What Does Scripture Teach On Male Headship and Equality of Men and Women?

Introduction:

    Last week (June 7-13, 2026), The Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Orlando, Florida. In such meetings there are proposals voted upon and resolutions made that express Southern Baptist opinions and concerns on current issues. One such matter, which has been a major discussion for years in SBC life had to do with whether men alone ought to be Senior Pastors, ordained pastoral staff, and Elders. , Bishops, as well as Pastoral staff; or whether such offices ought to include women as well. 

    The resolution put forward by Al Mohler Jr. and passed by a 75% affirmative vote on June 13, 2026. Readers may access the entire resolution here On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer - SBC.net. What I want to is outline why I whole heartily agreed with this amendment. 

    To the point: what does the Scripture teach on male headship and equality of men and women? Is male headship in head-on collision with maintaining equal dignity of men and women? To answer such questions, we need to keep before us four lenses when discussing a Christian worldview of gender roles in marriage and the local church: Biological lens, Theological lens, Ecclesiological lens, and an Eschatological lens. 

Biological lens to define "maleness" and "femaleness".

    Genesis 1:26 states: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." We could define gender as follows: a God-given property (i.e. characteristic which makes a thing what it is) in the biological design, nature, and purpose of humanity. Gender makes possible relationships, marriage, reproduction, creativity, and illustration of God’s purposes revealed in Jesus. The Biblical understanding of gender is expressed as God’s gift in the BFM 2000: “The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation.” 

    Masculinity and femininity points to the creative expression of God Himself (see Genesis 1:26-28). For humans, the terms "assigned gender" and "gender identity" are not two independent categories as secularists contend. Rather, they are mutually dependent. Gender’s basis is biological. Even the secular American Psychological Association (APA) recognizes this point by its definition of gender: “gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex.” 

    Gender expression refers to how culture views what is appropriate to each gender. The SBC ERLC (Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission) notes: 

"So, on the one hand, our gender is given (Gen. 1). And, on the other hand, the particular expression it takes varies culturally and relationally." 1

    It is this first lens that Christians use to affirm that men and women are equal in God's sight as it pertains to bearing His image as individuals and as a collective species (Genesis 5:1; 9:5-6).2 

Theological lensing reveals the complementary roles of men and women while maintaining their equality of dignity.

    Biology and the image of God showed the equal dignity men and women have before God. To say "theological lensing" means to draw together the relevant Biblical passages and doctrinal development into a coherent systematic expression of doctrines that flesh out details on a given subject (like what we're currently discussing). 

    When we apply the theological lensing of Scripture, we begin to not only see this continued equality of men and women on the one hand, but also their distinct roles on the other hand. The doctrine of creation revealed that Adam was to transmit God's revelation of Himself and commands on how to live in the Garden to His wife (Genesis 2:16-17). This headship of Adam was a covenant headship, meaning he bore the responsibility to love, cherish, and lead his wife in godliness while clinging to her in preference over his parents (Genesis 2:24-25; 1 Timothy 2:14-15). 

    The spiritual headship of the man over his wife was not to be a tyrannical headship, but a protective, cherishing, and nurturing one where he and her would exercise dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 19:4-6). 

    From the doctrine of creation we come next to the doctrine of redemption. God's relationship with His people, whether Old Testament Israel or the New Testament church, was to be illustrated by the husband and wife relationship. God the Father redeemed the Israelite people to be as a wife unto Him (Ezekiel 16; Hosea 2). He redeemed them (Exodus 12-15), provided for them (Deuteronomy 8), loved them (Deuteronomy 7:7-8), and pledged His covenant love to them (Genesis 12:1-7; 2 Samuel 7:13-16; Jeremiah 31:31-34). 

    In the New Testament, we find that the Father had a bride in mind, the church, as a love gift to the Son from all eternity (John 17:6; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Revelation 9:7-10). The headship of Christ over His church is asserted in the metaphor of marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33). Christ as the head of the church is in His humanity a co-heir with His church (Romans 8:14-17; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 21:2, 22-27; 22:17). Thus, we see the headship of the husband and the equality of husbands and wives expressed by this theological lensing.

Ecclesiological lensing of men and women in the local church.

    Ecclesiology is that area of Bible doctrine that studies the nature, offices, and life of the local church and the church the world-over. Without those first two lenses (biological and theological lensing), the whole matter of male headship in the pastoral office would appear as it does to uninformed people: arbitrary, bigoted, and random.3 The equal dignity of each gender and the complementary roles each have is necessary to maintain the overall Biblical understanding of leadership and life in the local church. 

    When Christ came to redeem men and women, He recovered the equality of dignity and complementarity of the genders as Divinely envisioned. His incarnation as a man affirmed the Divine desire to redeem men who with Adam were responsible for the entry of sin into the world and on the human species (Romans 5:12-21). 

    Christ as the Second Adam in earthly ministry elevated  women to their original equality of dignity with men, treating them with respect, honor, love, and giving to them areas of service (Luke 10:38-42; Mark 10:9). Outside of the pastoral and elder offices in the local church, women can serve as missionaries and in any non-ordained office in the church. Although women are not allowed to exercise authority of Biblical teaching over men (1 Timothy 2:15), they nonetheless can exercise their gifts and teach God's Word to women who need uplifted and discipled (Titus 2:3-4).

    The foregoing Scriptural teaching stands behind why in the local church, the leadership of Pastors, Elders, and ordained staff is to be men (1 Timothy 2:12; 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). This is not bigotry, but rather God's original plan to convey the Lordship of Christ over His church and God's authority over creation.4  This same pattern holds what is true of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-33).  

    The dignity of women in the church and congregation is also asserted by the Bible's teaching on women in the local church. In the resolution I mentioned earlier "On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer", one of its "whereas" statements summarizes well this point with prooftexts:

"WHEREAS, Scripture teaches that women are equally created in the image of God, gifted by the Holy Spirit for meaningful service, and valuable in the work of the church (Genesis 1:27; Acts 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 11:5, 12; Titus 2:3-5)."

