find this immensely interesting. God reduced King David’s lineage to rubble. He ensured that Jesus would have a truly humble beginning.

There are some stories that do not even seem worth rendering a Bible study, because it seems that all you can draw from them is the story itself. When I skimmed through this, it appeared as though all I could really do is summarize the scripture. But upon closer analysis, there are lessons to be learned, and even answers to questions in the most the most humble verses.

God reduced King David’s family from royalty to peasantry. I cannot even imagine all of the failure that these men must have endured. They must have cursed the heavens, and cried out to God. They might have even blamed themselves for the rapid degeneration that occurred in their family, and fallen into the clutches of depression.

Some might have walked away from God. They might have thought that since they served him properly, they should therefore not be punished in such a manner that reduces the family name. But alas they were.

What might have seemed an inexplicable punishment was really watering the garden; preparing the way for the great Messiah to enter into the world in the way that God knew would be most effective.

Generations upon generations of worldly failure must have occurred, and it was all within the will of God. Now, one might apply this principle to their own life. Our applications might be rejected, our girlfriends might leave us, we may begin to go bald, our electricity may get shut off, our video games might get scratched and the batteries in our remote control might run out of energy.

Such worldly failures are not indicative that we have gone against God’s will, nor do they suggest that God has abandoned us. That inexplicable things happen suggests that God is infinite, and we are finite. God knows everything, and we know what is front of us. So when we fail, or when something does not go according to our plans, we need to remember that the Creator of the cosmos and the Source of knowledge and truth might have something up his sleeve that is not in our plans.

An unanswered prayer, or failure, or depression does not mean that God has abandoned us. In many instances, God can be taken as saying, (in the words of C.S. Lewis) “Hush, child, you don’t understand.”

So Gabriel approached this virgin girl; betrothed to a peasant, and he told her that she would conceive of a child. This child, the angel said, was a gift from God, not of the seed of a man. Though she was a virgin, God gave her a baby, and the baby would be the Son Of God, said Gabriel.

Mary then stayed with Elizabeth through the first trimester of her pregnancy and during that time, the two rejoiced in God in song. They knew that they were blessed and were very grateful.

57-80
It was customary in Jewish societies to name your young after their father, or perhaps somebody in their lineage. So when John was born, the crowd gathered around Elizabeth and asked, “Is this child to be named Zechariah, after his father?”

Remembering what the angel, Gabriel, had said, she answered, “No, his name is John!” In confusion, the crowd turned to the muted Zechariah and handed him a writing tablet.

“His name is John,” Zechariah wrote. Instantly, his voice returned to him, and he praised God for the son that was given to him, and for the faithful return of his voice.

Zechariah was then filled with the Holy Spirit and was given a prophecy. He exclaimed that his son would be the prophet of the Most High; that he would pave the way for the great Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

The greatest miracle in the Bible, or rather, in the history of the universe is laid in front of us within these texts. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Frankly I have never been presented with an explanation that made more sense.

Though, Genesis 1 has been examined, dissected and scrutinized more than any other texts, ever.

In the first creation day, God created light and separated it from the darkness; dubbing the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’. However I must indicate that at this point the sun did not exist. Therefore the earth could not rotate around it, which is our only measurement of a day. Since the instrument of measure is absent, it is virtually impossible for us to state confidently the days were 24 hours long.

During the second day, God separated the waters of heaven from the waters of the earth. While not necessarily important to us right now, but this seems to imply that there is water in Heaven. An interesting observation, I think.

I do call verses 11-13 the attention of the reader. God let the land produce vegetation; the seeds of every plant produces vegetation of the same kind, and then that day ended. This indicates that trees and plants not only grew, but multiplied naturally, and those offspring grew as well, all through the course of a single day. Since this is not reflective of our understanding of a day, I think, there are three alternatives.
1) God accelerated the growth of the vegetation.
2) God, in His nature, is outside of our understanding of time, and therefore performs outside of it.
3) The 24 hour cycle has not yet been placed, so a single day could easy be hundreds or thousands of years.

