Post Election Rapture Warning!


Since we now know who the Antichrist shall be, I hope you don’t miss the rapture!

Done as a spoof. Please listen to the end 🙂


YouTube Series

For those of you unaware, I wanted to link to my YouTube page. I only started it this year, and have been trying to go through series to help get some of my thoughts and teachings out on a different medium. Because it is YouTube, I’ve attempted to keep things around 30 minutes or less, but some of the videos are almost an hour long. Here are some of my favorites, and you can find the rest in my page with the same title:

My Channel – For those who just want to browse everything I have, take a gander here at my home channel page.

What Is Bible? – This series examines the whole Bible in an outline form, looking at the major themes that repeat, and both systematically and ‘biblically’ following the themes from Genesis through Revelation. For those who are new to the faith, this is a great one to start with. The whole point was to speak in a way that is easy to understand, while not neglecting the depth and richness that the whole Scripture oozes with. This is a foundational view, taking up the perception of the apostles and prophets, in order to help to ground you deeply within your roots so that your branches might go outward and bear much fruit. Though it be deep, the concepts are simple.

Biblical Theology I – I’m still working through this one for another few weeks, if not a couple months. Biblical Theology is what I emphasize most, specifically a meticulous analysis of the texts of Scripture themselves. With this first course, we’ll be giving an overview of the Bible, setting up the discussion for when we go into the second course on the Torah, and so on through the whole Bible.

Apostolicity – Another series I’m still only beginning, this might be the most important study that I’ve done. It examines the distinctive of the apostle. What precisely makes an apostle an apostle? Nay, even more basically, what specifically is the apostolic character, which even they who are not apostles are to reflect, since the whole of the Body is called to be apostolic? There is more than a lingo in this series. I desire to get at the heart of apostolic, putting forth challenges and calls that go far beyond a verbiage and way of thinking.


Feel free to comment, subscribe, and check back later to see what else is coming out. It’s my hope that in a few years I’ll have significant portions of the Bible taught through, have a few systematic theology courses available, gone through much of the end times debates, and examine the heart and distinctive of apostolic and prophetic protocol. The purpose of all that I do is to equip the saints, building you up together to bear the burden of the LORD in these last days, especially as we’re turning toward the end, and to give you a vision of the eternal and heavenly dimension.

Attempt at Social Media

Upon request, I am working on building a Youtube that gets into some of the same teachings as what you’ll find here. Currently, I’m working through a general “Christian Theology 101” and “Biblical Theology 101”. For the future, I plan on going through various books of the Bible (as I do here), and eventually also going into a much deeper Biblical Theology course and Systematic Theology course. Outside of that, if/when I have something that I would like to vent/ramble about, I might be putting that up on Youtube rather than using your time reading 😉

Here is a link, for those interested:

Also, if you have suggestions of things that you would rather listen to than reading, I would love to know where the line is. For myself, I would personally rather listen to lectures than reading a theology text book. Yet, when it comes to commentary, I love reading instead of listening to messages or commentary.

Thank for the push to open up my horizons (you know who you are),

P.S. I have a lot of things that I’ve written that aren’t very interesting via blog/book medium, so they are probably coming out on Youtube instead.

Book Announcement

Hey guys!

I wanted to put this out as a feeler. I’ve got several ideas of writing and publishing some ebooks, but I’m unsure the interest. So, below is a list of some ideas that I have. If you would be interested in any of these, please let me know. Most likely I will at some point be writing all of these; the question is whether it will be in book form or not.