Eschatological lensing points to where redeemed men and women will spend eternity with the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Eschatology is the Biblical, doctrinal study of "last things", which includes life after death, Heaven and Hell, Christ's return to earth, His Kingdom, final judgment, and the New Heavens and New Earth. Popularly called "Bible Prophecy", eschatology reminds us that the Gospel not only deals with the past and sin, but it also holds the promise of what God will accomplish in bringing about His redemption of the cosmos and the completion of the salvation of all who have trusted in Christ by faith (1 Corinthians 15:23-28; 1 Thessalonians 5; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 4-20). 

    Passages such as Revelation 19:7-10 reveal Christ's return to earth with Christians as His "Bride", for whom He had already rewarded for their faithfulness to Him in this life (see also Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15; 2 Corinthians 5:10). The "Bride of Christ" theme is as much a redemptive truth pictured by marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33) as it is an eschatological reality in the ages to come (Revelation 21:1-2).5 

Closing thoughts:

    In today's post I aimed to give four lenses through which we can grasp the Biblical teaching on male headship and equality of men and women. These two ideas are not contradictory but complementary truths. Biologically, God had from creation made men and women equal in dignity. Theologically, we saw through the doctrines of creation, redemption, and Christ's incarnation that the genders are equal image bearers and distinctly assigned roles that fulfill God's original design for creation and salvation. The ecclesiological lens or "church-wise" view of things reminded us that male-only pastoral leadership and that of Elders model the foundational truths of our biological and theological understandings of humanity from the Bible. Then eschatologically, we're reminded of how such teaching telegraphs God's ultimate plan to bring about the New Heavens and New Earth for His redeemed people. This, I hope, has clearly conveyed the Biblical teaching on male headship and equality of men and women. 

Endnotes:

1. God's image refers to the spiritual, rational, and relational properties that uniquely makes a human being human, created and endowed by their Maker, who imprinted such uniqueness into the biology and psychology of each human being.

2. To blur the distinctions between biological gender and the expressions of it leads to the confusing psychological condition known as “gender dysphoria”. Since gender is a biological property, a person cannot choose their gender, since it is inherent to who they are as a person. Put another way, it is invalid to say that gender is somehow obtained by psychologically identifying with a different gender, since it blurs “what kind of human being one is” versus “what they would feel better in being”.  

2. I have noticed over the decades that those who argue for an "egalitarian" model of church leadership, which asserts that the pastoral office is serviceable by women as well as men, typically do not devote attention to those first two lenses.

4. Binary patterns such as these safeguard God's people against the tendency of secular and paganized systems to erase such patterns. This pattern of male spiritual leadership in the church returns us to the creational pattern of male spiritual leadership originally in the Garden and in marriage.

5. The male headship of Christian marriage and male pastoral leadership in the local church telegraph this potent eschatological / prophetic reality. When Christ came, He introduced the forthcoming Kingdom of God in preview form (Mark 1:15). Each local church is to function as an embassy of Christ's coming kingdom, composed of born-again ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:18-21). The equal dignity of men and women who are co-sharers of the vision of God through Christ in the New Heavens and New Earth is also to be conveyed in marriage and the local church. 

Post #38 1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed - "who spoke by the prophets" - Jesus' Teaching And Resurrection Affirms A High View Of Scripture

Introduction:

    In the last couple of posts in our series on "1700 years of the Nicene Creed, we have looked at the phrase in the Nicene Creed: "who spoke by the prophets". We are currently looking at the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as He relates to the Divine inspiration of the Scripture. I've noted three important points are needed where approaching this clause "who spoke by the prophets".  

1. First, what was going through the minds of those who attended the Council of Constantinople when they agreed upon this part of the Creed? I answered this in part #36 of our series here: Growing Christian Resources: Post #36 1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed - "who spoke by the prophets" - What View Of Scripture Was Present At The Council Of Constantinople?

2. The second point about the confession of the Spirit's role in the Divine revelation of the Scripture was this: did the Council of Constantinople, and thus their update to the original Creed of Nicaea in 325 reflect the prevailing view of the early church's stance on the Scripture? Did their position of the nature of Scripture match that of Jesus and the Apostles? I dealt with these questions in #37 of our overall series here Growing Christian Resources: Post #37 1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed - "who spoke by the prophets" - Is Biblical Inerrancy A Modern Invention Of Conservatives?

3. Today's post will deal with the third consideration which sets the tone for the prior two considerations: what did Jesus and the Apostles teach about the Divine inspiration of Scripture and thus, what ought to be the Church's view today?  

Defining what is meant by Biblical inerrancy and its relationship to Divine inspiration.

   When we speak of Biblical inerrancy, we mean that the writings of the Old and New Testaments contained no errors as originally written by the prophets and apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To state the doctrine positively: 

The original documents of the Old and New Testaments are totally true in every subject, even to their very wording, as revealed by God through the words written by the Biblical authors. 

    Since we no longer have the original documents (also called "the autographs), we have to rely upon the thousands of copies and ancients translations to reconstruct the wording of the original text. 

    The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", the premier definitive statement on the subject defines inerrancy as follows in its "Summary Statement", number four:

"Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives."

    We've noted the high view of Scripture the church fathers had during the time of the Council of Constantinople that did the update to the Nicene Creed in 381 A.D. We also discovered the the wider context of the first three centuries of church history also held to the Scriptures as inspired an inerrant. Was this the view of Jesus and the Apostles? 

Let's note the following.

1. Jesus taught that the scripture is inspired, inerrant, and revealed by God.

    In Jesus' day, the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible, the Tanak, as it is sometimes referred) was the only Bible known. There were no New Testament books, since Jesus had not yet died, raised and ascended.1 

    There were of course copies of the Hebrew text, however, very few Jewish people knew the Hebrew. Despite various translations of the Old Testament in circulation by Jesus' day, His view of the Divine authority carried by such translations did not alter. Several key phrases that Jesus used to describe the scriptures attest to His views, which ought to inform us as to how to view our translations of the Old and by extension, the New Testament. 

a. "It is written" 

    Jesus would sometimes use the phrase "it is written" to assert the Divine authority of the Old Testament. 2 At least 16 times in the Old Testament do we find this phrase used to refer to the words of other Old Testament books as being God's word.

b. "Scripture"

