Lecture 1.docx

Okay, let\'s begin with the doctrine of Christ. It\'s my favorite subject. I think my goal is always for all of us, especially you, to be impacted by the person of Christ by the end of the semester and for us to leave classroom with at least one devotional goal that is to be more Christ-like. The su...

Okay, let\'s begin with the doctrine of Christ. It\'s my favorite subject. I think my goal is always for all of us, especially you, to be impacted by the person of Christ by the end of the semester and for us to leave classroom with at least one devotional goal that is to be more Christ-like. The subject has inspired a tremendous amount of writing. I don\'t believe you can count the books, the special studies, the journal articles, the formal and informal treatment of the doctrine and the life of Christ. It\'s on a formidable scale in quite a number of languages and I\'m sure that much more will be written by both believer and unbeliever alike. And there\'s a reason because false teachers are obviously going to attack the person of Christ if they wish to build their own religion on a Christian base. They\'ll make him fit their desires and philosophies. They\'ll disparage him as he\'s presented in the Gospels. They\'ll redefine it with their own revelation and vision. They want to build their own religion and use Christ as a means to attract people. It\'s a different Gospel. False teachers, they always have been and will be. And since Christ is the center of our teaching and of the Scriptures, he obviously will come under attack. I don\'t believe that in the Western world and perhaps outside of the Far East anyway, it\'d be very difficult for someone to say, I\'ve never heard of Christ. At least once or twice somewhere in history books or just in general conversation he will hear of Christ Jesus. Whether he fully understands who that is, is another question. The fact that there was somebody named this is not strange. When you stop to think the BCAD abbreviations in the modern calendar system do attest, I put the words crucial significance of Christ\'s coming to earth. He\'s not a marginal figure of history. He\'s actually structured the calendar system. You realize of course that if it has been made I\'ve said you\'re by the Jews but actually I think even others are preferring to use BCE standing for before the common era. I like to deliberately misstate it before the Christian era. But that sounds too much like BC and the attempt is to remove Christ from the center of thinking. Let\'s get him out even of our calendar system. But it\'s the name of Christ that has inspired men and women to take the message of salvation across in the empty tomb far and wide. Notice how I\'ve expressed it down here. I was thinking about it one morning particularly in a missions context. I said these are people who willingly separate themselves from family, friends, home countries, cultures. That which is familiar. They have forded rivers, crossed mountain ranges, traversed oceans and deserts, plunged into jungles, entered unfamiliar cities and regions, learned new languages, some that are not easy to learn at all even for trained linguists, adapted to foreign cultures, in some cases induced suffering, either gave their lives in ministry or gave their lives for their confession. They I think are a reminder of the apostolic conviction that Peter unhesitatingly affirmed you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. For some that has been immediate motivation to leave, to go elsewhere and preach the gospel, to go and make disciples of all nations because there has been a burden upon the heart. How shall they hear it except there be a preacher and I\'m the preacher. How shall they preach unless they are sent and God sends me. So it\'s reminding you I put down a couple of references here that crossed through my mind while I wrote that paragraph down. Matthew 16 you know very well. Jesus asking his disciples, remember in the district of Caesarea Philippi, who do people say that I the Son of Man am? They said John the Baptist, others Elijah, some say Jeremiah, or one of the prophets and then the penetrating question, but who do you say that I am? And you remember Simon Peter\'s answer, the Christ the Son of the Living God and the assessment given by Jesus immediately blessed are you Simon Barjona because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you. But my Father who is in heaven, I\'ll say it again, a declaration, a confession of Christ as the Son of the Living God can very well be the beginning of a motivation to get out and preach. Matthew 28 comes to mind immediately of course the Great Commission going to all the world make disciples of all nations and many have done that. John 6 68 through 69 Simon Peter answering the Lord, Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God. It\'s because of that conviction that in Christ and in the scriptures we find the words for eternal life that we take the message of their Christ across the frontiers. Romans 10 14 through 15, how then will they call on him and whom they have not believed? How will they believe in him whom they have not heard? How will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? And