  1. Christian Theology 101
    I’ve had it on my heart for a while to write through systematic theology, but instead of writing the multi-volume set going through every detail (which I also plan to do (see below)), I was wondering how many would be interested in a more basic outline that explains how each doctrine applies to practical living?
  2. The Bible For Everyone
    I’m already planning on writing a semi-commentary on every book of the Bible. It’ll most likely be that I’d take what I’m writing out in this blog and make it into book form, where it will have a more organized layout and more specific intention and flow. Most likely, my Leviticus series would be the first installment. If you have a better title for the series than “The Bible For Everyone”, that would be great to let me know lol. I’m truly terrible at titles.
  3. Biblical Theology/The Eternal Covenant
    It’s been my hope for about a year and a half to trace the eternal covenant through Scripture to show God’s plan from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22. This was originally started as The Theocratic Kingdom, but later I realized a more detailed examination would be necessary. Thus, I began a work called Eschatology 101, which you can download in My Writings Page. Even that didn’t fit the bill. So, I’ve begun a YouTube video teaching that is hitting much closer to what I have hoped to do. Would it be beneficial to publish this in writing, and if I do, what should I call it?
  4. Christian Theology
    I have a love-hate relationship with systematic theology. On the one hand, I love trying to piece it all together, but on the other hand I mock the term. It seems like a systematic theology is as oxymoronic as a wooden iron. Thus, I’d title it “Christian Theology”, and the whole point is to go through the entirety of Christian theology (hence the title). It would be about 10-15 volumes, each about 200-250 pages. Most likely, I’ll be writing this anyway. (In fact, I already have the first volume mostly written.) How many would be interested in reading it?


Thanks for your insight and consideration!
Grace and peace in Christ,

In The Beauty of Holiness


Because I’m excited about my work, I thought I’d share with you guys a cover I did of Robin Mark’s song “In The Beauty of Holiness”. I know that this style isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, and I know that the first verse isn’t the best vocal in the world, but if you’re interested, feel free to give a listen. I’m also planning on covering Hillsong United’s “Oceans”. If you have any suggestions of songs to cover (or not cover lol), I welcome them.

Grace and peace in Christ.

A Definition of Darkness

Hebrew uses what are called chiastic structures as a form of poetry. A chiastic structure is when two statements are made, each one being slightly different that one another (or opposites), and thus bringing greater definition to one another. It might be sentences, or it could be words or phrases. For example, we read in Psalm 97 that “The heavens proclaim his righteousness, and all the peoples see his glory.” In this statement, we see the comparison of the heavens proclaiming and the people seeing. Therefore, the righteousness of God is also being compared with God’s glory. Psalm 1 ends with the verse, “For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.” Notice in this verse the comparison of the righteous and the wicked – opposites. The righteous are protected, for the Lord watches over their way. But the wicked perish.

In Genesis 1:2, we find a chiastic structure. “Darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.” The Spirit is being cross-compared with the darkness. Because the word for “deep” and the word for “waters” are being likened to one another, the word for darkness and the word for Spirit are being likened to one another. That is not to say they are synonymous. The author is saying something about God. His Spirit has some sort of a positive relation to darkness. This quick hint that is very subtle gives us a bit of a tip off. Why did God not completely purge heaven and earth of the darkness? We find various Scriptures that might help us to understand. In Exodus 20, Moses draw’s near to the “thick darkness” where God was. 2 Samuel 22:12 states that God made thick darkness, dark waters, and thick clouds His pavilion. The Lord speaks to Solomon in 1 Kings 8:12 and says that He will dwell in the thick darkness. Psalm 97:2 says that clouds and thick darkness surround God.

God seems to be found in the thick darkness. So why would God keep the darkness at the beginning? Is it possible that God created humanity pure, but even that purity and innocence cold not protect Adam from the glory and the light that God is? At the end of the Bible, we find that the people of the city of God are in the midst of the light of God, but there are a people outside of that city that are being ruled over. Is it possible that even with purity we cannot see God and live? Does it take something more substantial than purity? What I’m getting at is that maybe it was a mercy of God to allow the darkness to continue for a season. Adam needed to take of the fruit of the tree of life before he could see God and live. The life that the tree of life offered was the only thing that could cause Adam to see God face-to-face and live.

If this were true, then God would need to clothe Himself in darkness. He would need to cover Himself as mercy so He could walk with Adam in the Garden. There would come a day when God could dwell with mankind and not need to disguise himself or cover His majesty. The Scripture shows this to be heaven. If we desire to know why God would not just make us so that we could behold Him, then we lack understanding of His essential character. It is and always has been the pattern of God (even from Genesis 1) to bring forth from a lesser glory into the greater glory. This is why resurrection is so crucial to the Christian faith. It is not about the first state of something that we should pay attention to. We ought to pay attention to the details of how God chooses. He chooses the weak and foolish to confound the wise. He takes the thing in darkness and chaos and starts bringing light and order into it. This is the pattern set up from the beginning – who are we to challenge God?

