Various Questions
VARIOUS QUESTIONS
I have a question about Acts 10:38. Jesus was already the Son. Why was Jesus anointed with the Holy Ghost? I'm not questioning if it is true, but wondering how and why? I have other questions like how in Acts 15 they couldn't settle a problem and took the matter to the council of Jerusalem. These men have been given miraculous gifts but they could not solve an issue? Also, Paul asked God to heal his infirmity. Why couldn't Paul heal it? This doesn't seem to harmonize with Matthew 7:7. Jesus told people to hate their families and follow him, I looked up the Greek word translated as hate and it means the opposite of love. I believe the scriptures harmonize, I just don't know the reasonable explanation.
ANSWERS
My thoughts follow…
I have a question about Acts 10:38. Jesus was already the Son. Why was Jesus anointed with the Holy Ghost?
Let’s look at that passage…
“How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” (Acts 10:38)
When dealing with the Trinity, one must recognize both the unity of the Godhead and the distinction of persons therein (Father, Son, Spirit). Acts 10:38 is speaking of the unity of the Godhead found in the person of Jesus Christ.
I'm not questioning if it is true, but wondering how and why?
“How” is difficult if not impossible to answer. This is true whether dealing with aspects of the godhead or with miraculous events. How does a virgin bring forth a son? The bible’s explanation is that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35) That is literally “how” the bible said this came to pass, but this testimony may raise more questions than it answers for those inquiring precisely “how” this event occurred. The short answer is that “it was a miracle” – it was something that God is able to do that is beyond the regular motions of the natural world in our observation. Miracles involve God doing things that neither man nor his natural surroundings can produce. This too raises many questions among the curious, but I am certain that it is as far as we can go in explaining “how” without setting aside the bible’s testimony in favor of speculation. The bible is said to “throughly furnish” us. It does not claim to be a comprehensive mechanical explanation of every mystery.
I have other questions like how in Acts 15 they couldn't settle a problem and took the matter to the council of Jerusalem. These men have been given miraculous gifts but they could not solve an issue?
I think I understand the nature of this question but I’m not fond of how it is formulated. Those men DID solve the issue. They did so through the Jerusalem council. Not every interpersonal problem we encounter is resolved by the same level of intervention. The size of the problem, the number of people involved, the intensity of the subject matter, the passions of those entangled therein can all very greatly. Some problems might be resolved through a brief conversation between two brothers. Others require a greater degree of intervention, communication, and coordination. In Acts 15 we see that men had crept into the church and taught the Judaizing doctrine of salvation by works (v1). This was a matter of public record that no doubt stirred up confusion among the flock that was apt to spread. Given the number of people affected by this issue, more drastic and methodical steps to resolution were required of church leadership.
Here’s another thought for consideration, why would someone insist that no miraculous enablement was involved in how the Jerusalem counsel resolved the matter? Consider this: is the Holy Spirit’s presence required to create harmony and consensus among brothers? Must men be spiritually equipped to do the work of the ministry? Does the wisdom to handle spiritual problems arise from the carnal mind or from the mind of Christ given to believers? Biblical answers to these questions leads us to conclude that even problems that appear to be resolved through “ordinary means” are no less dependent upon the miraculous than the restoring of a withered hand (Matthew 12:10-13). I suspect that many legitimate miracles pass undetected before the eyes of men peering darkly through a glass (I Corinthians 13:12).
Also, Paul asked God to heal his infirmity. Why couldn't Paul heal it?
This demonstrates that the power to heal, given to Paul for ministry purposes, was neither absolute nor utterly at Paul’s disposal, but was subservient to the will of God. It was not in God’s will for Paul’s healing power to include the removal of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. God had a purpose for Paul’s suffering that included the demonstration of sufficient grace and the power of God in weakness (II Corinthians 2:7-9). We should remember that the power to do miracles is always subservient to the will of the God who gave that power in the first place.
This doesn't seem to harmonize with Matthew 7:7.
I believe you’re speaking of Luke 14:26-33
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-33)
The context of this passage is Jesus addressing the requirements for discipleship as it relates to prioritizing relationships and the inevitable suffering that attends obedience in this matter.
Jesus told people to hate their families and follow him, I looked up the Greek word translated as hate and it means the opposite of love.
This language is invoked in the context of prioritizing one’s relationship to God over and above their relationships to father, mother, wife, and children – essentially the group of people likely to be at the very top of everyone’s relationship priority list. We know this because Jesus taught that we are to honor father and mother in many places (Matthew 15:4, Mark 10:19, etc.). Moreover Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44). From this we conclude that Jesus is not speaking of hating your family in an absolute sense in Luke 14. Rather he is using love/hate in a relative sense as a means of providing contrast to emphasize the importance of the priority of setting God first in all matters. He is emphasizing the teaching of the first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” I interpret Jesus words to mean:
“How much should you love God, you ask? Consider how much you love your father, mother, wife, and children. You should love God so much that your love for them appears as hate by comparison. He is your top priority. If your family opposes your efforts to follow God, you should follow God nevertheless. If it costs you those relationships, you’re better off with the favor of God than with the favor of those who oppose following God.”
I believe the scriptures harmonize, I just don't know the reasonable explanation.
I don’t know if any of this is helpful or reasonable in your eyes, but I wanted to share some thoughts on how we might make sense of the things you raise that seem at first blush to be contradictory.
May God bless our studies and understanding of his word.
- Elder Daniel Samons