Author: believersarmedanddangerous

I’m sure most of us know and/or are related to Mormons, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS).  But what do we know about what they believe?  Most Mormons seem very moral, very godly, very nice and sincere people.  They even seem to be Christian, but are they?  Let’s look as a few of the things they teach to see if they match up with what the Bible teaches.

Before I begin, I’d like to point out the Mormons rely on four “Scriptures” for their doctrine: the Book of Mormon (BOM), Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), Pearl of Great Price (PGP), and the Holy Bible – “so far as it is translated correctly.”  I will be quoting from these LDS authorities as well as from Mormon Doctrine (MD) written by Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (1996 edition). Now let’s look at the god of Mormonism. To begin with, the Father has a body:

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”  (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 – LDS)

Christians know the Bible teaches God is spirit.  Jesus Himself tells us this:

John 4:24 (ESV)  “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

As quoted above, Mormons teach the trinity is actually three separate gods, not the one God in three Persons Christians worship:

 “There are three Gods – the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – who, though separate in personality, are united as one in purpose, in plan, and in all the attributes of perfection.” (Mormon Doctrine, Bookcraft, 1966 p. 317)

So, Mormons are polytheists, they believe in more than one god.  There are millions of gods in Mormon theology, and the men in Mormonism each have a chance to become a god some day.  According to Doctrine and Covenants, all Mormon men in good standing (baptized, sealed in marriage in the temple, temple endowment, experienced the laying on of hands, didn’t kill anyone unjustly, among other things) will become gods:

“Then shalt they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shalt they be above all, because all things are subject to them.  Then shalt they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject to them.” (D&C 132:20)

The Mormon god the Father, Elohim, is a man like we are.  He is exalted, however, just as every Mormon male in good standing may become a god of his own world.

“Man and God are of the same race, and it is within the power of righteous man to become like his Father, that is to become a holy Man, a Man of Holiness.”  (MD p. 465, 466)

Is this what the Bible teaches, that there are many gods, that man may become a god if he behaves himself and lives right?

Isa. 43:10 (ESV)  “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.”

There aren’t any gods but Yahweh, and there won’t be any more to come. Mormonism is false.

Why is this important?

Mormons seem harmless, and they are if you know what they truly believe.  Knowing what they believe helps us both protect ourselves from the influence of false teachings and sharing the truth with those who are deceived.

We need to know who we are talking with when we talk with people who present themselves as Christian.  Not everyone who claims to be Christian is Christian.

I was thinking it had been a while since I’d written about the Problem of Evil (POE), so maybe it was time for a review.  It turns out after doing a search through the more than 300 posts written since BAAD started in June of 2017, I’ve never dedicated a single post to this important subject.

Though it may not be commonly known by this name, we hear the POE stated all the time in general conversation: “How can a loving God allow school children to be shot?”  “Why doesn’t God do something about all the evil in the world?”  These are sort of informal and “unsteady” ways of posing the problem.  Here is the formal and clearer, more difficult to answer, form:

• An all-powerful God could end evil.
• An all-knowing God would know how to end evil.
• An all-good God would want to end evil.
• Evil exists.
• Therefore, there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God.

That’s the short and sweet of the problem, and it has been asked since before Christ.  In fact Epicurus (3^rd century b.c.) taught a form of the argument as you see in the photo above and a more primitive form was posed by Plato before him.

The POE is not a problem for most modern world religions as they have different ways of explaining or denying the presence of evil. The gods they believe in are not wholly good, all knowing, or all powerful.

For the Christian the POE was a definite problem, though, and had been for nearly 2,000 years.  Then in 1974 philosopher Dr. Alvin Plantinga published his book God, Freedom, and Evil.  In this book, Plantinga argued as follows:

• God Loves us
• God wants our love in return
• In order for us to love Him freely, we must be free to choose not to love as well.
• God has given us this freedom, this freewill, to love or not to love.
• Therefore evil, ungodly acts, in the world are done by the free choice of the doer.

Freewill is as universal a truth as the laws of gravity.  We can choose to love God or not.  We can choose to act in a godly or an ungodly manner.  For the Christian, this free choice is controlled by his will and the Spirit of God that lives within him.