Adam was made from the dust of the earth. He was made pure – undefiled. Corruption was brought into Him from deception. The very darkness that was intended for Adam’s good was thus used as a power to destroy the relationship between God and man. This point is pivotal. Adam was created undefiled, but that purity and innocence was not enough to see God. Adam needed something else – something greater than innocence and human righteousness – to see God as He is. He needed incorruptibility.

The reason I belabor this point is because Adam was not intended from the beginning to remain in that condition. God made Adam pure. That is true. But God intended that Adam would be more than pure. God intended Adam to experience the fullness of His self. We can know that because we can read the end of the Bible to see humanity and God coexisting together. We can see the ultimate intention that there would be no darkness. It isn’t necessary any longer. People can behold the Lord as He is.

So when we look at Adam, we should not see him as something that we should go back to being. Rather, we ought to view him as corruptible. He was corrupted. But there is a glory that God is bringing into humanity that would make them incorruptible. Where darkness at one point had opportunity to defile mankind and bring sin, there is coming the time where darkness has no power and sin is nonexistent. We have not attained to that glory, but just because we have not attained to it now does not mean it was not intended by God at the beginning, nor that we should not strive toward such an end.

Adam’s first state, even though it is pure, is not what we should behold as ultimate. It is the penultimate. God created the world in darkness, chaos, and shapelessness so that He could reform it into something that looks utterly different. Likewise, God created Adam first pure, then peaceable. Though Adam’s first nature was pure and undefiled, it was not the ultimate glory that God was going to bring to humanity. God was going to remake humanity to greater degrees of His likeness.

But if I understand anything from Scripture it is that God intends to work with humanity. It is very possible that God had intentions to work with His creation in driving back and expelling the darkness. The ultimate intention was for all of His creation to work together – led by humanity as co-rulers with God – to expel the creation of darkness. But still, there needed to be something to happen to that humanity. It is not that Adam was fallen. It is that no created thing can behold God and survive. The whole of creation would need to be made into something more glorious. And that doesn’t happen because God simply remakes it. That only comes about by a certain kind of cleansing.

The whole of Scripture (and especially eschatology) seems to speak of this climax where a final tribulation breaks forth and darkness is given full reign to rule. In this time of calamity, the saints are purged like never before. Even with the darkness having full sway, God somehow is able to use that darkness to bring about purity and righteousness in the creation that would cause all things to be new. It is after the 1000-year reign of Christ, the war of Gog and Magog, and the judgment seat that we find the new heaven and new earth. These are not things that seem to be somewhere else.

The new heaven and new earth seem to indicate more of a cleansing of this heaven and earth. Darkness has passed away. The sea (which represents chaos) has passed away. Because it has passed away, the whole of creation is not the same as it was before. That in its self is a total change. All of creation wars against the darkness in the final tribulation. The Book of Revelation seems to indicate this. The sun scorches people, the moon turns red, the stars collaborate together to strike the earth, there are earthquakes and hailstones the size of cars, at one point it seems like a super volcano erupts, and even the people are crying out to the rocks to protect them.

The end of the age is concluded by a massive onslaught of creation and the righteous – working hand-in-hand together – to expel the darkness and cleanse the world from evil. If this is how it ends, then it was God’s intention from the beginning. The violence and wickedness might or might not have been what God intended. That isn’t the point of discussion. However darkness would choose to react is outside the question. We cannot know such things.

What is the point is God’s apocalyptic expectation. We should be transformed by the renewing of our mind (which is to say, beholding more and more the revelation of God as He in fact is). That transformation drives us to then push back the darkness, and the creation itself is affected alongside of us. As we are given greater revelations of Christ, we are given greater revelations of God Himself. As we are given greater revelations of the Godhead, we are brought into a place where darkness no longer can remain and influence and deceive us. We are made new, and that newness cannot be corrupted. This is why Romans 7:17 says that when I sin, it is no longer I that sin, but sin that dwells in me. The “I” there is actually a statement of who I am in God – incorruptible. The sin that takes place is not me, but instead the darkness that has remained. But the darkness is being pushed out.