I am personally inclined toward option 2.

God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, definitively putting the 24 hour cycle in place. However, God, still working outside our understanding of time was not necessarily limited by it.

During the fifth and sixth day, God created fish, birds, and every animal. It does indicate that at this point, the species were defined. My understanding of this text rejects the ideology of evolution. However, there is a manner of understanding which evolution aligns. With the 24 hour cycle not hindering the earth until day four, there could potentially be hundreds of millions of years unaccounted for. This interpretation has been around for hundreds of years. But I am still inclined to reject it on a basis external to the Bible. It is my opinion that God created chicken and the chicken created the egg.

In verse 26, still during the fifth day, God said, “Let us create human beings, in our image.” There is something peculiar about this sentence. Throughout all of the other verses, God said, “let the water, let the earth, let the land,” but never referred to Himself.

I think this change of format was intentional. God wanted us to understand that we are made in His image.

Further, God did not say “Let them be made in my image,” but in ‘our’ image. However it is quite clear that God is the only present being, and He did not create anything like Himself. The only explanation at this point is that God has a plural amount of personalities, or faces, if you will. All of them encompassing one Entity.

To support this, verse 27 states “So God made human beings in His image.” God wanted us to understand the doctrine of the ‘trinity,’ but clearly, also wanted us to understand that He is one.

God also wanted human beings to understand that they had dominion of the earth, as He stated in verse 28. He dedicated every fruit bearing plant to their nourishment.

God blessed the seventh day, as He finished His work, then blessed it and declared it holy. However, it was not indicated that the sun had set on this day. This could be for one of two reasons.
1) There was no longer any reason to chronicle the life of the sun.
2) The sun was purposefully not mentioned to indicate that God is still resting; we are still in the seventh day.

I personally favor the second option.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

I would begin by defining what I mean by the trinity. I do not mean The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, each their own being, wholly apart from the other. That doctrine, I think, is not in accordance with any biblical teaching, nor do I endorse it at all. There is the polytheistic trinity, as I just described. But there is also the monotheistic trinity.

What I would investigate is the more appealing version of the two, that The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit encompass a single entity with three distinct minds. An effective illustration, I think, would be a three-headed dog. It is one dog, but with three distinct minds. Similarly, God is one God, with three distinct minds. That is the version of the trinity that this article will defend.

But where could such a theology arise from? I think there are passages within the Bible that oneness proponents are forced to create incredible explanations for, while the trinity is a single, very simple explanation. So I think the doctrine of the trinity has greater explanatory power and explanatory scope than the oneness doctrine does. Moreover, I think all objections to the trinity fail, as we will see in the following argument and objection.

God said in Genesis 1:26, “Let us create man in our own image.” I think that given the plural form of the proposal, it is clear that there is more than one being present. The solution to that the oneness proponents offer is that God was speaking to the angels. However, I find this solution overwhelmingly implausible.

With the grammatical form of the sentence, “Let us create,” it can only be taken in one manner. The person to whom God spoke was working alongside him in the creation process. The angels are not creating anything; they are creations themselves. There is absolutely no reason to think that the angels were assisting God in creation, except under the oneness presupposition. That is to say that the only reason that anybody would accept this was because they have already accepted the oneness doctrine. So while the oneness doctrine might not be explicitly inconsistent with this verse, it is less plausible and endorses a more complicated explanation than the concept of the trinity.

Secondly, the oneness proponents have actually adopted this verse and claim it a member of their arsenal. They suggest that being created in the image of God, if he had three personalities, we, also, would have three personalities. The problem with this is that the conclusion does not even follow logically from the premises. I would formulate this into a deductive argument so it is easier to analyze.

1 – Man is made in God’s image.
2 – If God has three personalities, man would have three personalities.
3 – Man does not have three personalities.
4 – Therefore, God does not have three personalities.