As a result, when we see children abused, it is not God that causes it. Nor can it be logically argued because He did not stop it, He does not exist.  It is the freewill God has given to all including the abuser that allows this to happen.

For God to remove this freewill would mean an inability for us to love God freely.  We would then be robots forced to love Him.  That would not be true love.  God has chosen this plan in order to gain disciples who truly love Him knowing many people would still choose not to.

Plantinga’s argument has all but settled the POE.  The problem has all but vanished from college philosophy courses because it has been soundly refuted.

The POE has other forms, though, such as how God can allow animals to suffer or destructive earthquakes to happen.  C. S. Lewis said it would be incorrect to say “My dog feels pain.”  Lewis believed it would be more accurate to say “Pain is taking place in my dog.”  He believed pain was not evil unless there was a person who experienced it, and animals are not persons according to Lewis.  This is an interesting idea, but I’m not so sure he was correct.

My dog, Larry, dreams, makes decisions, knows things, remembers things, loves, is happy or sad, etc.  These are traits of consciousness, of personhood.  I don’t believe Larry possesses considered moral standards or is self-aware. He doesn’t objectively think about things he has thought about (think about thinking). But there is a rudimentary level of consciousness in him.  I think he feels pain, so that pain, that evil, needs another explanation for why it happens.  I think it better falls within the reasons for natural evil: earthquakes and tidal waves.  We live in a fallen world (Genesis 3:14-19).  The world is no longer perfect due to Adam’s fall.  As a result it does not always act in a predictable or perfect way.

Why is this important?

Christians face the challenge of evil from critics fairly often.  We need to be ready with an answer when we are asked why God allows evil.

1 Peter 3:15  but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and  reverence.

We read about Nicodemus only in the gospel of John.  Yet he is a very important man in the story of the earthly ministry of Jesus.  Nicodemus is an interesting name.  It means “Victory over the People.” We believe Nicodemus was a major player in first century Jerusalem.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews (John 3:1).  He was also a member of the Sanhedrin.  At a rigged trial of Jesus, Nicodemus stood up against the rulers to stand on the law (John 7:45-52).  Jesus was being tried without being present.  Nicodemus would have none of it and attempted to stop the trial on a point of law.  He was apparently successful since Jesus was not arrested at that time, but that didn’t keep them from continuing to plot against Jesus.

The entire next chapter, chapter eight of John, is a long argument between the Jewish leaders and Jesus about just who He was.

The final time we see Nicodemus is at the burial of Jesus’ body in John 19:38-42 when he brings seventy-five pounds (KJV and NKJV say “one hundred pounds) of spices to include with the wrappings of Jesus’ body.  Seventy-five pounds of spices was unusual for a common burial.  That much was usually only appropriate for a royal burial.  This implies Nicodemus either considered Jesus in the highest regard or perhaps was a dedicated follower of the Christ.

Many scholars believe Nicodemus may well have been a very close relative to Flavius Josephus, the famous first century Roman/Jewish historian.

Nicodemus is mentioned just three times in John’s Gospel.  In chapter three, we see a discussion between he and Jesus about the new birth.  Reading these verses from a 21st Century perspective gives us a poor idea of what is going on here.  We need to remember Nicodemus is a consummate Jew.  He is still under the Law and, as a Jew, believes he is assured a place in God’s kingdom.  Then Jesus tells him that’s not enough. He needs to be “born-again.”

Do you remember your confusion the first time you heard the term “born-again?”  It was worse for Nicodemus.  Here he was, a teacher of the Law, a Pharisee, an authority on the Jewish faith, and Jesus tells him he needs to be reborn.  The fact he couldn’t understand what Jesus meant by that brings up the foolish question “can I climb back into my mother’s womb?”  We might have asked the same thing if this were our first time hearing this.

In John 3:3, Nicodemus had just finished recognizing Jesus as a “teacher come from God” when Jesus throws “You must be born again” at him.  Nothing Nicodemus said seemed to lead up to that though we do see just a few verses earlier that Jesus knew what was in man (John 2:25).  So, Jesus probably read why Nicodemus was there and jumped right to it.

