Lecture 2.docx

About page five, dealing with the eternal pre-existence of Christ. Clear statements from the gospels that obviously this is a unique person who speaks of himself in such a way or has statements made of him in such a way that they obviously reflect a different kind of existence to you and I or to the...

About page five, dealing with the eternal pre-existence of Christ. Clear statements from the gospels that obviously this is a unique person who speaks of himself in such a way or has statements made of him in such a way that they obviously reflect a different kind of existence to you and I or to the ordinary men of his own time. In the beginning the word was etc. Obvious distinction between God and the word, obvious identification between God and the word and borne out by the rest of the New Testament. Significance of John\'s statement, John the Baptist\'s statement, he was before me, we easily recognize. It\'s meaning John 8 58, we talked about that remarkable statement that stirred the crowd to anger in John 8 58 for he was asserting an existence of a superior different kind to that of Abraham whom they revered so highly. And we close with me quickly reading through the comparatives I\'ve given you on the c, the cf\'s, see these verses as well in chapter three of John\'s gospel, chapter seven and chapter eight. All confirm by the statements he made, all confirm and support prior and superior existence coexisted with the father beforehand. I am from him and he sent me. Now just stop and think about this for a second. It is possible for a man like us to say because he has a sense of divine mission, God sent me. Okay men have said that down through history and it\'s understood immediately what that God sent me meant. That in the providence, in the sovereignty of God, you realize you are raised up for a particular mission that has received divine approval. But when Jesus said in his contexts, contexts, I\'m from him and he sent me. And you put that alongside of the other statements that I\'m from above and you are from below. You\'re of this world and I\'m not of this world. I came from the father to do his will. I\'m going back to the place from which I came. It is obvious that when he said God sent me, it has a different meaning to you and I making such a statement. Because we could not affirm I was there with God before the foundation of the world. As a matter of fact, it would be astounding claims for a man to make. In John 17 verse five, which is that key passage, I thought I\'d left my Bible. I won\'t turn to it, but John 17 verse five, he talks about the glory she had before the world was. In fact, let me just go there to pick up the exact phrase. The hour has come. Glorify your son that your son also may glorify you as you have given him authority over all flesh. That he should give eternal life to as many as you have given him. This is eternal life that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ This is eternal life that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. You have to read on. I\'ve glorified you on earth. I finished the work which you\'ve given me to do. Now glorify me, Father, together with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was. That\'s a good verse set of verses to confirm what I\'ve just said. Whom you have sent, but it\'s a whom you have sent in a context of he who has been with you from before the foundation of the world. That gives him a prior existence for sure. Quite different is his being loved before the foundation of the world too which he goes on to speak about. Then to speak about me being loved by God before the foundation of the world. You understand immediately the difference. I don\'t know if I can spell it out. His was a personal person to person. He was actually there, but we were not. We did not yet exist. To say love before the foundation of the world is to put us immediately into a context of election and salvation and the plan of God for the ages, for time and history, when we would step onto the stage. But observe these statements here in John 6 and 8 and 16. Comes down from heaven, sends to where he was before, proceeded forth, and came from God, came forth from and goes to the Father. Markable statements of this man. Of this man did miracles, but I mean they all saw him. There was never any argument about the fact that he was man from those who were there with him. Matthew 22. You have the reference to whose son is he and that quotation from the Psalms, the Lord said to my Lord, pointing to an existence before his birth as the seed of David. Matthew 22. You have to read four verses, the so verse 41 through 45. Pharisees gathering together. Jesus said, what do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? Matthew 23. Good question to ask them. They said to him, the son of David, no doubt about that, got that well settled from revelation. He said to them, how then does David in the spirit call him Lord? Saying the Lord said to my Lord, said it my right hand. And obviously that would floor them completely because they didn\'t want to make the identification of the Christ the Messiah as being fully God. Unless of course, hearts were opened like Simon Peter\'s was by the Lord himself. Matthew 23. 37. And you can reason back from the words that he speaks when he says, oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her. That could be an accusation delivered, no problem. Would be understood, you know from history, you\'ve read the record. You understand that the prophets were not exactly treated with respect by Jerusalem and many other parts of the population. But then he says, how often I wanted to gather your children together as a hand gathers her chicks under her wings. You are not willing. That\'s the remarkable part of the statement. Because the distinct implication is, I was there in prior history, involved in the affairs concerning Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. You were unwilling to respond to what he was doing. Remarkable implication because they knew that they were standing listening to a man who\'d been born in Bethlehem, who had brothers and sisters, and those they called mother and father. Matthew 11. 