    Jesus used another closely associated term, "scripture", to describe the Old Testament.3 In these instances, Jesus describes the scriptures as fulfilled, having Divine authority, without error or "inerrant" (Matthew 22:29) and incapable of failure or "infallible" (John 10:35).

c. "It is fulfilled"

    The third term used by Jesus in His teaching on scripture is His often used phrased it is fulfilled. 4  Jesus' teaching about scripture's ability to accurately predict the future spoke to it's prophetic function. He saw himself as the basis of fulfillment. Fulfilled prophecy is the most unique mark of  divine revelation - with the Old and New Testament books uniquely possessing such a property among any other religious text.

d. "Truly, Truly, I say to you"

    The fourth set of phrases that Jesus used to teach about the Bible was where he would either say "but I say" or "truly truly". These particular statements refer to Jesus's own self understanding of his Divine Authority as delivering the very words of God. He would often contrast himself with the Jewish traditions as found in the teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes. Jesus used the phrase "truly truly" 25x in John's Gospel, for example. 5 
    We then find Jesus using the phrase "I say" with reference to his own Divine authority in Matthew and Luke's Gospel.6 As Jesus proclaimed His own self understanding, He claimed the ability to forgive sins (Luke 7:47; 12:8) which is something the Old Testament taught that Yahweh alone could do (see Isaiah 43:10,11; Jonah 2:9-10). Finally, we this phrase "but I say" used in John 1:51 and in Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44 / Luke 6:27 / John 5:34.

e. "Word of God" 

    The final major term that Jesus used to describe the scriptures was the phrase "the Word of God". Whenever we use the phrase "word of God" to describe either the writings of the Old and New Testament or Jesus Himself, we are describing something or someone who speaks in God's place. Thus, Jesus used this phrase "word of God" in all four Gospels.7 

2. Jesus' resurrection validated everything He taught and accomplished (including His views of scripture).

    Having looked at Jesus's teaching on the character scripture,  we finally turn our attention to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. In making the historical case for Jesus resurrection, scholars refer to "facts" or details which they conclude are fundamental to verifying any historical event and it's meaning. There are four main facts that virtually all New Testament historians (whether believing or unbelieving practitioner) have arrived at as a consensus regarding Jesus's life and death. 

a. Jesus died by crucifixion. 

    In almost a dozen sources outside the New Testament as well as the multiple attestation of his death in the four gospels and throughout the New Testament Epistles as well as Acts of the Apostles, hardly no one disputes that Jesus death by crucifixion occurred.8 

b. The second fact that is agreed upon by the majority of New Testament historians is the discovery of Jesus's empty tomb three days following his crucifixion. 

    Whenever one reads all four gospel accounts in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20, all four counts record that Jesus is empty tomb was discovered by his closest women followers. The testimony of women in the ancient world was viewed as inadmissible in a court of law. Yet, the fact that women are recorded as first-hand eyewitnesses attest to the genuineness of the accounts (referred to by historians as the "criterion of embarrassment). 

c. The third fact surrounding the events of Jesus resurrection are his post-resurrection appearances. 

    Forty days following his resurrection from the dead, Jesus appeared on a dozen occasions to various groups, from believers to unbelievers, to individuals to all twelve of the Apostles and to even 500 Witnesses at one time.9 

d. The fourth fact concerns the sudden change from skepticism to faith among those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus's post-resurrection. 

    We see for example the disciples who were hiding in fear at the end of all four gospels suddenly becoming robust evangelists of his resurrection in Acts of the Apostles. Jesus's own half-brother per Jesus' humanity, James, was converted to the belief that Jesus had raised from the dead (see 1 Corinthians 15). The persecutor of the early church, Saul of Tarsus, had a profound encounter with the Risen Christ and Acts chapter 9, and our accounts such in Acts 22, and 26.

    The best explanation of these facts derives not from naturalistic theories (such as someone stole the body, or that Jesus's appearances were just hallucinations, or that the disciples somehow mistook the location of the tomb, or that it was a mass hoax). 

    Instead, research has borne out in the last 200 years that the explanation: "God raised Jesus from the dead", has shown itself to be the most consistent explanation of all the facts just mentioned. And what does this have to do with the teaching of biblical inerrancy? 

    As we've already seen, Jesus taught that the scriptures are inerrantly the Word of God. He also taught that God, being perfect and thus incapable of lying, was the scripture's main Author (along with the human authors). Inerrancy follows from God's character (see Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). 10

    When we consider this foundation in addition to statements the Old Testament New Testaments makes about themselves make with reference to their inerrancy and historically verified fulfilled prophecy, we find  a two-fold foundation for stating the inerrancy of scripture: namely, what the scripture says about itself as well as Jesus's on teaching and resurrection. These twin pillars provide for us proper justification for firming the inerrancy of scripture. 

Conclusion:

    By seeing what Jesus taught about the scriptures, God, as well as his resurrection from the dead, we can confidently say that the doctrine of inerrancy was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, which in turn continued to be "the view" of the early church. This high view of Scripture fittingly sets the tone for right understanding what is meant by the Nicene Creed's statement: "who spoke by the prophets" regarding the Holy Spirit's act of Divinely inspiring the Scriptures. 

Endnotes:

1. The Old Testament books were revealed by God through the prophets in Hebrew (98% of the Old Testament text) and some Aramaic (2% of the Old Testament text). By the first century, almost every Jewish person in Israel spoke Aramaic, which meant that the copies of the scriptures read in the synagogues were Aramaic (called "Targums", meaning, "to interpret"). Other Jews throughout the rest of the Greco-Roman world had access to Greek copies of the Old Testament associated with the Septuagint Greek Old Testament (so-named due to the tradition that the project was translated by seventy Jewish scribes, symbolized by the Roman numeral LXX). The Septuagint (LXX) was translated over a period of a century, beginning in 275 b.c. It is likely that Jesus and the Apostles had familiarity with either the Aramaic Targums or Greek Septuagint. 

2. Matthew 4:4, 6, 7, 10; 11:10; 21:13;  26:24, 31 /  Mark 1:2, 7:6, 9:12, 13; 11:17; 14:21, 27 / Luke 4:4, 8, 10, 17, 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19.46; 20.17, 22, 22:37; 24.44, 46 / John 6:31,45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14, 16; 15:25; 19:19, 20, 22.