do you remember the Old Testament quotation? How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things? Good assessment of what you seek to do no matter the response at the other end. Apostolic ministry was fresh in the early years and it\'s amazing how fast congregations were threatened by false teaching, vain philosophies, human tradition, distortion of truth and to what scriptures call cunningly devised fables intended obviously to deceive. So I\'ve given you Acts 20 29 through 30 and a number of other references here to consider. Acts 20 speaks about what happened to Justin sitting next to you. Jeff? Are you over there now? See I notice what takes place in front of me. I couldn\'t see you at all and I moved to look see if you were hiding behind the guy in front. Good. What does Acts 20, don\'t look, don\'t check your Bible works. What does 29 through 30 of Acts 20 speak about in this context? False teachers called from inside the church and the phrase the graphic phrase, ravenous wolves, come in and disturbing the flock. So it\'s going to be so amazing thing that men can speak the name of Jesus in a completely different context to destroy. Colossians 2 verse 8, empty philosophy, empty deception, taken captive through it. This would be those who have a love for esoteric philosophy or a great deal of fancy sounding words easily led astray. Second Peter 1 16, the cleverly devised fables. Philippians 2 Peter 2 1 through 22, you ought to know that chapter extremely well. False prophets rose among the people and there will be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive heresies. So you can\'t always head these things off in advance because they suddenly burst out. Some trends can be seen and you can catch the trend early enough. Philippians 3 18 through 19, when Paul said I\'ll tell you often, weeping. Why? Because he wanted to make them aware of those that are enemies of the cross of Christ whose end is destruction, whose God is their appetite and his glory is their shame. Set their minds on earthly things. Use the name of Christ to satisfy their own desires as fully as possible. 1 John 4, test the spirits, see where they\'re from God. False prophets have gone out into the world. 2 John 7, a warning, many deceivers have gone out who do not acknowledge Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver just like the Antichrist. So we study to have the doctrine of Christ well settled so that the antenna, the alarm system, sounds the alert. That\'s not what the Bible says about Christ. But I\'m interested too in history to note that men resorted to military conquests, brutal torture, harsh coercion and even execution in the name of Christ. Completely different and opposite motivation. Matthew 7 says there are those who will say Lord, Lord, look what we did. They are seen as workers of iniquity. Hebrews 11 is indicative of those that have trusted in Christ who have been brutally tortured and treated for that some in triumph overcame others in pain, suffered death. Acts 9 reports all still breathing threats and murders against the disciples of the Lord. Menden got his whatever rest warrants, put them in his back pocket, headed out to arrest those who belong to the way. That\'s the way when it was still the good way, not the cult of today. Philippians 2, I\'d like to remind myself, will apply to all. These false teachers, however, will be forced to bow their knee and confess who Christ really is, but not in a saving capacity. I do not have here on the lectern that thick book by Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies, the image of Christ in the mirror of heresy and orthodoxy from the apostles to the present, published by a Roman Catholic publisher in 1994, interestingly enough. But he makes an important point in his introduction, right at the very beginning, that the history of Christian theology is in large part a history of heresies. And what he means by that is, in relation to Jesus, the claims he made, as well as the claims his disciples made about him, seem to be incredible. And so hastily redefined or changed, or because the claims of scripture are not acceptable. And so false teaching comes up, just a doctrinal statements and conclusions and confessions of faith and statements of faith are often forged in the furnace of error. And the consequent need for the truth to be formally stated is usually in history a catalyst that drives individuals or groups to the point where they say, this is what the Bible teaches, not what we\'ve heard. I think if you go back and look at church history, you\'ll see that to be the case. Somebody rises with false teaching, and it becomes somebody\'s responsibility in the providence of God, move to stand up and say, no, here\'s what the Bible says. Because there was enough of a knowledge of scripture that an alarm button sounded, the alarm light flashed. That doesn\'t sound right. As I said before, only the fool carries on driving when the warning light on his dashboard starts to flash urgently. Harold O.J. Brown made this comment, men and women as different as the lawyer to Italian and the Empress Mother Helena. And then notice these interesting little adjectives he uses, we may not use exactly