The rest of the passage is Jesus trying to give examples of what He meant by “born-again.”  He goes directly to the very question Nicodemus asked and used the same example of fleshly birth, “born of water.” 

Even 2,000 years ago people knew of the amniotic fluid that comes with the baby.  The child seems to be born of water.  So, first be must be born physically as Nicodemus knew, but then we must be reborn spiritually as Jesus explained: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:6)  So, the context says we are all born of flesh, but to enter the kingdom of God, we must also be born of spirit.

Some think Jesus is talking about Christian baptism here when He speaks of being born of water, but we must remember there was no such thing as Christian baptism when this conversation took place, only the baptism of John.  This was still Old Testament times.  The New Testament does not begin until the ultimate sacrifice is given for us: the crucifixion of Jesus.

Why is this important?

Understanding the main characters of the Gospel helps us to examine ourselves, our faults and our strengths.  Also, having a better understanding of what it means to be born-again makes our Christian witness stronger and more accurate.

Nicodemus needed to know what was required to enter the kingdom of heaven.  In verse 16, Jesus makes it abundantly clear for him in a single sentence:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

I have taught Bible study methods for years.  One such method is called the ABC Method.  It’s called that because with any passage we study, we should be able to Find: A Title, Basic verse, and the Challenge or commitment in that passage.  John 3:16 is the basic verse, the verse which best explains the entire Bible plan, the verse we often turn to to explain God’s offer.  It was first explained to Nicodemus.

John 2:18-22 (ESV)  So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

When asked “who raised Jesus from the dead,” most Christians would say “God raised Him,” and they would be right.  But, Scripture gives us quite a bit of additional information on just Who raised Jesus.  The Bible says the Father raised Jesus (Gal. 1:1).  The passage quoted above, says Jesus raised Himself, and the Bible says the Holy Spirit raised Jesus (Rom. 8:11).  Also, Peter, in his great sermon before the Temple says God raised Him from the dead (Acts 2:32).  So the triune God was active in all three Persons to raise Jesus from the dead.

I would like to look more closely at the passage at hand (John 2:18-22).  There are some serious implications here we need to understand.  First is how can a dead man raise his own body.  We need to remember Jesus has two natures, the human nature and His divine nature.  It was His human nature that died on Calvary 2,000 years ago, but His divine nature didn’t die, of course.  Had His divine nature died along with His body, God would have ceased to exist as a triune God.  He would then have to change His nature, but our God does not change (Mal. 3:6).  Because of this, Jesus must have continued to exist as God and was perfectly able to raise His dead body from the tomb.  He tells us this in the passage above.

Jesus raised His body.  He wasn’t raised as a spirit as some cults teach.  It is clear here this is what He is talking about, “the temple of His body.”  He makes a direct claim supporting this in Luke 24:36-39

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection.

So, why was He raised?  We know why Jesus died for us, it was to pay the price for our sin.  Why then did He need to rise from the dead?  Wasn’t dying enough?

One reason is that Jesus performed miracles often to prove His message.  When the men lowered the paralytic through the roof so Jesus could heal him (Mark 2:1-13), He said to the man “Your sins are forgiven.”  The scribes questioned how He could say such a thing since only God can forgive sins.  To prove what He said was true, He told the paralytic “Rise up and walk,” and the man rose, picked up his bed, and left.  The miracle healing was done to prove what Jesus said was true.

In the same way, Jesus’ resurrection proves His claim to have power over life and death.  He said accepting Him would bring us eternal life (John 3:16, 5:24).  His resurrection is proof of that claim.

Why is this important?

A better understanding of Who God is and how He works helps build our faith and emboldens us to share that faith with others.

This Easter season, we have a better than usual opportunity to share the truth of Christ’s resurrection with others.  We can use the strength of God’s Spirit to help us explain how a dead man can rise to life.

1 Cor. 15:14-17 (ESV)  And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.  We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

1 Thess 5:21 (ESV)  but test everything; hold fast what is good.

It occurred to me I often say we should test the things we’re told, but I’ve never given some ways to test them.