3. Matthew 21:42, 22:29, 26:54, 56/ Mark 12:24, 14:49 / Luke 24:27, 32, 45, John 5:39. 

4. Matthew 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:1; 13:14,35; 21:4; 26:54, 56 / Mark 1:15; 14:49 / Luke 4:21; 21:22, 24 / John 12:38; 13:18, 25; 17:12). In John 17:12, Jesus uses the phrase: "scripture is fulfilled". In John 18:9 and 19:28, reference is made to scripture "being fulfilled".

5. In John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23 and 21:18. 

6. Matthew 5:18, 22, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 6:2, 5, 16, 25, 29, 8.10, 11; 10:15, 23, 29; 11:23, 24; 12:43; 13:30, 37: 14:9, 14, 18, 25, 30 / Luke 4:24 and Luke 5:24. In Luke 6:25, Jesus would use the phrase "but I say" to contrast himself to the Jewish traditions, as seen in Luke 7.9, 14, 26, 28, 47.10:12; 11:8, 9, 51; 12:5, 22, 27, 37, 44. 

7. Such as Matthew 4:4; 15:6 / Mark 7:13 / Luke 8:11, 21; 11:28 / John 3:34; 8:47 / John 10:35.  In John 10:35, Jesus uses the particular phrase: "the word of God cannot be broken" to refer to scripture's infallibility (that is, it's incapability of ever being wrong or ever failing to be right).

8. Passages such as Deuteronomy 21:22 and Galatians 3:10-13 signify that Christ's death on the cross was viewed as a curse. On almost 10 occasions throughout his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted that he would be handed over to both the Jews and the Romans to be tried, falsely accused, and crucified.

9. These eyewitnesses claim encounters the risen Christ despite there being no Jewish teaching of resurrections occurring before the end of the world. Virtually all New Testament historians count these claims by the eyewitnesses as a fact of historical investigation. 

10. As we've seen in the foregoing historical argument for Jesus's resurrection from the dead, Jesus resurrection validated everything that He taught and lived. Therefore, by basing the doctrine of inerrancy on Jesus' teaching and resurrection, we have a firm foundation for the inerrancy scripture itself. 

P2 How To Spiritually Prepare For The Lord's Supper

Introduction:

    In my last post I began to offer a suggestion for spiritually preparing to partake of the Lord's Supper. The church where I pastor will observe communion this coming Sunday. I know for my own sake, having a practical way to get ready for the Lord's Table can help Christians throughout the week leading up to it. In the last post I noted the first way: considering the cost of following Jesus. 

    In today's post we will look at two other steps. As we did in the last post, I'll have us reflect once again on a portion of Matthew's account of the Lord's Supper.

Matthew 26:16-19 "Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?' 18 And He said, 'Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, 'My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.' 19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover."

    In our last post we began to think about how one may prepare their heart and mind for the reception of the Lord's table. We noted how we first need to consider the privilege of the cost of following Jesus. The Gospels record Jesus' final meal with His disciples. Prior to that meal was a the time devoted to preparation for it. 

    If only we would take the time to prepare our hearts and minds in our daily walk with God; we would then avoid the tragedy of "going through the motions" that so much characterizes modern day Christianity. In today's post we will conclude with two other considerations of how one may prepare their heart and mind for the reception of the Lord's Table. 

Consider the provisions by Christ for the details of your life.

(Matthew 26:18-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:10-13). 

    One remarkable feature of all four Gospel accounts on the time proceeding the Lord's supper with His disciples regards His meticulous knowledge of certain details leading up to that event. The first three Gospels lay stress upon Jesus' detailed instructions to His disciples regarding their preparation for the celebration of the Passover. An example is found in Matthew's record in Matthew 26:18-19 - 

"And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.”’” 19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover."

    The other three Gospel accounts record similar instructions. Jesus knew details such as the particular room in which the New Covenant meal would take place and the individual whom the disciples would connect to make the arrangements. These observations serve to remind us that the Lord not only orchestrates time in general, but also the details in which He carried out His will in the lives of His people.

    Throughout the narrative of the events leading up to our Lord's crucifixion, we primarily witness the actions of the man Jesus of Nazareth. However, it must also be recollected that He who ate the bread and drank the cup with His disciples was and ever remained truly God. Christ's meticulous knowledge of such incidental details (i.e. omniscience) points to the truth conveyed in the New Testament about Him as One Person that is truly God and truly man (see John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 2:9).

    Understanding Jesus Christ as truly God and truly man causes the Christian to realize why Jesus is able to supply every need in their life. It is healthy to reflect back on how much the Lord has taken care of the Christian. Jesus promises to take care of physical needs (Luke 6:46); emotional needs (Matthew 11:28-30) and of course spiritual needs (John 10).

    I find it helpful to reflect on how Jesus has taken care of every aspect of my own life between those times I celebrate the Lord's supper. The New Covenant meal centers around the taking in of the staples of nourishment (bread, fruit of the vine). Whenever the Christian partakes of these elements, the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer just how much everything in life derives from the hand of Christ.

    Thus, preparing for the Lord's Supper not only should include considering the privilege of the cost of following Jesus, but also how He provides for every need in life. Then one more step to preparing for the Lord's Table.

Confess your sins and praise Jesus for what He did for you.

    Confession of sin is a major part of this covenant meal. Whenever Jesus and His disciples were getting underway in the institution of that inaugural meal, we find an interesting detail in Mark's account in Mark 14:17-19 -  

"When it was evening He came with the twelve. 18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, 'Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me.' 19 They began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, 'Surely not I?'”

    The heightened awareness of one's deficiencies in their spiritual walk is made acute at the Lord's Table. The time of Communion points us to Christ, reminding the Christian that Christ's righteousness not only covered their spiritual nakedness at conversion, but ever dons their imperfect practical righteousness in post-conversion. 

    Anytime God's people gather together to celebrate the Lord's table, consideration of unconfessed sin or disruption of fellowship between believers over such things is crucial. Why? The Table of the Lord is not only a place of celebration for the church, but also of healing.