the same. Scholarly origin, the diplomatic Catherine of Siena, cringe a little bit, not sure about her. Who does the mystical, but then I\'m not sure where to put in this list. The elegant Anselm, Stoller de Cuenis, Bellicose Luther, Ostia Calvin, industrious and a tender Zinzendorf, energetic John Wesley, you\'ve got pictures from church history running through your mind about these guys. Knew far too much the same Jesus Christ for him to be a counterfeit. Fashioned from scholars\' theses or debaters\' poencies. He wants you to understand that when you look at the lives of these men and their drive to preach Christ Jesus, it is obvious that the figure of Jesus that they preach is substantial, compelling, and believable. It\'s sufficiently clear and clear to say this, believed on by Christians through the centuries. In other words, there is an authoritative source. Now you may argue with some of the wording of that statement. The point is, different men from different times, different places and different walks of life have believed in Christ, have preached Christ, have affirmed the Christ of the scriptures through the centuries. The differences that are arise, substantial differences that arise, arise because of a desire to redefine that Christ. These are not all robots. They\'re not cookie cutter copies in every respect, but there was one thing that apparently Brown saw as true of them all. They knew Christ as Savior and Lord. I say I have a question about Catherine of Siena, but I understand the point he\'s making. Two books that are recent, well not that recent, this one that I had up earlier, Jesus in an Age of Controversy by Douglas. I would pronounce that, but I don\'t know how you do. Searching for the real Jesus. It\'s interesting. I think it\'s interesting because it makes you aware of just how much of a controversy there is. Erwin Latz\'s book, this is a very easy read. Christ Among Other Gods, intentional lower case, defense of Christ in an Age of Tolerance, actually wrote this when he was visiting, as a result of visiting the Parliament of World Religion, where Christ was honored, surprisingly enough. He opens his book by saying Jesus of Nazareth. No other name has inspired greater devotion, evoked greater reverence, or ignited greater controversy. For 2,000 years, the controversy over Christ has continued to rage without let up. Everyone has an opinion about Jesus, ranging from the traditional to the novel to the heretical. And I suppose you could take a poll and go out and ask on the street, what do you think about Jesus, and you\'d get a wide range of reactions. Mütze reports on this Parliament of World Religion, which I think I\'ve had another meeting since he was there in Cape Town last year, was it, or the year before. He refers to pluralism, exclusivism, inclusivism, and selectivism, and then makes his comment. And you know what pluralism means. It\'s a universal idea. All gods are equal gods. Inclusivism, I have that which I worship, but we can incorporate others. We are certainly open to other opinions and teaching. Selectivism would be the philosophically oriented person who is eclectic in compiling his own religion. I\'ll take this from there, and I\'ll take this from here, and I\'ll select that from there, and I\'ll forge something of my own. He was a pseudo-philosopher. And then where we\'re at, in our age, this is not regarded with a great degree of happiness. We are exclusivists. There is only one Christ, only one Savior, only one way under heaven, one name given among men by which we must be saved. We affirm Acts 412 very strongly. I\'m not open to your deities in African religions or Far Eastern religions. There\'s one Christ, and I\'m not going to give him the trappings of your religion. He stands in confrontation to everything else. And that\'s why this comment by Lutzer is a good one. Since Christ said that the world would hate him, we can be quite sure that when the world loves him, it is because they have made him into something he is not. So they may have spoken at this Parliament of World Religions in a sort of honoring way, but then you\'d have to say, hold it. What do you mean by Christ? Because if the man\'s obviously not saved, any respect for Christ has to be open to question, any respect for Christ has to be open to question, right? Something\'s not there. I thought that something like this is sort of over there would be outside my experience. And I met a Swiss lady who, because of a crisis in her life when her father died, she somehow read something about Christ. And she said, I fell in love with this man, Jesus. He seemed a good man. In fact, she became a medical doctor and went out to Africa as a medical missionary with, I think it was with the Lutheran church, and served for a number of years before she returned to Switzerland. And because of somebody sharing the gospel with her, realized that she had never been saved at all. She had loved the figure of Christ that she read about, and it had motivated her to serve in Africa, that he was not the Christ who would save her from her sins and eternal damnation. That came later and totally changed her thinking. And for five years of great effort, there\'d been others. I would