We can never really know something is true unless we test it, look for justification of why it’s true.  When we’re talking about something in Scripture, it’s pretty easy.  We look at the passage cited and read the surrounding context.  The context will usually reveal what the part in question really means

Bible Questions: If you’ve heard something strange and checking the context doesn’t resolve the issue, look into a few Christian commentaries.  I say a few because there are a few odd commentaries floating around as well.  We need a generally agreed upon interpretation if possible, but Bible study is a personal activity.  It’s God speaking to us. If you’re just reading for yourself, prayer is the way to go first.

Authorities: This is a good one.  Sometimes someone with a PhD will come up with a really foolish idea and speak as though it is true.  Because he or she has a PhD, we tend to believe what they say. Check other sources, though.  Just because a person has an advanced degree doesn’t mean we should believe what they say.  Some of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard came from my college professors.

Another issue with authorities is someone with expertise in one area will claim to be an expert in another.  So, just because someone has a PhD, don’t consider them an expert unless that degree is in the field their writing about.

Someone with a degree in Cosmology is not a good source of information on evolution, for instance.  Usually, if you look at an author’s degrees listed on a book jacket, it’s a dead giveaway if they don’t also tell you what those degrees are in.

Evidence: Evidence of something being true is a little complicated.  There are two major theories of truth.  The first is the Correspondence Theory.  This theory says for something to be true, it has to correspond to reality.  You’re reading this on a computer I assume, so a claim that computers do exist should be acceptable since you’re using one to read this.  You’re holding a computer, and that’s pretty strong evidence computers exist.

There is a second theory, and this one is where we run into trouble.  It’s called the Coherence Theory of truth.  It states that something is true if it coheres to something we already believe to be true.  This relates mostly to something we hear.  If we watch the news each evening and the weatherman says it will rain tomorrow, and it does, and he can do that consistently, then maybe we should accept as true what the weatherman says about the weather.  But sometimes the weatherman is wrong.  To believe him every time he predicts the weather would be foolish.

Let’s pick someone more reliable than the weatherman such as our pastor.  A good pastor will tell us to go home and check out what he’s said to make sure it corresponds with the Bible.  What he is doing is saying not to trust it just because what he has said coheres with what you already believe.  He wants you to move it up a notch and check it against a much more reliable source, the Bible.

The Bible: Okay, if we use the Bible to support what we believe, then we should check that out as well.  The Bible is actually the only religious book that challenges us to examine the truth of what it says.  How do we do that?  Isn’t it just hearsay from authors from thousands of years ago?  In fact it isn’t.

The Two major ways to check if the Bible is true is by both internal evidence and external evidence.  These two lines of reasoning should give us plenty of evidence for the Bible as a reliable source.

Why is this important?

Besides the fact the Bible tells us to test things, knowing the truth is a hallmark of the Christian.    

Prov. 12:17 (ESV)  Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit.

The truth is consistent.  Falsehood is inconsistent.  So, we need to pay close attention to what we hear.  If following a false teacher, the inconsistency in their teachings should become obvious.  Evolution, for instance, has inconsistencies, so the inconsistencies are a good way to know it is false.  Evolution can’t explain consciousness, for instance.  Could abstract math arise from amino acids banging into each other over millions of years?  No.  So, evolution is logically inconsistent and, therefore, incorrect.

We just need to test all things more often rather than accept ideas at face value.

John 2:23-24 (ESV)  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people ²⁵ and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

This month, I’ve been studying John chapter 2 and came across this passage at the end of the chapter.  The idea of Jesus entrusting Himself to the people who saw the signs (miracles) he did in Jerusalem – The miracles are not mentioned in the passage, so don’t bother looking for them.  Remember John said he hadn’t written down all the signs Jesus did because there wasn’t enough books in the world to handle them:

John 21:25 (ESV)  Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

So, John skips a lot of what Jesus did for sake of space.  In fact, John only records nine miracles in his entire Gospel.