    The disciples grieved over the prospect that one of them could betray Jesus. How often does the Christian exchange their love for Jesus for that momentary indulgence of personal sin? I have found that nothing brings to light my own personal need to confess my sin than when time approaches for the celebration of the Lord's supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:27-32). Thankfully, whenever Jesus had revealed these words, we find Him then blessing the bread and then the fruit of the vine.

    The provision for our forgiveness was already to go before the betrayal of sin. The Lord's supper portrays the provision for forgiveness, as well as the healing of the soul. There might be times I come to the table with the shame of sins I committed since the last time I partook of those elements. However, the Lord's promise to forgive me of such sins at the instant I confess them is rooted in the finished work of the cross emblemized by the bread and the fruit of the vine (see 1 John 1:9; 2:1-2).

    Confession of sin ought to be a daily, if not moment-by-moment practice of every Christian. The Lord's table serves to reinforce the provision of God's forgiveness in Jesus Christ. The table of fellowship is predicated upon the restoration of such fellowship that is immediately granted upon confession of sins to the Bishop and Overseer of our souls - the Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Peter 2:25). 

Closing thoughts

    In these last two posts, we aimed to offer three ways one can prepare their heart and mind for the partaking of the Lord's supper. We noted how there was ample preparation in the Gospel portrayals of Jesus' celebration of the New Covenant meal with His disciples. The following three suggestions were made:

1. Consider the privilege of the cost of following Jesus.

2. Consider the provisions by Christ for the details of your life.

3. Confess your sins and praise Jesus for what He did for you. 

P1 How To Spiritually Prepare For The Lord's Supper: Consider The Cost Of Following Jesus Christ.

Introduction:

    I begin today's post by having us reference Matthew 26:17-20, Matthew's account of Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper. We read in Matthew 26:17-20 

"Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?' 18 And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, 'My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.' 19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover." 20 Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples."

The importance of spiritual preparation.

    One idea sticks out in this passage - "preparation". The meaning of the term "preparation" conveys "putting things into order" to anticipate the main event at hand. Too often in my own Christian walk, I find little time spent in quietness, stillness, and preparation for whatever God has planned to bring to my attention. 

    The ancient Jews placed much emphasis upon "preparation". A prime example of this point is in how the Jews prepared for the Passover celebration. To ready the heart and mind for the reception of the Passover was just as important as the actual event itself. A typical Jewish family would spend an entire year in advance. Central to the celebration of the Passover was the lamb. Lambs that were a year-old and without blemish were fit candidates for selection by the family. Once the lamb was selected on the first day of the given Passover week (i.e. Sunday). 

    Further preparations were made to eventually roast the lamb per God's instructions to His people through Moses in Exodus 12. Eventually, the Jews were commanded to travel far and wide to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem. Preparation focused one's intention and will on bringing pleasure to their Lord. The external rites associated with Passover and the later New Covenant meal of the Lord's Supper were Divinely given to order the interior lives of God's people. To neglect preparation of one's heart and mind in the things of God can lead to a later inability to digest later truths God wants to impart through His word.

    What Jesus would do with His disciples in the institution of Lord's Table of communion entailed transferring the Passover celebration into the New Covenant meal for the church. Clearly, this process required "preparation". To achieve this event, Jesus told his disciples to "prepare" a place where they would celebrate.

    So how can one prepare for participating in the Lord's supper celebration? Let's offer one main point for today and focus on further thoughts in the next post.

Consider the privilege of the cost of following Jesus. (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8)  

    We come to our first main way of preparing for the Lord's Supper: considering what it costs to follow Jesus. Each of the four Gospels record Jesus' final meal with His disciples in the closing hours leading to His arrest, trials, tortures and crucifixion. Matthew, Mark and John record the event of Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus. John 12:3 records the following details of Mary's act of devotion:

"Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume."

    Judas' negative reaction to her act revealed the costliness of what she did. The perfume itself was high quality. The fragrance that suffused that place would accompany our Lord in that final meal with His disciples, as well as His journey to the cross. No doubt what Mary did was of very great cost. She considered the sacrificial giving of following Jesus worth it, no matter what.

    The cost of preparation on her part bespeaks of the much greater cost paid for our salvation by the Lord Jesus. Jesus indicated that what Mary did was to prepare for His pending burial following His crucifixion, as expressed in Mark 14:8 - 

"She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial."

    Whenever any Christian is getting ready to celebrate the Lord's supper, they ought to carefully consider the privilege of the price paid to follow Jesus. Jesus reminded His followers of how counting the cost and dying to oneself is at the heart of discipleship (see Matthew 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:23-24; 17:33; John 12:21-25). 

    Too often, Christians complain about inconveniences. The self-indulgence of our Western world is at odds with the call of Christ to "die to oneself". I frequently find myself wrangling with my flesh. The principle of "self", that "me-in-me" impulse, imposes itself against the urgency to follow my Lord. Self must die daily. There is an extravagance expressed in Mary of Bethany's love for her Lord that is absent in so much of Christian living.

Closing thoughts for today.

    Sadly, we never experience an extravagance of love for Jesus until we are willingly or actively giving of ourselves to others for His sake. Jesus Himself commented that what Mary did would find itself expressed in the sharing of the Gospel. The fact we find her extravagant giving to our Lord in the Gospel records confirms this point. So, in preparing for the Lord's supper, one ought to consider the privilege of the cost of following Jesus.

More next time....

Post #37 1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed - "who spoke by the prophets" - Is Biblical Inerrancy A Modern Invention Of Conservatives?

Introduction:

    In the last post we began to look at the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit as "who spoke by the prophets." I noted that three important points needed consideration as we approached this important clause in the Nicene Creed.

1. First, what was going through the minds of those who attended the Council of Constantinople when they agreed upon this part of the Creed? 1

2. The second point about the confession of the Spirit's role in the Divine revelation of the Scripture was this: did the Council of Constantinople, and thus their update to the original Creed of Nicaea in 325 reflect the prevailing view of the early church's stance on the Scripture? Did their position of the nature of Scripture match that of Jesus and the Apostles? It is this second point we will aim to answer in today's post. Then for sake of completion of thought...

3. The third point regarding the Holy Spirit "who spoke by the prophets" had to do then with what ought the church confess about the Scriptures today? We'll look at this next post.

The claim that the doctrine of inerrancy was invented by conservative theologians in the 19th century.