go so far as to say that if she had not come to Christ, she may have continued, but it would have been under a false definition of who he was to her. Douglas McCready, I\'m not going to ask you to read that article talking about John Hicks Christology. And I think this is on loose leaf in the library as well. Criswell Theological Review, 1992, had an excellent article, The Identity of Jesus Christ, by Carl F. H. Henry. It unveils for you the incredible number of differences, or of opinions and definitions there are. There are explanations, maybe a better word, for the presence of Christ. McCready shows how John Hicks has got his soteriology and his Christology impinging upon each other. He\'s unable to accept exclusivism, rejects it. Notice what he says. If Jesus is indeed the Son of God incarnate, then Christians are then Christianity\'s claim that there is no salvation apart from Christ is true. You listening? John Hicks, you said that? Well, I\'m intelligent enough to know some things. If Jesus is then indeed the Son of God incarnate, then Christianity\'s claim that there is no salvation apart from Christ is true. But he finds the statement unacceptable. He knows the obvious rational connection. If he\'s this, then this claim is true, but can\'t accept it. The uniqueness of Christ, our Christology, he\'s unique in the only way. He says he\'s responsible for the behavior of those who committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. Evidently not able to understand that unsaved men can use the name of Christ for brutal, harsh reaction. Since salvation is about transformation, now listen to this incredible statement, then to make this happen, that change, does not require a God incarnate. What has he completely overlooked? There\'s more than one answer. That\'s an incredible statement. Salvation is about change, real change, transformation, let\'s use a more formal word. But it doesn\'t require a God incarnate to do that. You might say, Mr. Hicks, you\'ve forgotten something. We\'re talking depravity. It\'s a change from depravity to holiness that we\'re talking about, not just a change of character and conduct on a surface level. There\'s quite a bit of confusion in his writing. A good book to refer to would be Is Jesus the Only Savior by Ronald Nash, came out in 1994. Henry, it\'s a very penetrating book, thoroughly documented, says nowhere, I\'ll let you read that paragraph for yourself, it\'s typical Henryan phraseology. There\'s a tension between what can be repeated and what cannot be repeated. Is this a unique individual who\'s coming into this world as an unrepeatable act of history, cannot be done again? Or is he a man like other men who have been born, so his birth is just one of the repeatables in history? What makes him so different? They have to resort to some explanation. The question that is going to be asked is who is Jesus Christ? And the doctrine of Christology or this cause, in the first half, answers that question. If you were asked what is the basic question of TH 606, it\'s this, who is Jesus Christ? The answer is not just Son of God, Savior of the world, and Lord, but the full impact of that. He\'s been thought of as a great man, a great prophet, but non-divine. He spoke of God as his own father, unlike any of the other rabbis before him that marks him out as being somewhat distinct. He\'s seen as a martyred Jew, and for some Jews, one of the many false prophets and pseudo messiahs. This is a complex answer that fleshes out considerably the incisive clarity of Peter\'s comment. You could answer, is the Christ the Son of the living God? Now explain the profundity that stands behind that simple statement. Henry gives you a wide range of identities. I put them actually in the text for you. The manifold views of Jesus, it\'s quite amazing. A devout Jew in dispute with other Jews, arguing somewhat politically, somewhat sociologically, somewhat religiously, but a devout Jew who didn\'t agree with all other devout Jews, or a Christian alternative to Hellenic Savior Gods, do something on earth. The most appalling one is that he was a natural son of shameful paternity that somehow was turned into glory. I believe this was a Jane Schobert who spoke of rape and seduction as being the reason for the birth of Christ. Unacceptable, my brethren, totally. Outside of this context, I wouldn\'t even mention this alternative in that church setting. I only want to think down this line. Seem I\'m sharing these people\'s apocalyptic hopes, let me give you some extra motivation. See my teaching. A contemplative sage offering words of wisdom like Confucius or Socrates. This is Jesus, Christian philosopher, wise man. You know from 1 Kings 4, 30 through 31 that Solomon was considered to be wiser than, and a number of names are mentioned of men at that time who had already marked themselves out there and become revered for their wisdom. So there are these men down through history that are contemplative wise men. They have a remarkable understanding of life. They just have a unique observation capacity to look at life and draw some conclusions, but that\'s all there are. Wise men. Jesus is more than that. Prophet of New Age consciousness. I need to check