So, back to “entrust.”  This is the same word as used in Luke 16:10-11; “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. ¹¹ If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?

John chapter 2 speaks of both the wedding at Cana and the cleansing of the temple.  Our text involves the temple cleansing.  These guys Jesus ran off were in the process of ripping off the true worshipers by selling animals at highly inflated prices. They were some of the same guys who will seek to kill Jesus after the second time He cleanses the Temple at the end of His ministry (Matt. 21:12-13).

So, Jesus was not going to reveal Himself fully to those fascinated by His miracles or the men who would later seek to kill Him later because “He knew what was in Man.” The fact Jesus’ first Temple cleansing didn’t teach them anything is evidence of these men’s lack of character.

Certainly this does not imply we should not entrust the gospel to the lost, but it does imply God is faithful and entrusts us, His children, with His Spirit and the truth of the Gospel.  We as faithful servants, friends, brothers and sisters, fellow workers, are those with whom He does entrust Himself.

Like the passage in Luke 16 above, those who are unfaithful in holding the Word of Truth would be unfaithful in sharing it.  As a result, we have heresies existent within and without the church.

For non-believers, reading God’s Word is like reading someone else’s mail.  It makes no sense.  For Jesus to fully reveal Himself to the corrupt people taking advantage of the Temple for gain would have been misunderstood by them.  We see this later on when they crucify Him at the end of His earthly ministry.

Why is this important?

When we share the truth of the gospel, many often can’t accept or even understand it.  Some will reject it outright as too fantastic that God Himself, the Creator of the entire universe, would become a man like them and die to pay the price for all their sins.

The Gospel message while simple is truly fantastic in that way.  I think there is a deep understanding in all men and women that we are unworthy of something this grand.  We believe we could never be entrusted with God’s favor, with God’s Truth.

God’s grace is too extraordinary for man to fully understand.  Imagine if Jesus had presented Himself as God.  Could these unfaithful men have accepted or even understood it?  I think not.

Ours is a great trust.  We should feel privileged above the men at the temple.  God has placed the very key to everlasting life into our hands through His Spirit.  Let us never take it lightly.  Let us never keep it to ourselves.  Let us never withhold it from those who are seeking a path to escape the darkness.

John 2:1-10  (ESV)  On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. ² Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. ³ When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” ⁴ And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” ⁵ His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

⁶ Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. ⁷ Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. ⁸ And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. ⁹ When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom ¹⁰ and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”

Notice Jesus as well as His disciples were invited to this wedding.  There was also a “master of the feast” (vs. 9). This indicates this was very probably a large wedding.  Masters of the feast were a common occurrence in Jerusalem but not in a village like Cana.  So, it was a big wedding, maybe as many as a couple of hundred people.

Jewish wedding feasts of the time ran about a week.  During that week, the bridegroom would appear as a surprise to all.  The wedding could begin a day or two, or even longer, before the bridegroom appeared.  The bridegroom is present here, so they did not run out of wine early in the wedding feast.

He and his family were responsible for the cost of the wedding and all that took place.  If the wine were to run out, the error would follow the bridegroom all his life as the guy who couldn’t provide for his wedding guests bringing doubt whether he could provide for a wife and family.  So, the bridegroom in this passage was in trouble.  A guest could even sue the bridegroom’s family for running out of wine.  It was as serious as that.

Mary comes to Jesus to point out the problem and He calls her “Woman.  What does this have to do with me?”  To American ears, this sounds rude or even insulting.  In Greek, it isn’t.  “Woman” is a term of respect like Sir or Ma’am.  Jesus addressed Mary as “Woman” when on the cross:

John 19:26 (ESV) When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”

He used the term of Mary Magdalene in the garden:

John 20:15 (ESV)  Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

In this context, it is an indication Jesus is no longer under the authority of His mother and is now an independent man making His own decisions.  He is once again about His father’s business.  His time for the announcing His ministry as Messiah had not yet come, so He performed the miracle in private, away from the party.  Only the disciples present and the wedding servants were aware of it.