    Before we get to what the early church taught about the nature of sacred Scripture, the Bible, I need to address what is often a claim from critics of Biblical inerrancy - that the doctrine of inerrancy was invented by conservative theologians in the 19th century. This claim is worth taking a quick sidebar so that we can see in what follows why such a statement is preposterous.2  In short, two scholars, Jack Rogers and Donald McKim proposed that the doctrine of inerrancy was a novel doctrine developed by conservatives in the nineteenth century (readers may dive deeper into a good article summarizing the entire history of their proposal and the critiques thereof here  Inerrancy, Infallibility, and the Rogers/McKim Proposal – Theology For the Rest of Us.)

    Why bring this up? The Rogers/McKim thesis influenced a whole generation of scholarship, critical and conservative alike. I vividly recall reading their book and the books that responded to it. In my seminary days, I saw firsthand how such thinking made the "battle for the Bible" so difficult. Even though good conservative evangelical scholars would soundly show the weakness of this argument, it still had shaped the minds of many budding theologians in the 1980's and 1990's. As I'll show below the high view of Scripture that affirms Biblical inerrancy is not a modern invention but represents the historic view of the Christian church. 3 

    One more point before we move forward. I will say from the offset that not one church father espoused the view of radical Biblical criticism or the above Rogers and McKim thesis I just mentioned. Critics today will allege the Scriptures came about through an evolutionary process of editors and a time-bound religious consciousness of men. If for anything, it is theological liberalism and scholars such as Rogers and McKim who are the innovators of views that support a non-inerrantist view of the Bible.4 

Considering the first four centuries of church history's view of the Scripture.

    What was the view of the larger early church in the first four centuries? Did the church fathers consider the doctrine of Divine inspiration as not needing belief in Biblical inerrancy? Or did they hold that Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are necessary entailments of Divine inspiration of the original documents of Scripture? To get our bearings before presenting the evidence of the early church fathers, a definition of Biblical inerrancy is in order. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ["Short Statement #4] defines Biblical inerrancy as follows:

"Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives."  Microsoft Word - Chicago Statement.doc

First century church fathers

    Clement of Rome's letter "1 Clement" is considered the earliest Christian work written outside of the canonical New Testament. As he deals with various issues going on at the same church of Corinth to whom the Apostle Paul wrote, we get some striking statements about how high a view of Scripture these early church fathers had. In 1 Clement 44, Clement explains the Holy Spirit's work of Divine inspiration that enabled the Apostles: "For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge." 

       Clement addressed how the Apostles knew that doctrinal and moral drift would occur in the churches to whom they wrote. His argument was this: The Holy Spirit equipped them to know about such things beforehand. Clement then makes this comment about the by-product of the Spirit's working through these otherwise fallible men, namely inerrant, infallible Scripture:

"Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them."

    The doctrine of Divine inspiration necessarily entails inerrancy and infallibility in the original manuscripts penned by the Prophets and Apostles. This cornerstone truth was argued for by a church father who knew the Apostles firsthand.

Second century church fathers.

    Justin Martyr's "Dialogue With Trypho" is among the earliest apologetic works writing in the mid 100's A.D. As he responded to objections by his Jewish interlocutor Trypho, we find Trypho  struggling to grasp something that the Prophet Isaiah wrote. As Justin Martyr attempted to explain Isaiah's words to Trypho, we find him holding to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy:

"I replied, 'Trypho, if you quoted that with no intent to twist it—leaving out what comes before and after—then it’s understandable. But if your aim is to create confusion, as if to suggest the Scriptures contradict themselves, then you’re mistaken. I will never say Scripture contradicts itself. If any passage seems difficult or unclear, I’d rather admit I don’t fully understand it than assume it clashes with others. I encourage you—and anyone who thinks otherwise—to adopt that same mindset."

Third and fourth century church fathers.

            As we round out our survey of the early church's view of Scripture, we arrive at the 300's and 400's A.D. I would refer readers to Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria, whom I cited in the last post, as those who represented how theologians viewed Scripture at that time. We noted in that last post that they affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture. 

        Perhaps the foremost example of all the church fathers was Augustine of Hippo. At the end of the fourth and beginning in the fifth centuries, Augustine maintained correspondence with another famous church father, Jerome. The letters they wrote back and forth are worth studying, since the reader gets insight into how the Scriptures were viewed. In letter 82, Augustine wrote this statement in his letter to Jerome which blatantly affirms Biblical inerrancy and infallibility:

"At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place." 

    Augustine not only affirms the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, but also the even stronger doctrine of Biblical infallibility - namely that the words of Scripture can never fail in their accuracy at any time. 

Closing thoughts for today

    Augustine's statement and the others cited proves that the early church had always maintained a high view of Scripture. As we close today's post, we now have grounds to claim that the early church and the councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) held to an inerrantist view of sacred Scripture. 

    As we reflect once again on the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit as He "who spoke by the prophets", we can rest assured that inerrancy and infallibility was a working assumption in the thinking of the early church. In the next post we will look at the most important of all considerations: what was the view of Jesus and the Apostles on the nature of Scripture. 

Endnotes:

1. It was this point we studied and concluded that those present at the Council of Nicaea held to the high view of Scripture advocated by conservative, Bible believing Christians, namely it as inerrant and infallible. We also saw too that the sufficiency of Scripture in establishing doctrine and maintaining it against all error was embraced.  

2. I recall in my seminary days reading all the books and journal articles associated with the "Battle for the Bible" in the 1970's and 1980's. One book that was required reading was by two men, Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, entitled "The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible". Their main point was that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy was a modern invention of conservative theologians a generation after the Reformation period. These conservative theologians, known as "The Reformed Scholastics", argued a high view of Scripture. Per Rogers and McKim, this line of reasoning became refined by nineteenth century conservatives B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge at Princeton Theological Seminary in its conservative hey-day. 

