[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Another example of Lee's literal interpretation is this one:

Isaiah 9:6 And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father

Lee says Jesus is the Father. Many Christians deny that Jesus is the Father. Lee can't be more literal than that.

Lee's ministry is in maroon:

In 2 Corinthians 3:17 Paul abruptly says that “the Lord is the Spirit.” Today our critics are most afraid of three Scripture verses: 1 Corinthians 15:45, 2 Corinthians 3:17, and Isaiah 9:6. First Corinthians 15:45 says, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” Some say that the Spirit in this verse is not the Holy Spirit; instead, they say that this verse speaks of Christ becoming a Spirit. However, the Spirit here is modified by life-giving, indicating that this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, because in the universe there is no other Spirit who gives life besides the Holy Spirit.

First of all it bothers me that Lee says his critics are "afraid" of three verses. No one is afraid of them.

I have read other threads that discuss 1 Cor. 15:45, showing the parallel in the preceding and succeeding verses between a physical body and then our spiritual bodies, and thus "became a life-giving Spirit" is talking about the kind of spiritual body the Lord had. As in, Spirit here is referring not to the third of the Godhead, but to the Lord's substance....i.e. God is Spirit.

Given the context, that makes more sense to me than "the life-giving Spirit is the Holy Spirit". If the LGS is referring to the Holy Spirit, then what we have is a verse saying that the last Adam, Jesus, became the Holy Spirit. The Son became the Spirit. Modalism. Sorry, nope.

Some say that the Lord in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is a general title of God and that it does not denote the Lord Jesus. However, according to the context, the Lord here should refer to Christ the Lord. Verses 14 and 16 of chapter 3 say, “The veil is being done away with in Christ...But whenever their heart turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” Verse 17 continues to say, “And the Lord is the Spirit.” Then in 4:5 Paul says, “We do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord.” Obviously, Lord here refers to Christ the Lord. Paul says that this Lord is the Spirit.

I can't say anything here. I've read various explanations and commentaries on this verse, and I haven't come to a conclusion yet.

Furthermore, Isaiah 9:6 says, “A Son is given to us;... / And His name will be called... / Eternal Father.” Some say that the Father here does not refer to the heavenly Father but to a Father of eternity. They say that eternal (an adjective) should be properly rendered “eternity” (a noun), just like saying that George Washington is the father of America and Thomas Edison is the father of electricity. However, the writer wrote this verse in the form of a couplet with child and Mighty God as a pair and with Son and Eternal Father as another pair. The child is the Son, and God is the Father. Since there is only one God, there is surely also only one Father. No one can twist this word and say that the Father here does not refer to the Father in the Godhead but to another Father. Furthermore, we must interpret any verse of the Bible according to the particular book in which the verse is found. In the entire book of Isaiah, Jehovah is referred to twice as our Father (63:16; 64:8), indicating that Eternal Father refers to God, who is our Father. Therefore, we cannot say that He is the eternal Father and not our Father.

The couplet argument is interesting just because I'd never heard it before, but I have to be honest that I don't see the couplet as an obvious parallel. Child and mighty God don't necessary go together, and then where is the couplet pairing for Wonderful Counselor and Prince of Peace? Am I missing the couplet thing? I think it's grasping at straws to draw that parallel (a hallmark of Lee's work I am coming to realize).

There are other verses in the Old Testament, one from Isaiah, that use the word "father" in the sense of "protector":

Isaiah 22:21 - And I will clothe him with your tunic, And I will strengthen him with your girding sash, And I will put your dominion into his hand; And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem And to the house of Judah.

Job 29:16 - I was a father to the needy, And the cause of him whom I did not know I investigated.

Isaiah 63:16, which Lee mentions, is speaking of a father to a whole people, which strikes me as similar to Washington being the father of America. I also don't read Isaiah 64:8 to refer to the father of the Godhead.

I just can't get on board with the Son is the Father.

The Son as the Spirit is the embodiment of the Triune God. After completing all the processes, such as incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and glorification, He became “the Spirit” (John 7:39; Rom. 8:26-27; Gal. 3:2, 14) as the ultimate manifestation of the Triune God.

Since John 7:39 is listed here as a verse reference, I'll mention that I was going to bring in John 7:39 in trying to talk about 2 Cor. 3:17 in the portion above that I didn't comment on, because in John 7:39 I can see that "the Spirit" was not yet meaning the Lord was not yet spirit in substance, otherwise you have to read it as the Holy Spirit was not yet, which is patently false. To say the Lord "became the Spirit" as the ultimate manifestation of the Triune God and call it the Holy Spirit is again, to me, to say that God exists in modes.