As darkness continues to be pushed out and away, the ramifications ripple out through the cosmos to affecting even the inanimate creation itself. We push back the darkness in a way that does not eradicate the darkness, but paradoxically sacrifices self over to it. We allow darkness to overtake us. We take up our cross and die to self, so that we might be raised by the glory of God. It is that glory that actually causes the darkness to be exterminated. It is in the final moment, when God sends down fire from heaven and casts Satan into the lake of fire, that darkness is finally and ultimately defeated. The process to get there is our aim and hope of explaining in this book.

Now, to conclude and define darkness more specifically, we see that God allowed the darkness because the darkness hides. It covers. God used the darkness to mask Himself, or to cloak Himself, so that He could fellowship with this creation. The darkness is known by the fact that it hides, and veiling is not necessarily wicked. To hide something is not necessarily wicked. It is when we hide or use darkness to cover as a means of manipulation or to keep ourselves from finding freedom. When we use the darkness to keep hidden from the light, then we are now performing that which is evil. The evil thing does not occur simply because we don’t share everything. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent. That in itself would dictate that there is a time for us to hide behind darkness. In defining darkness as the thing that hides or covers something, we can see why God would distinguish between light and dark, and why God would set up rulers over the darkness. God does want to have revelation. He does want to have fellowship with humanity. Therefore, He has established that there would be light and that the darkness cannot have full sway.

Separating Darkness from Light

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

At the very beginning we find darkness. We find chaos. We find void – or emptiness. We find shapelessness. These are all descriptions of emotions and feelings that every human being on the planet has felt at one time or another. We’ve all felt as though there is no form to life. We’ve all felt as though we’re empty and purposeless. We know what it is to feel in a state of chaos. In fact, I would submit that the most chaotic that we feel is not when we’re busiest, but when darkness is upon the face of the deep. In the moments when life slows down and seems surreal because of heartbreak or suffering – in that we find the most chaos.

We spend the rest of the chapter seeing how God created order and light. When the universe was empty, God filled it. When the world was formless, He shaped it. God brought order into the creation, and day after day He brings more order out of the chaos. But we don’t see God eliminating the darkness. Why is that?

Before I get into that point, I want to search a little deeper in what God does do. We find in Revelation 21-22 that there is no darkness. God was not unknowing when He made this world. If it is in God’s plan and intention now (or at least in Revelation 21) to have no darkness, then I must believe that it was God’s original plan. What we find that God does do in response to the darkness is that He separated the Light from the Darkness and set up rulers over the darkness. For God to separate the Light and Darkness should be doted over. Separation is more than a change in position. This kind of separation is distinction. There is something being communicated in that God is not willing to allow the darkness to continue without opposition. What is happening that the darkness is not allowed to remain alone, and even on day four God creates the sun and moon to “rule over” the darkness?

I wonder if the darkness has something intrinsic in it that would cause for despair. It causes chaos. It hides, and therefore there can be no revelation in the darkness alone. There must be light. There has to be a distinction between darkness and light, lest we think that God is light and in that light is darkness. I’m not even entirely sure how to fully express what I intuit. There is something in the darkness itself, as darkness, that is not simply the absence of light. Because of this, when expressing darkness we’re not simply expressing something physical. There is something beyond the physical. This is also true with the light. Though there is nothing intrinsic in the Hebrew words that would suggest that the light or darkness are beyond what we physically know and experience, there is an argument that can be made from the Hebrew statement, “Let there be light.”

It is almost as though God is saying, “Let me, who is the Light, be a manifest part of this creation.” It isn’t just that God made light, but that God birthed Himself as the Light into this cosmos. The ancient question of how God could have created light before he created the sun is answered with this. Light in and of itself is not what is being expressed here. There is or, and then there is me’or. Me’or is the light source. The light that is emitted from the sun is not the same light that we’re talking about with Genesis 1:3-5. In the psalms, there are multiple times where the “light” from “God’s face” is mentioned. I believe that this is the light being described in Genesis 1:3-5.