The problem with this argument is that it commits what is called the fallacy of begging the question. That is to say, the only reason that one would believe the (second) premise is because one has already presupposed the conclusion. This is a literal logical fallacy. I will offer an example to make what I am saying clear.

1 – Either God exists, or the moon is made of green cheese.
2 – The moon is not made of green cheese.
3 – Therefore, God exists.

In this instance, the only reason that somebody would believe the (first) premise is that they have already presupposed the conclusion. Similarly, the only reason that somebody would believe that from God’s tri-personality, follows mans’ tri-personality, is because they have presupposed the conclusion.

So long as it is even possible that there is another explanation of man being made in the image of God, it follows that this argument does not succeed. Since it is the case that there is another explanation of man being made in the image of God, it follows that, in fact, this argument does not succeed.

What is one other explanation? I have always taken being made in God’s image to mean that God is personal (possesses a personality) and we are personal. Somebody else has also told me that they think we are made in God’ s image in a more spiritual sense; that God is made of light, and we, also, are made of light.

What the oneness proponent does is say that because we do not have this attribute, God, therefore, does not have this attribute. But one could use the argument in the very same manner with any of God’s attributes. I could say, “if I were made in the image of God, why am I not omnipotent and omniscient?” But this is obviously absurd, and yet it is symmetrical to the oneness proponent argument.

So I think the argument from Genesis 1:26 is a bit one-sided, in favor of the trinity. But what other arguments are there?

Oneness proponents will often indicate that Jesus was God incarnate; all of the deity in human flesh, and this is inconsistent with the doctrine of the trinity. I would agree that Jesus was God incarnate, and that this is inconsistent with the doctrine of the polytheistic trinity. What I am proposing is that Jesus was God incarnate, and this is wholly consistent with the monotheistic trinity.

I would explain Jesus’ dual nature. He wielded both a human nature, and a spiritual nature. He was a human being, and was just as limited by this human nature as any other human being is. However, his soul was simply God. There just is no inconsistency with the truth of Jesus’ divinity and the truth of the monotheistic trinity.

I will briefly touch on two other arguments aimed against the trinity before reaching my conclusion. A oneness proponent suggested that three distinct personalities would have conflicting wills and therefore render God imperfect. But I would just say that this argument begs the question in favor of oneness doctrine. There is no reason to think that three distinct personalities entail, necessarily, three different wills. This is a hypothesis of desperation.

There is just no logical rule of inference that allows one to conclude that separate personalities requires separate wills. Moreover, I would say there is a fairly powerful knock-down argument in the other direction. If these three distinct minds encompass God, then they are necessarily perfect. If they are perfect, then it follows that they do not have conflicting wills. They all have one perfect will.

The next and final argument that I will deal with is the argument from God’s jealousy. His natural jealousy conflicts with the idea of people worshipping other deities. I agree with that. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are not separate deities. They are one God, with three distinct personalities. Upon the monotheistic trinity, the argument from God’s jealousy vanishes.

So I do not think there are really any powerful objections or blatant inconsistencies that arise as a consequence of the doctrine of the trinity that I have defended. In contrast, there are consistent verses throughout the Old Testament wherein God refers to himself in a plural form, and there are strong illustrations which become very difficult to justify upon a strict oneness doctrine.

In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions; CB McCullagh lists six steps which historians use for giving historical facts. They are explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, not being ad hoc/contrived, being in accord of accepted beliefs, and outstripping its’ rival theories.

This same principle can be applied to the battle of the monotheistic trinity and the oneness doctrine. I think, if adopting the oneness doctrine and applying it throughout the Old Testament, one would have to find several different explanations for the recurring appearance of the monotheistic trinity. So the oneness doctrine fails in explanatory scope and power. In contrast, there are no instances in which anything becomes difficult to justify upon the doctrine of the monotheistic trinity; the trinity by far outstrips the oneness doctrine, and is therefore much more plausible.