He asked the servants to fill the stone jars rather than His disciples, and they filled them to the brim with water as instructed.  Then the wine was presented to the master of the feast.  Why were the jars filled to the brim and why did He have the servants do this?  The servants were neutral parties so no mistake could be made the disciples might have put something into the water if they had filled the jars.  The jars were filled to the brim so if something were added, the jar would overflow. 

Why was the wine taken to the master of the feast? The master was a professional wine expert. He verified the wine was excellent unaware of the miracle that produced it. Though the miracle was a private one, it left no room for misinterpretation. 

It was beyond doubt a miracle and was done to bolster the disciples’ faith.  Remember this was the first miracle they had seen.  Their belief Jesus was the Messiah was now justified.

Taking the smaller estimate of 20 gallons each in the six stone jars, we arrive at 120 gallons of wine.  At a 4 ounce serving and 200 guests, we have about 20 glasses of wine per attendee.

Drunkenness was frowned upon in the Old Testament (Isa 5:11).  Drinking was not.  A few glasses a day was acceptable.  Surely, there would be some of this excellent wine left over.  But this is just how God does things.  He gives us more than we could ever ask for.

Why is this important?

The Bible records true miracles.  These were not tricks but the altering of natural law for God’s purposes.  In this case, the miracle was more for the disciples to understand Who Jesus was than anything.  Most of Jesus’ miracles were fairly public: public healing, feeding of the 5,000, raising the dead, and such.  Those were done as confirmation of Jesus’ message.  Turning water into wine was done as confirmation of Jesus’ position and nature.

Look here for more information about Christians and alcohol

There are a lot of individuals mentioned in the Bible.  A particular group is pretty important, the apostles of Jesus.  One of those is Philip, someone of whom we know very little.  What we do know of him is instructive, however.

The first three gospels mention Philip only once each and then only while listing the twelve.  John, however, mentions him in five different situations.  The first is when Jesus finds Philip:

John 1:43 (ESV) The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.”

John’s first three chapters all are added information to the other three gospels.  The event recorded by this verse takes place after Jesus has been baptized and after His temptation.  He has recuperated and is about to begin His ministry.  This is not the choosing of the disciples as is recorded in Matthew chapter 10.  It is a sort of first contact with a few prospective disciples.

Philip is considered a bit “slow” by several commentators, but I disagree.  After Jesus called him, Philip found Nathanael and told him they had found Him “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”  So, Philip called on Moses and the prophets for authority to identify Jesus as the Messiah, not something a “slow” person was likely to do.  I think Philip was just something of a misfit, a duck that wasn’t swimming in the pond with the other ducks.

We look at the apostles like Paul and Peter and wish we were all like them, bold risk-takers.  Philip was like so many of us, though.  When, in John chapter 6, Jesus asks Philip where they might buy enough food to feed the 5000 (plus women and children), Philip didn’t know.  He said $20,000 in today’s money wouldn’t be enough.  The text says Jesus said this to test Philip and Jesus already knew what He would do. Philip blew it.  It was Andrew who brought a boy with some loaves and fish, and Jesus fed the people with that.  

 Later in the passage we see the disciples picked up 12 baskets of leftovers, one basket for each disciple including Philip to learn of Jesus’ power. 

In chapter 12 of John, Philip is spotlighted once again.  This time some Greeks came to Philip asking to see Jesus.  Philip went to Andrew first, and they went to see Jesus together.  Andrew was always bringing people to Jesus, so Philip probably felt safe.  We do this too.  We, like Philip, feel safer in numbers when trying to introduce someone to Jesus.  Philip was playing it safe.

Lastly, in chapter 14 of John, the disciples are with Jesus at the Last Supper.  Jesus will be crucified the next day.  The majority of the lessons are over, and Peter has identified Jesus as the “Christ, The Son of the living God.”  Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father, and Jesus says “Have I been with you so long, Philip?  If you have seen me you have seen the Father.”  Philip still didn’t have the full picture.

There is a fourth list of the apostles besides those listed in the first three gospels.  It appears in Acts 1:13 after Jesus had ascended to heaven.  Philip’s name is still on the list.