If the Light is not simply the thing that we know as shining from a light bulb, but is instead a spiritual reality as much as a physical reality, why then can’t we see the darkness in the same manner? Yet, we can’t allow the darkness to have too much credit, as though the darkness is Satan. God was able to look at the whole of the creation and say, “It is very good”. How can everything be very good if darkness is wickedness? Instead, I think that darkness is somehow a power. It is a reality that pulls upon us toward chaos, despair, and emptiness. It is not evil in and of itself, but rather is something closer to what we would call entropy. Entropy, however, doesn’t fully express it. This is why God said, “Let there be light”, and why the Light was separated from Darkness.

On day four, it is written that God “made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” Why this wording of rule? Do the sun and moon rule over the darkness? Genesis 1 seems to indicate yes. They were made for the intention of giving light to the world, and to hold back the darkness. This does not tell us why God allowed the darkness to stay, but it does show us that God had intention of withholding it.

I don’t know, and this is merely speculation, but it also seems to indicate in the Psalms that the angels of God were created to rule over God’s creation. Psalm 82 is a great example of this – the whole Psalm is dedicated to speaking to these “rulers” that are greater than men, but will be judged as men. Is it possible that God created the angels to guard over the darkness? While the sun and moon keep the darkness at bay in the physical realm, do the angels then keep the darkness from puncturing the Light in the spiritual realm? Did God possibly make some of the angels to co-rule with Him over the earth and to bring forth righteousness and justice in the land?

This of course brings us to the pivotal point of the plot. Where did Satan come from? Did God create Satan – and thus create evil? When we examine the Kingdom of God, we are describing something that is quite different than anything we see around us. We are surrounded by darkness, violence, and terror. How do you perceive something that is quite contrary to that which you see all around you?

The Church as Christ’s Body

Something interesting about the Godhead is that their unity is described in the same way as the unity in marriage. We read in the shema (Deuteronomy 6:4 to be exact) “the Lord you God is one”. That Hebrew word is echad. The word echad means one just like our English word means one. But you can describe one in a manner that is not one. For example, if I talk about one bundle of sticks, I am not talking about one stick, but multiple. Likewise, echad is used in multiple places where it is obviously not talking about one, but multiple. One of those places is in Genesis 2. We’re told that Adam and Eve would become ‘one’ flesh. Jesus then presses this while answering a trick question and says, “If they are no longer two, but are now one, then let no man separate what God has brought together”. Thus, Jesus teaches the solidity of the word to mean one, even though we aren’t saying that married couples literally join at the hip when they “come together” in marriage. What it means for them to be one flesh will be explored a little later. For now, we use this point to display that God is unified, and is one, even though we see three. Yet, there is a further point to argue. We are the Bride of Christ, and in that, we are now united to Christ the same way that the husband and wife become “one flesh”. Therefore, the Church is no longer simply humanity, but instead united to God.

As individuals, we are not divine. However, we as the Church are one with God. He has elevated the Church to being co-heirs with Him. In this sense, the Body of Christ as a whole is placed in a position of authority to rule and reign. The whole Body has been made more than human, and now alongside of God. There has been an exaltation of the corporate Bride of Christ to the alignment of deity – not to say that we are deity, but to say that we have been seated alongside of deity. While we are on this earth, we are not divine. Yet, we see a marriage of the Lamb to take place, and after that marriage, the Bride is no longer “under” Christ, but instead a partner with Christ. Part of the Bride making herself ready (reference Revelation 19:7) is the sanctifying work of the Spirit to bring us into complete conformity to the image of Christ. No longer is there a distinction between humanity and divinity, but now such a stature in God has been found that the two have become one. That moment is the return of Christ, for we read in 1 John 3:2, “But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.”

As of right now, we cannot make an authoritative case to say that the Body of Christ has been elevated to that platform. Yet, we do see this elevation as a future event. Therefore, if we are to discuss God’s triunity, then we must also make mention at the very least to the exaltation of the Bride to a deified stature. In this we find the nature of grace. God is revealed through Jesus to us, through the Holy Spirit in us. When flesh and Spirit have united to become one, and no longer two, we enter the realm of bodily resurrection. The question is twofold: is God free to reveal Himself to us, be our God without at the same time ceasing to be the sovereign Lord? And is God free in us, free to deal with us as His own, who belong to Him and obey Him, although we are but men, and sinful at that?