    This proposal by Rogers and McKim then claimed that when we arrived in the twentieth century, conservative, fundamentalists used inerrancy to wage its battles with theological liberalism or modernists. In the concluding pages of their book, Rogers and McKim assert what they call a "third alternative" or "third way" of understanding Biblical authority, that neither goes the way of rigid, orthodox, inerrancy that ignores the tools and advances of science on the one hand, nor advocates retreat to a subjective, allegorizing method of Scripture on the other hand. Instead, 

    Rogers and McKim propose we hold to Scripture as authoritative on matters of life and salvation while feeling free to use the tools of Biblical criticism that were developed in the 18th, 19th, and twentieth centuries. On page 462 they note this: "Most thought evangelicals, for example, accept the usefulness of responsible Biblical criticism." 

    The term "criticism" refers to analyzing the Biblical text in the same way as one would any piece of literature. Included in such methodology is approaching the Biblical text not as inspired, inerrant literature, but rather as a byproduct of human authors who were prone to make mistakes just like anyone else. Biblical criticism employs the tools of form criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism, comparative religion, and a naturalistic worldview that would deem miracles and possibly symbolic unless otherwise indicated. Roger's and McKim's books was written with the intent to recover what they deemed to be the original Reformed view of Scripture. Sadly, their analysis of the United Presbyterian Church failed to see the fruits born by the regular use of Historical Critical studies in the study of Scripture. Such fruits included decline in missions, spiritual vitality in the churches, and erosion of confidence in the Scriptures in both pulpit and pew. 

3. As I showed in the last post, those at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. would have affirmed inerrancy. Jesus and the Apostles held to this same high view of Scripture, which we shall see in the next post.  

4. That school of thinking only began in earnest in the late eighteenth century with the early forms of the documentary hypothesis. What we will see below is that the sufficiency, necessity, inerrancy, infallibility, and clarity of Scripture was the view of the early, orthodox Christian church. 

Post #36 1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed - "who spoke by the prophets" - What View Of Scripture Was Present At The Council Of Constantinople?

 

Introduction:

    We now come to that fourth and final clause of the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit whereby it states: "who spoke by the prophets." Three important points need considered before we expound this phrase. 

1. First, what was going through the minds of those who attended the Council of Constantinople when they agreed upon this part of the Creed? Were they committed to a high view of Scripture? This first consideration will help us to grasp what all is included in the confession "who spoke by the prophets". 

2. The second point about the confession of the Spirit's role in the Divine revelation of the Scripture is did the Council of Constantinople, and thus their update to the original Creed of Nicaea in 325 reflect the prevailing view of the early church's stance on the Scripture? Did their position of the nature of Scripture match that of Jesus and the Apostles? This second consideration, when combined with the first, will aid us in the third point. 

3. The third point regarding the Holy Spirit "who spoke by the prophets" has to do then with what ought the church confess about the Scriptures today? Does the Nicene Creed's confession, as well as the early church's view match more closely with modern Biblical criticism's denial of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility? Or is the historic position of Christianity (rooted ultimately in Jesus and the Apostles and expressed in the Creeds) more aligned with conservative Bible believing Christianity's insistence on inerrancy and infallibility as necessary feature of the Holy Spirit's Divine inspiration of the Scriptures? 

What was the view of Scripture by those who attended the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D?

    We will devote the rest of this post to this first consideration since it helps us to rightly interpret the intent of the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit as the One "who spoke by the prophets". 

    In previous posts we noted that one of the leaders at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. was Basil of Caesarea, known in church history as "Basil the Great" and often associated with two other theologians (Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus) who all together were known as "The Cappadocian Church Fathers" and their defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. Basil wrote a treatise entitled "On The Holy Spirit" whereby he defended the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Spirit's personality and deity against a heretical group called "the spirit-fighters" or "pneumatomachoi". In that work, Basil refers to the Scriptures as "The Word of Truth". 

    In chapter six of his work "On The Holy Spirit", Basil wrote in response to the "spirit-fighters":

"We acknowledge that the word of truth has in many places made use of these expressions; yet we absolutely deny that the freedom of the Spirit is in bondage to the pettiness of Paganism. On the contrary, we maintain that Scripture varies its expressions as occasion requires, according to the circumstances of the case."

    That phrase "Word of Truth" is found several times in the Biblical text. Perhaps one of the more prominent passages of Scripture containing this phrase is 2 Timothy 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." Jesus said of the Scriptures in His High-priestly prayer in John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth."

    At bare minimum we can say Basil the Great had a high view of Scripture that did not merely confess it as "containing truth" or "bearing witness to truth" as claimed by twentieth century theological liberalism or Neoorthodox theologians such as Emil Brunner or Karl Barth. Rather, Basil held to the Scripture being truth itself as revealed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

    Athanasius, who died less than ten years before the Council of Constantinople is worthy of mention, since he was chief architect behind the original Creed of Nicaea in 325 and arch defender of Christ's deity against the dreaded Arian heresy of that era. Athanasius was a close friend of Basil the Great and in many ways his theological mentor. In one of Athanasius' writings (Against the Heathen), he notes this of the Scriptures in his opening paragraph:

"For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth..."

    Athanasius possessed a high view of Scripture just as much as Basil. In his famous Easter or Festal Letter of 367 A.D., Athanasius enumerates as a public statement the historically recognized books of the Old and New Testament canons. At one point he notes this of the Scriptures:  

"to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine."

     In other words, the words of the Bible possessed the same attributes as God - incapable of lying (i.e. infallibility) and inerrancy or always being true. Basil and Athanasius are two prominent representatives of what would have been the view of the church fathers who attended the Council of Constantinople. Furthermore, Basil's work "On The Holy Spirit" has been shown to heavily influenced the section in the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we have at least answer to our first consideration as to what was the view of Scripture represented by the Council of Constantinople and its drafting of the Nicene Creed of 381. 

    In the next post we will further explore whether this high view of Scripture behind the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit as the One who spoke by the prophets was the view of the early church at large. 

Post #35 1700 Years of the Nicene Creed: "who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified"

Above picture was a photo I took of a sunrise over the Atlantic Ocean down at Ocean City, NJ.

Introduction:

    As we continue on in our study of the Nicene Creed, we progress further in the Creed's section on the Holy Spirit. To review, four statements are found in the Nicene Creed's confession of the Holy Spirit. I'll give headings to ease our memory of past postings.

1. The Deity of the Holy Spirit.

"And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life. 

2. The Divine relation of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

" who proceeds from the Father and the Son".