on whether that\'s receiving more emphasis today. Paul from Buran said he\'s the perfect embodiment of divine love. Some said he\'s so venerated that his followers could not accept his death. He can\'t be dead. We revere him so much we\'ve got to keep him alive in our memory somehow. Simple answer to that. Memory would die out after a couple of generations at the most. It doesn\'t keep people going. A political Christ, a catalyst to overthrow the structures of society propounded by Gustavo Gutierrez and other revolutionaries where they have found it necessary to use religion. The name of Christ, this would be those in Roman Catholic lands, liberation, theology and so on. Semantic symbol of whatever satisfies. If none of these help you, then whatever he symbolizes for you, let him be that. Nice and broad. So, got all the options. You don\'t need to believe the real one. See, you can add to this list by the way what the Germans call a wunderkind, a wonder kid, a wonder kid of the apocryphal gospels, a child genius, a miracle worker. That\'s what he was. So, New Testament, counteracts, all of this completely. He is unique because of his incarnation. I\'ve listed several times in the notes the article in volume three, issue number one of the Chriswell Theological Review by Parker, the Incarnational Christology of John. This is a journal, all the articles of which deal with John\'s gospel. It\'s a very interesting article with some good comments. He points out that the absolute uniqueness, and you really don\'t need to use the word absolute with unique, but he\'s making emphasis. The absolute uniqueness of Jesus is dependent upon his incarnation. There is no one that came into this world like he did, in the way he did. It\'s the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. If he was incarnate, and if the incarnation was unrepeatable, then he is absolutely unique and none of these options apply. In fact, it is, listen carefully to this comment that belongs right here, the unique element in Christianity which really distinguishes it from all other religions is this, that the creator became man in one figure of history. That\'s all. Also from Parker, that the creator became man in one figure of history, and that you go to the New Testament to find. That also overrides all seven options. In fact, I\'ll put it up here. Other religions had gods walk the earth incognito, or had proclaimed the divination in some form or other of a hero or a sage. And other religions may share some elements with Christianity with regards to certain moral standards and values. But Christianity alone took an historical person and said, here in this human personality, with all the limitations and suffering of a human condition, was the eternal God, the cause and origin. Well, that\'s a profound statement. One person identified, and it\'s the creator who has all the limitations of humanity. But he\'s the eternal God. I\'m going to talk about deity and humanity in more detail. Here\'s in brief something of what I\'ve been saying up to this point. If Jesus was indeed God incarnate, and he was, prove that. And if the incarnation is indeed unrepeatable, and it was, there is no other virgin conception of birth, then Jesus was absolutely unique. There\'s no one like him at all. And if this historical Jesus is indeed the creator, and if we Christians claim this to be true, and we do, then Christianity is unique among the religions. There\'s no one that teaches what we teach. No incarnation, no Christianity, simple as that. It\'s because he came that we are what we are, and we preach what we preach, and we minister where we minister. And we minister where we minister, Sam. So could we see Christianity as a religion, one among religion, or we seek Christianity as a relationship? Yeah, that\'s a good question. I think it has to be stated like this. If you are looking at religious teachings, philosophy of life, moral values, standards, explanation and descriptions of relationships of followers and believers, one with another, and with God they propound, then Christianity would be from that perspective for religion. However, Christianity is not one of the options. It\'s the only option. So it does talk about a relationship, absolutely, but it does provide you with a system, with a worldview, with the philosophy of life, with moral values, with understanding of origins and endings. So it gives you the full sweep. In that sense, it\'s a religion. Okay. But the reason why we sort of bulk at using the word, the noun religion with Christianity, is because we don\'t want people to think that I\'m saying I\'m a Christian, you\'re a Buddhist, you\'re a Mormon, you\'re a Hindu. Fine, we all have our own religions. I think I have to say, you can be a Buddhist if you want to, a Hindu if you want to, a Mormon if you want to, but I\'m telling you there\'s only one thing you should be, and that\'s a Christian who sees only one name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved, and that\'s the name of Christ. In other words, I\'m an exclusivist. I think that\'s how you have to go. And I\'m being more direct now than you would be in certain conversations. Because you don\'t want to slap the guy in the face