2 Corinthians 8:9 reads, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes became poor, that you through His poverty might be rich.” So God’s grace is defined in that He put aside His deity to become like us, so that after being humbled (even unto death), we, through His resurrection, might become like Him. Thus, God’s revelation is only limited to our willingness to also humble self in order to be exulted. There are no hindrances from God fully revealing Himself to us in the man Jesus Christ, only a hindrance to Him revealing Himself in us by the Spirit. But God has fully revealed Himself to us in the man Jesus. Grace is God’s freedom unhindered either by Himself or by us. God is not bound in any manner – not even in us – because when we see the end, we find that somehow God has indeed brought a beautiful and spotless Bride to glorious perfection. While the hindrance of God is made manifest in our unwillingness to conform to His image, God’s sovereignty is made known by the fact that there will be a pure and spotless Bride in spite of our free will and unwillingness.

“He who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.” Therefore, this is the definition of grace; that God would exult those who are humbled unto death. Humility is to be made (transformed into being) “like” God. Jesus humbled Himself unto death, and therefore was “exulted” above even the Father (if we can use such language). Because Jesus in His life submitted fully under the authority of the Father, the Father then promoted Jesus above all other names – including His own name. Likewise, when we obediently submit unto death, we too find that God will exalt us to having a name paralleled with Christ. We are not over, nor under, Christ, but instead will rule with Him side by side.

Is God able to reveal Himself to us and in us, or does our freewill hinder God’s ability? Apparently, our freewill does not limit God’s sovereignty in the slightest. Flesh and Spirit marry to become one, and this gives fuller expression to both flesh and spirit alone – first in the man Christ Jesus, and then also in we, His Body. God reveals Himself to us in Christ, and in Christ also expresses His via quo itur (footnote: way to which one must go). Jesus also lived in a manner, and taught in a manner, to display the via qua itur (footnote: way by which one must go). Yet, what we find in the Bride is that we follow Christ’s example, and thus we display the via qua itur through the Spirit by calling others to follow Him, the via quo itur. Jesus alone is the Way, and we do not take possession of that title. By our demonstration of the via qua itur through the eternal Spirit, namely, offering ourselves unblemished to God – to be ministers of the New Covenant with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit – we thus also become one with the via quo itur – the man is the message.

Thus, we conclude that the Bride of Jesus Christ will be one with Him in eternity, and this is how we define grace. Grace is known, not simply as unmerited favor, but instead in the sanctifying work of the Godhead in humanity. Grace is the expression of exaltation after humiliation. We are humbled unto death – being made one with Christ in His death – and thus are also the beneficiaries of His resurrection. Grace is known by the way the Father has exalted Christ Jesus, our first fruit from the dead, so that we have the blessed hope of partaking in that same life from the dead. Everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure (1 John 3:3).

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

In assessing the deity of the Holy Spirit, we need to understand that this is a cumulative case. The Holy Spirit is ascribed with the attributes of God, equated with God, and does work that only God does. Some of the attributes that are given to the Spirit are listed as holiness, eternality, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. In regards to holiness, we cannot claim that the Spirit is at work in us to make us holy if the Spirit itself is not holy like God is holy. In this, we know that the Spirit cannot be secondarily holy – or made holy by God, like the consecrated instruments used in the Tabernacle – because no secondarily holy entity can truly make someone else holy. The indwelling of the Spirit purifies us (footnote reference to Romans 15:16). That kind of sanctification cannot come from a secondary holiness, but instead by the holiness of God alone.

We find in Romans 5:5 that God has poured out His love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Once again, how do you have God pouring out His love through a secondary source? The problem of a consecrated source is that it is only a reflection. Think of the image you see in a mirror. That image might have the appearance of you, but it is not you. That image in the mirror cannot possibly express to someone the inner fabric of your heart. How can the Holy Spirit possibly express the depths of God’s love without being God? How can we read in Romans 14:17 that the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace in the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is only the “essence” of God, but is not the fullness of God? This writing might impart to you knowledge and depth of spiritual blessing, but this writing does not impart to you the same depth and significance that you would experience by living with me daily.