Back at the Last Supper for a moment, this time in Matthew chapter 26, Jesus told the disciples one of them would betray Him.  It wasn’t just Philip, the misfit disciple, who said “Is it I?”  It was every single disciple.  It wasn’t just Philip that was the misfit.  They all knew they were.

Why is this important?

Back in John 1:43, it says Jesus “found” Philip.  Philip is the only disciple where this word “found” is used.  The language there indicates Jesus was looking for Philip when He found him.  Though He knew who and what Philip was, Jesus sought him out to serve.  Then Jesus says “Follow me.”  The word for “follow” means to make a commitment, not to just trail behind.  Jesus truly wanted Philip as part of the Kingdom plan.

Church history says Philip left Jerusalem and ministered in Syria and Ethiopia.  About 54 a.d., Philip had converted the wife of the Roman governor in Hieropolis, Syria, and was crucified upside down for it beside his companion, Nathanael.  Philip’s preaching from that inverted cross was so powerful the bystanders were converted freed Nathanael.  When they approached Philip, he refused and said it was an honor to die like this for His Lord.

Be encouraged if you’re a Philip.  We are all Philips.  It is the Philips of the church who are so often the heroes of the faith.

John 1:43-48 (ESV) The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” ⁴⁴ Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”⁶ Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”

I have come to love this passage of Scripture all the way from verse 35 to the end of the chapter, but this portion especially.  In verse 43, we see Philip didn’t come to Jesus; Jesus came to Philip.  The idea that Jesus “found” Philip is awesome.  For some of us, Jesus pursues us and asks us to “Follow Me.”

And, what was Philip’s quick response?  He went and found Nathanael.  Notice what Philip said to Nathanael: “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote,”

I think Nathanael was a learned man, a proud man, proud to be an Israelite.  There are only three individuals identified as Israelites in all of Scripture.  The first is in Lev. Chapter 24 where an Israelite woman is identified as having a son with an Egyptian.  The son is not named but is just called the son of the Israelite woman to imply the boy was not fully Israeli.

The second individual identified as an Israelite is Paul in Romans chapter one after he has explained God’s gift of salvation is for all people, he asks the question “Has God rejected His people?”  Then Paul says “no,” that he is an Israelite, a son of Benjamin citing His Israelite heritage.

So, when Jesus calls Nathaniel an Israelite He also is referring to Nathaniel’s pure and proud Israelite heritage. 

My wife is pure Norwegian, a proud people.  In 1944, the Norwegian underground blew up a Nazi shipment of heavy water needed to make the first atomic bomb.  This gave the Allies more time to overthrow Hitler before he could develop the bomb.  Were it not for the Norwegian underground, World War II would have ended quite differently.

Just like the Norwegians, the Israelis have much to be proud of, and Jesus pointed that out in His addressing of Nathanael.

I think Nathanael was also a rabbi or Old Testament scholar.  Jesus mentioned he was sitting “under the fig tree,” a common saying of the time for rabbis deep in their studies.  Philip approached Nathanael citing evidence from “Moses in the Law and also all the prophets.”  This struck home with Nathanael, but he retorted he’d heard nothing of someone important coming from Nazareth.  Nathanael was right.  Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament.  This was something only scholars might know.  To be fair, Nazareth was a small town, a military outpost with the sorts of illicit businesses supporting the wants of soldiers. That might have been what Nathanael meant.

Why is this important?

I think the way Philip handles his witness to Nathanael is very instructive for us.  Since Nathanael might have been a scholar, Philip approached him with scholarship.  When Nathanael answered with a scholar’s question about Nazareth being unimportant, Philip who was not a scholar, simply said, “Come and see.”

I think too often I have gotten into a discussion with someone who is antagonistic or disbelieving when I might say something as simple as what Philip did, “Come and see.”

Many believe Nathanael is really just another name for Bartholomew who is mentioned in the other three gospels and the book of Acts.  “Bar” is usually saved to mean “son of” as in Jesus-bar-Joseph.  So, the argument goes, Bartholomew might really be a family name “The son of tolomai.”