and send him on his way without wanting to listen. But there comes a point, and this is a friend of mine, he lived right next door to a Jehovah\'s Witness, and the guy said, this guy was one of the seniors in, what do they call it, Kingdor Hall. This was in Germany, and they got talking, and the guy said, you know, I can show you what we believe. So our friend said, all right, tell you what, I\'ll visit your place for a Bible study, then you come to mine. I don\'t think that was very wise, but anyway, that happened two or three times. Eventually the guy said, yes, I can see quite clearly, according to the verses you\'ve given me, to the verses you\'ve given me, that Jesus is God, Spirit is God, God is God. I said, well, that\'s great. You understand there\'s a trinity. That\'s our God. And the guy said, no, I refuse to worship three gods. He said, but I didn\'t tell you there was three gods, I told you there were three persons in one god. And the guy said, no, it\'s three gods. And Bible study came to an end, and a couple of weeks later he got talking to this man again. And there was an out and out rejection, and quite strongly my friend rose up and said, let me tell you, you\'ve got a beautiful wife and daughter, and because of your teaching, you are taking all of you into hell, because you are refusing to believe the only message that there is, and the only person who is the Savior, and that\'s the Christ I\'ve been trying to make you you know about. That was right, the right thing to do at that point. You want to cut this off? We part company with you having ringing in your ears the exclusivism of Christianity, rightly understood. One Christ, one Savior, one God, one way. It was, I don\'t know if I would have had the guts to do that, but here\'s the detailed answer, covering what? All these points. I think I listed, I believe it\'s 14 points, with just a selected verse of Scripture. You\'re going to have to deal with these eternal pre-existence, his deity, humanity, incarnation, all important points. Why? I must know that he\'s God, and that he was fully human, and that he was, according to the flesh, Christ who came into this earth, this world, virgin birth in fulfillment of prophecy, that he is the Messiah promised by God. He\'s person, he\'s character, full of grace and truth without sin, teaching authoritatively, fully understanding all the revelation, even at the age of 12, a remarkable understanding. His works that bear witness of him ministry, which he does, or his service, came to give his life a ransom for many. His death and its implications, impact, resurrection, ascension, finally his return. All those others, incarnation, etc., also refer to the first coming. There is second coming as well. So that\'s a mess of data and information from the New Testament, that you are amazed that a man who\'s read the New Testament more than once, Emil Brunner, should make this astoundingly stupid, excuse me, statement. Jesus of Nazareth, the Rabbi, the so-called historical Jesus, was an object of no interest for the early Christians. What are you talking about? And he\'s of no interest today for those who have preserved some understanding of what the Christian faith means. So you live on a different planet. This is not where we live. You find that cited by F.F. Bruce in Jesus, Lord and Savior. It\'s an astounding claim, totally misunderstood. This is a heavy book to read. It\'s technical, not a Greek grammar, which is fine. You ought to be able to handle it, but it slows your reading down. Jesus as God, the New Testament use of theos in reference to Jesus. It\'s challenging. It\'s good. It\'s evangelical. It\'s biblical. It\'s a challenging read. I\'ll let you read this one if you really want to. If you want to plow through 180 pages, you can do that. It\'s a restricted area, though. Restricted subject. That\'s what I left up just for your information during the break. You can get it from Parker\'s article, Creswell Theological Review, Volume 3, Number 1. And the elements that may sort of cross over from one religion to Christianity, but they just happen to be certain similar elements. It is not a reflection of the fact that Christianity is the best developed of all of these historically. You\'ve got to be careful how you use this, that you don\'t imply some sort of equality for development. The fact of the matter is that when you answer the question, who is Jesus, you push aside all these religions because they don\'t come anywhere near speaking the way we do. The eternal pre-existence of Christ is where we begin. For the simple reason the birth of Christ in Bethlehem stable is not the beginning of His existence. He was, and He is, and He will be. Orthodoxy, that is, conservative, I suppose I should say conservative evangelical. What do you say in place of orthodoxy today? I wanted to replace that word and haven\'t been able to find one that\'s suitable, but do you understand what I mean by orthodoxy? There\'s always a firm pre-existence for Christ. There are statements in the gospels There are statements in the gospels by the apostle John. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God. By John the Baptist, and I\'ll come back to John 1 a bit later, John the Baptist\'s statement, He was before me. John 1.15 and John 1.30. What is so significant about that statement? Somebody will say, what\'s so significant about John the Baptist saying, He was before me, or better, not somebody asking the question, you saying to them, do you realize the significance of this statement by John the Baptist? Nathan? John was conceived before Christ? Yeah, by how much? Six months. Six months at least, yeah. So He was before me. And it\'s not a case of John getting his chronology mixed up and somehow getting his dates confused. Don\'t think so. This was a statement of fact, significant one. Christ Himself said in John 8, in a context that elicited some response from His audience. That statement we all know. John 8.58. Before Abraham was, I am. Then they took up stones to throw at Him. Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple going through the midst of them, and so passed by. Before Abraham was, I am signals at least three descriptions here or realities that ought to be considered. I nearly said three things, but I\'ve determined that I\'m never going to use aspects or things in a propositional format when dealing with biblical truth, because aspects and things convey nothing. I\'ve used other words. These are the realities of His pre-existence. His existence is prior to that of Abraham. That\'s the reality. Given with John 1.1 and elsewhere, and if I may drop back to 42, Jesus said to them, If God were your father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God, nor have I come of myself, but He sent me. Why do you not understand my speech? Then verse 58 and 59, which I\'ve read, put that together with John 1, and you realize that He coexisted with the Father. He was with the Father beforehand. He came from the Father. He\'s going back to the Father, and He specifically states that His existence was prior to that of Abraham. So He was with the Father before Abraham\'s day. His existence is superior to that of Abraham. Abraham, verse 51-53, Most assuredly I say to you, if anyone keeps My word, he shall never see death. Then the Jews said to him, Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham is dead, and the prophets. And you say, If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste death. They understood a comparison has been made. At least they were thinking in terms of this comparison. He was saying, You keep My words, you don\'t die. They were saying, Wait a second, you know, we keep Abraham\'s words, and Abraham died, and the prophets died, and we listen to their words. Who are you to be so substantially different at this point? Now we know you have a demon. I mean, you\'re obviously a false teacher. And you say, If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste death. Are you greater than our Father Abraham, who is dead, and the prophets who are dead? Who do you make yourself out to be? Given the context and their understanding, it was an obvious question to ask. What are you saying about yourself? How can you do this? Are you greater than these? These are the heroes, the prophets, and Abraham. If I honor myself, my honor is nothing, Jesus answered. It is my Father who honors me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him. Ouch. But I know Him, and if I say I do not know Him, I shall be a liar, like you. But I do know Him and keep His word. Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and He saw it and was glad. You are 50 years old, and you have seen Abraham? This is not possible, obviously. And then that amazing answer from the lips of Abraham. Existence prior to, existence superior to, because Abraham died, but he never keeps Christ\'s words. He never dies. And then the existence of a totally different character, propounded by that statement, before Abraham was, I am. Takes the divine name, in effect. If he had said, before Abraham was, I was, it may have been taken as a statement of something to do with the angelic or metaphorically, or something, someone who would be sent in the providence of God to the history of the world. It might even have been taken as a statement of Messiahship that would perhaps not elicit too much of a reaction. Let me cross-reference you to John 10, 24. Cross-reference you to John 10, 24. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, How long do you keep us in doubt? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. I told you, you do not believe. But now He was saying something that gave a whole different character to the representation of the Messiah. The Messiah is using I am. And it was not just grammatical inaccuracy. It\'s too different. Present tense as opposed to the heiress. Abraham was, I am. Resonating Exodus 3, 13 through 14, introducing a different dynamic into the picture. The Messiah is Lord, too. That is difficult to understand. It\'s Abraham, Ganesh, thy ego, am I. Notice chapter 3. It bears out in John\'s Gospel this description of existence. With God ascended to, came down from heaven, sends His Son into the world. He who comes from above, I am from Him and He sent me. I am from above. I am not of this world. Repeated emphasis that makes it clear, I was there. You weren\'t. Declaration of pre-existence.