This goes into our second point that the Spirit is equated with God numerous times. Some of these are called triadic formulas. For example, in discussion of the spiritual gifts, Paul puts the Spirit, the Lord, and God in grammatically parallel constructions (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). We find Paul close 1 Corinthians similarly, by referencing all three parts of the Godhead (1 Corinthians 13:14). Peter opens his first epistle by referencing all three aspects of the trinity (1 Peter 1:2). While some triadic formulas put unequal elements in parallel construction (Ephesians 4:5), one of the strongest actually puts immense equality on the three persons of the trinity: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). This last quote does not say in the names, but rather in the όνομα – singular noun number.

There are also word interchanges. What I mean by this is explained by the example of Acts 5:3. Peter tells Ananias that he did not lie to men, but instead to the Holy Spirit. We find in the very next verse that Peter says that he lied to God. Here we see that ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable, and thus the Holy Spirit is God. While some have tried to grammatically state that the Holy Spirit here is only God’s representative, this falls incredibly short of the power of the context. The grammar might allow one to interject that maybe the Holy Spirit is only a representative of God, but that in no way overcomes the context that God killed the man because he lied to God. If the man was simply killed for lying to God’s representatives, then why would Peter feel the need to say that he did not lie to men? Were they not God’s representatives? No, the point is that the Holy Spirit is God, and not a mere representative.

Another interchange is in the book of 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 3:16, we’re told that we are God’s temple. Now, this is interesting, because we all have the verse in chapter 6 memorized that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. The two expressions mean the same thing. Thus, we conclude that to be the temple of the Holy Spirit is to be the temple of God. This is almost a double point to make, because temples are for deity, and not simply for a representative of deity. Not only do we find that the Holy Spirit is being called God, but the fact that the Holy Spirit is being called God’s temple is an extra push toward the conclusion that the Spirit is indeed God.

Lastly, we also find in the book of Hebrews that the Holy Spirit is being equated with God. In Hebrews 3:7-11, we find that the Holy Spirit says that the Israelites “tested and tried me”, and that “I was angry… they shall never enter my rest.” Now, this cannot be simply tossed aside as the Holy Spirit speaking on God’s behalf. It is the Holy Spirit that uses these personal pronouns “me” and “I”. The rebellion of Israel in the wilderness with Moses was apparently rebellion against the Holy Spirit. Yet, what is important to note is that their rebellion was obviously against God – thus equating the Holy Spirit as God.

We come to our final point: the Holy Spirit does the work that only God does. For example, we find in Genesis 1:2 that the Holy Spirit was a part of the creation. Job 33:4 attributes the creation of man to the Spirit of God. We find another “proof text” that the Spirit creates in Psalm 104:30, “When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth”. It is the divine authority, and God’s authority and power alone to be able to create. We don’t attribute any of the creation week to the creation. God alone is the source of power and direction. Alongside of the creation, we can also add that the Holy Spirit expelled demons (Matthew 12:28).

Secondly, the Holy Spirit begot the Son of God. Once again, this is an argument of divine authority and power. Who else, or what else, would have the authority or power to birth the Son of God? Yet, in Matthew 1:20 we read, “But after he had considered this, an angels of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.’” Paralleled to that we have Luke 1:35, “The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’” Now, the full divinity of the Son implies the full divinity of the Begetter. We also read in John 1:12 that believers are “begotten” of God, but later in John we read about the birth of the Spirit (John 3:5).

Thirdly, the Holy Spirit is the way that God lives within His children. We read in Ephesians 2:22, “And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit.” “Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us” (1 John 3:24). The Holy Spirit lives in us (Romans 8:11, 1 Corinthians 3:16), and because the Spirit lives within us, we can say that God lives in us. That can only be said because the Holy Spirit is God.

Earlier I mentioned how the Spirit makes the person holy, or sanctifies the believer. John 3:5 tells us that the Holy Spirit is what enables men to enter the Kingdom of God. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 tells us that we are saved “through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit”. Once again, these are things that can only be attributed to God. The deity of the Holy Spirit is thus confirmed. Those who would desire to speak of “oneness” or “unity” that neglects the deity of Jesus or the deity of the Holy Spirit speak something contrary to Scripture. This isn’t the opinion of a man, but the overwhelming testimony of the Bible. From start to finish we find that the ideology of triunity is completely in keeping with the revelation given. While the Old Testament might not firmly establish the doctrine of the trinity, it does not out right refute it either.