3. The Divine equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

"who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified."1

4. The Divine Author of the Scriptures.

"who spoke by the prophets."

     Today we move on to consider the Divine equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son in how He is worthy of worship and glory with them.    

The Holy Spirit, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.

    Let's breakdown this clause phrase-by-phrase in the Nicene Creed. 

Proper arranging of our worship - "The Holy Spirit, who with the Father and the Son together". 

    First, we find a proper arranging of our worship of the Spirit as He is in eternal relation to the Father and the Son. Sometimes people wonder if it is appropriate to pray to the Holy Spirit. As we shall see in a moment, the short answer is "yes". I often pray for the Holy Spirit to strengthen me before I preach. The point of this first phrase is to remind us that when we pray to the Father, Son, or Spirit, we automatically include any of the other two Persons, since all three are One God. The "proper arranging of worship" aids our faith and mind in its trek to commune with God.

    Four New Testament texts help us to consider this proper arrangement of our worship of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray in Matthew 6:9-12, He told them to aim their prayers to the Father in Matthew 6:9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name." The Person of the Father in the Trinity is the origin of the eternal relations He has with the Son and with the Holy Spirit through the Son, with the Divine essence unoriginated and common to all three. It makes sense to direct our prayers to the Father as that relational source - as one would trace a river to its source. 

    The second text is Ephesians 2:18 "for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father." The arrangement of all prayer, worship, and glorifying of God is directed to the Father and through our Mediator, the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. He, after all, is the Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) who perfectly is and does reveal the Father (Hebrews 1:2-3).2 The worship of the true and living God is directed to the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit. 

    We come then to our third passage that directs us on the arranging of our worship of the Holy Spirit - namely 2 Corinthians 3:18 "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." 

    As He did in creation, and as He does in salvation, the Holy Spirit brings to completion and to fullest expression the revelation of God's glory. The Spirit of God brings to us in worship what we seek from the Father through the Son - delight in and desire for God. This is why the Nicene Creed affirms the proper arranging of our worship of the Spirit as never separated from the Father and the Son, since His task is to draw our attention to the Father through the Son to make known the glory of God (John 16:14-15). 

Personal adoration of the Spirit - "is worshipped".

    Once we understand the proper arranging of our worship of the Spirit as He eternally relates to the Son and the Father, we can then grasp why it is appropriate to include Him in our adoration of God. Basil of Caesarea, whom I've mentioned before in prior posts, wrote a wonderful book "On The Holy Spirit" to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit and who also was the chief contributor to the article on the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed.3  Basil notes this of the Holy Spirit as worthy of worship as God in his "One The Holy Spirit", 9.22:

"On our hearing, then, of a spirit, it is impossible to form the idea of a nature circumscribed, subject to change and variation, or at all like the creature. We are compelled to advance in our conceptions to the highest, and to think of an intelligent essence, in power infinite, in magnitude unlimited, unmeasured by times or ages....".

Basil then later notes:

....."but as Supplier of life; not growing by additions; but straightway full, self-established, omnipresent, origin of sanctification, light perceptible to the mind, supplying, as it were, through Itself, illumination to every faculty in the search for truth; by nature unapproachable, apprehended by reason of goodness, filling all things with Its power."

      Basil reminds us that the Holy Spirit is by nature God, one with the Father and the Son, and thus just as much worthy of worship as they. Modern author Geoffrey Thomas wrote a book for Reformation Heritage Books in 2011 entitled "The Holy Spirit". What he writes captures our point and Basil's point of why the Holy Spirit is included in our worship:

"The Holy Spirit is a person, and the Holy Spirit is God. So when our Lord commissioned the church to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, He stipulated that they should be baptized 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Matt. 28:19). The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. These three are One God."

Pleasure of communing with the Holy Spirit - "and glorified".

   We've looked at the proper arranging of our adoration of the Holy Spirit and our personal adoration of Him. We arrive at one final heading - the pleasure of communing with the Holy Spirit as seen in that phrase "and glorified". 

    Notice with me the whole clause with our final phrase underlined: "who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified." John Piper years ago coined a statement that has helped me over the years in my worship of God: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him". 

    The Holy Spirit makes complete and satisfying our worship of God by the appreciation of the glory of God. We had noted earlier 2 Corinthians 3:18. That text in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians anchors us in the proper arranging of our worship, our personal adoration of the Spirit, and our personal enjoyment of Him. If my worship of God does not lead to enjoyment of Him - my worship is incomplete. 

Closing thoughts for today's post.

    To illustrate, one of my children enjoys looking at sunsets (just as I enjoy sunrises). She will drive many miles to catch the sun setting over a harbor in our area. What if she drove all that way, found the perfect spot, and yet had just missed the sun's setting? The joy of seeing the sunset would make her trip incomplete. The Holy Spirit is necessary in our worship because He is the One who brings to us the inner life of God, since He Himself is God! He is the One who enables me to approach the Father through the Son. He is the One who makes possible such worship. As I participate in the Holy Spirit's working, I come to find myself delighting in God, just as driving many miles is worth it - if one gets to see a sunset over a lake. 

Endnotes:

1. We have so far studied the first two clauses that pertain to the deity of the Holy Spirit and His Divine relating to the Father and the Son. We have witnessed in the confession in those first two headings the identity of the Holy Spirit as "proceeding" from the Father and the Son, as well as His deity as "Lord and Giver of life". If one takes those two headings seriously, then it follows that the Holy Spirit is worthy of worship along with the Father and the Son.

2 The eternal Son is termed "the second Person of the Trinity" due to the ordering of the eternal relating within the Godhead. The Father eternally begets the Son as it pertains to His identity, with the Son and the Father spirating or breathing out the Holy Spirit as the eternal procession of who God is as the living God, as the "Lord and Giver of Life". The Son is of the same nature as the Father while in ordering of eternal relation He is begotten of Him as we've looked at earlier in other posts in this series.

3. As Basil writes on the Holy Spirit's deity, He keeps in mind the Spirit as being Personally God, even though He uses the pronoun "it" in referencing Him (the word for Spirit in the Greek is grammatically neuter, which explains Basil's way of talking of the Spirit, who himself wrote "On The Holy Spirit" in Greek).