Dr Paul Allen

 

  Jesus says God is Spirit, and we are also told the Holy Spirit is Spirit, so how do we define the Holy Spirit? We know his name, but we’re not so sure about what he looks like. He’s the Spirit, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is difficult to define. As soon as we attempt to explain him, our language becomes less helpful than we may have hoped. Not only is our intellect too small to encompass him, but our language is also too limited to explain him. Metaphors that help us to tiptoe our way into an exploration of his character.  To describe him as an ‘entity’ or a ‘force’ sounds too impersonal; to refer to him as a ‘person’ suggests he’s human and circumscribed; to define him as a ‘member of the Godhead’ begs the question ‘what kind of member?’  To address him as an ‘individual’ sounds as if there are three gods. Even referring to the Spirit with a masculine pronoun is not necessarily the best. The Greek word (pneuma), often translated as ‘Spirit’ in the NT, is neuter wh...

This article examines the real intellectual friction between Gordon D. Fee and Craig S. Keener. Below is a PhD-level reconstruction of the kinds of questions each would likely press on the other, based on their published methodologies, emphases, and tensions.   1. Questions Gordon D. Fee Would Ask Craig S. Keener Fee’s questions would focus on theological coherence, canon, and control of experience.   1.1 On Normativity of Narrative “How do you prevent narrative from becoming normatively binding without clear criteria?” • Fee would press Keener to clarify:  o Which Lukan patterns are repeatable  o Which are historically contingent  Underlying concern:  Without controls, narrative theology risks becoming selective and subjective.   1.2 On Unity of the Spirit’s Work “If Luke presents varied sequences of Spirit reception, how do you maintain a unified theology of the Spirit?” • Fee would argue:  o Paul presents the Spirit as inseparable fro...

What was the ark of the covenant? You’ve heard of it. You’ve read of it. Maybe you even saw it in Raiders of the Lost  Ark,  but  what was it really? What did it look like? And why was it so important? In the desert, after the Exodus from Egypt, the Lord told Moses to make a ceremonial ark or aron – a wooden chest – as a sign of the covenant made at Mount Sinai.[1] The ark was made of acacia wood—a box within a box within a box—a metre long, and overlaid with gold.[2] On top was a solid-gold cover called the kapporet , where two golden keruvim or ‘cherubim’ faced each other, wing-tips touching. WHAT IS A KERUV? The keruv or cherub is a being whose general type is well known to us from ancient eastern iconography. It was not a winged man; much less a little flying putto or baby boy . Rather it was a being combining human characteristics with those of fierce animals and birds, and representing a solar or stellar deity. The best-known example is the great man-headed lion t...

We’ve answered the question, “ What was the ark of the covenant? ” The next question we must ask is “What happened to the ark of the covenant?” Specifically, what happened to it from the time it was made until the time it disappeared. As we have seen, from the day of its construction, the ark was the central object of Israel’s faith. The second commandment prohibited Israel from having images of the deity, as other nations had. Instead, Israel had the ark, the invisible deity’s footstool. But what was its story in Israel’s national life? And what happened to the ark of the covenant in the end? FROM TABERNACLE TO ZION TENT Where the ark went, the Lord went (Num. 10.34); its presence ensured his (1 Sam. 4.3). He spoke from between the keruvim on the ark, amidst a glowing cloud (Exod. 25.22; 30.6; 40.35). The honour due him was paid to the ark. When the ark appeared in public, sacrifices were offered before it, people bowed to it and cried on every side, Yehovah Ts’vaot! Yehovah Ts’vaot!...

What happened to the ark of the covenant? There are theories galore. Here’s a quick rundown.  Let’s start with Egypt. After Solomon died, his son Rehoboam became king, and Pharaoh Shishak invaded Jerusalem. He carried off treasures from the temple (1 Kings 14). That theory, of course, lies behind Raiders of the Lost Ark. Others think that when King Jehoash from the northern kingdom invaded Jerusalem and plundered the temple treasury, he took the ark as spoils of war (2 Kings 14). Both theories run into a snag. There is evidence that the ark was restored to (or still present in) Jerusalem generations later during the reign of Josiah ( 2 Chronicles 35:3). That brings us to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Nebuchadnezzar razed the temple and carried many sacred objects away to Babylon. Some think the ark was destroyed then or taken into exile. Here’s the problem: Jeremiah 52, which we read today in Bible in One Year, gives a long inventory of temple items taken by th...

 

 

 

Dick Harfield writes answers to theological questions on Quora. As a self-declared atheist, his responses follow a recognisable pattern: vague where precision is needed, occasionally accurate, but consistently thin on detail. He habitually invokes the phrase "most theologians today believe" without attribution, and on the rare occasions he does cite sources, they tend to be liberal, non-believing scholars who share his sceptical presuppositions — a kind of circular credentialing. His approach to engagement is equally revealing. He disables debate on his answers, insulating himself from challenge, and his followers tend to reinforce rather than interrogate his conclusions, often using his answers as a platform to sneer at orthodox Christianity rather than examine it seriously. The question below is a good illustration. It is a genuinely interesting theological question — but Harfield misreads its context entirely, arriving at a confident conclusion while missing the point th...