It seems possible also Philip and Nathanael/Bartholomew might be brothers.  They are paired up often in Scripture, and church tradition/history states Philip and Nathanael were missionaries together and crucified upside down together in Hieropolis, Greece.  Church tradition also says Philip’s preaching convicted his executioners and onlookers such they released Nathanael from his cross though Philip elected to die a martyr there. 

Church history is not science and so has a few stories of how Nathanael died.  He was crucified and/or beheaded in Armenia, he was skinned alive in Armenia, or he was crucified upside down in India.  No one knows. What we do know is they were witnesses for our Lord.

Jesus will bring us to the point of salvation whether He seeks and finds us as He did with Philip, sends others to bring us as with Nathanael, or has others point the way as John the Baptist did.  Ultimately, though, we are only planters and waterers.  It is God Who brings forth the increase. (1 Cor. 3:7)

Theologian Wayne Grudem defines omniscience this way:  “the attribute of God whereby he fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act.”  Knowing everything, then, is a clear attribute of God.

Mark 13:32 (ESV) “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father.”

From Mark 13:32, it appears Jesus didn’t know when He would return.  Then He didn’t know everything.   Jesus is God and omniscience is an attribute of God.  Shouldn’t He be omniscient?

Some theologians think that in emptying Himself and becoming obedient to the Father, Jesus turned over control of His attributes to the Father.  In this view, Jesus kept all His godly attributes but was not in full control of them, the Father was.

 (Phil 2:7-9)  but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

The fact Jesus said He could do nothing on His own, the Father worked through Him seems to support this view.

John 5:19 (ESV)  So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.”

Some theologians believe the answer to this is that Jesus had a sort of split omniscience, a moral and an amoral.  He knew all things involving moral standards but not all things regarding other issues.  I don’t see that indicated in Scripture nor do I agree with it.

I believe, in light of Phil. 2:7-8, Jesus emptied Himself of His glory in order to take on human form.  I think we see this in Genesis.  In chapters 18 and 19 we see three men who came to visit Abraham and Sarah to tell them they were to have a son.  Remember Sarah laughed at the idea because she was beyond child bearing years?  One of these men was identified as God Himself (Gen. 18:10). 

My point here is that God had taken human form.  Now look at what happens in the next chapter when this Person of the Godhead (I believe it was Jesus) destroys Sodom and Gomorrah:

Gen. 19:24 (ESV)  Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

The Person identified as God standing on the earth calls down sulfur and fire from another Person identified as God of heaven.  My opinion is in order take on human form, God needed to set aside His attributes – to empty Himself of His glory, so it was necessary to call on another Person of the Godhead to bring down punishment on the cities.  Man cannot see God’s glory and live (Ex. 33:18-23).  Perhaps humanity as we now know it and God’s glory cannot coexist.

In the same way, for God the Son to take on human form, He needed to empty Himself (Ex. 33:18-23).

My view, then, is that Jesus set aside His glory placing it in the hands of the father until He asked for it to be restored (John 17:5).  Once Jesus’ body was glorified the use of His attributes returned to Him.

I’ve heard it described as similar to the human eye.  When we close our eyes, the eye’s nature hasn’t changed, it has just been draped in flesh.  It doesn’t really function as an eye, but the nature is still there.  The Son draped in flesh still retained His godly nature but the use of that nature was withheld.

So, is Jesus omniscient now that He has His glory?  Yes.

Rev. 19:12-13 (ESV)  His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. ¹³ He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

Why is this important?

1 Cor. 15:40 tells us of different bodies: There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.  We will be changed as Jesus was changed after His resurrection and ascension to the Father.

There were times when Jesus knew things beforehand: John 1:47-48, for instance, when Jesus knew who Nathanael was and where he had some from.  I think this is answered by Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1) and a perfect man, the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45).  Being full of the Holy Spirit, Jesus had access to the gifts such as the gift of knowledge and prophecy.

Please understand this is my opinion on Christ’s omniscience while He walked the earth.  I hold it because I believe it to be the best biblical answer to how Jesus could be God and Man and not know when he would return.  Others hold their views just as strongly and for what they believe to be the same reasons.  It is for you to decide through prayer and study.