27. Well known. Verse Matthew 11. 27. No one knows the son except the father. All things have been delivered to me by my father. No one knows the son except the father. Nor does anyone know the father except the son and the one to whom the son wills to reveal him. And then offers or gives his invitation to come to him. I think it\'s a reference to an intimate knowledge, number of commentaries pick up on it, and so does MacDonald, that you can look at these words and reflect upon them. And you\'re looking at an intimate knowledge of the son and the father that given the context of all the other words, statements made, puts it into before history. He was there with the father. It\'s beyond the bounds of history and the limits of time. This is father and son in perfect relationship in the Trinity before the foundation of the world. The Gospels, Christ\'s own words, leave that clear. Prior existence, superior existence, different kind of existence. But the epistles also make reference to this. You can pick up on it in 1 Corinthians 10 verses 4 and 9 which speaks of that rock was Christ and goes on to say that some of them put Christ to the test. Looking back at that event there, this man, Christ, that had lived on this earth for that short period of time, had also been back there in the experience of the nation. Philippians 2, 5 through 7 speaks about him being in the form of God and more faith through coming in the form of God, coming in the likeness of men. Or Colossians 1, 17 speaking about Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God who is before all things, referring to his creatorship. The Christ that had been on earth had created everything. It\'s a remarkable statement. For an ordinary man to listen to and says, how can this be? It\'s probably why I\'ll interject this at this point. It\'s probably why men later, actually later but pretty soon in the history of the first century church, posed the idea of ducetism. That if he was going to have deity, he couldn\'t have been man at the same time, therefore only appeared to be a man. He couldn\'t handle the tension. And perhaps that\'s why he was called the man of the earth. Therefore only appeared to be a man. He couldn\'t handle the tension. And perhaps some other influences from Gnosticism as well. I\'ll make a comment on that later. I think those implications of this in 2 Corinthians 8, 9, though he was rich, how was he rich? I mean if there\'s one thing that\'s clear from the life of Christ, it\'s not what some of the charismatics try to make it out to be. He didn\'t have a big mansion and a wonderful estate in Capernaum or Caesarea. As some have taught, remarkable, revealed interpretation given to them. He was not rich, though he was rich. In what sense? In what sense? Somebody\'s going to ask you that one day. What does it mean to say that Christ was rich? Yeah, everything is God, but put it in the context of him being the son. You\'ve got to write him in his God, and he was in heaven. He was there with the father. Sure, relationship with the father, worship by the angels, Chris. Right, the glory that he had. Ephesians 1, 3. Spiritual blessings in heaven belong to him. Blessings in spiritual blessings in\... Yeah, it\'s the glories of heaven were his. That\'s richness. He became poor, ordinary servant, laying aside all the splendor that was his. That\'s implication definitely of pre-existence. Came from the glories and equality with God to a man born in a stable and had no place to lay his head. Had no hometown, as it were. Obviously, there are implications or indications from the Old Testament of this as well. Spending a little bit of time on eternal pre-existence because some of the errors concerning Christ or the attempts to redefine start here. Hereanism, modern day form being Jehovah witness, are quick to redefine pre-existence. Prophet Isaiah saw Christ in his pre-incarnate glory. When you\'re reading through John chapter 12, you realize from about verse 36, that we are speaking about Jesus Christ. You have to go all the way back from verse 41, back to 36 to get the antecedent of the pronoun. These things Isaiah said when he saw his glory and spoke of him. Who? God? Who\'s the antecedent? And you trace, you let your eye go back and you trace back through the verses and you come to verse 36, 35 and 36. And it\'s obvious that the subject, the focus of attention is Jesus Christ. Brings to bear upon the situation, a quotation from the book of Isaiah. This is a reference to Christ Jesus. You go back to the passage in Isaiah six verses eight, nine and ten. And you realize that Isaiah is talking about the voice of the Lord saying, whom shall I send and who will go for us? Saying whom shall I send and who will go for us? It is Yahweh who said to Isaiah, go and tell this people keep on listening but don\'t understand. Keep on looking and don\'t perceive. It was God\'s words, spoke about rendering the hearts of the people insensitive, their ears dull, etc. That\'s this quotation that Isaiah speaks of. And this is a reference to Christ making cross identification between the Lord of Isaiah\'s passage and the Jesus of John\'s passage. Connections made, Christ obviously pre-existed also points to deity. He is probably correct to say that the Old Testament angel of the Lord was most probably the pre-incarnate Christ. Seems to be the best connection to make. So you got that connection made by Isaiah between the Lord and Jesus. And those of you that have had me before you know that this verse is a good verse for an exam question. For you to make the connection. Where would you go in John\'s Gospel to make a connection with an Old Testament passage that points not only to deity but to the pre-existence of Christ? It\'s a good ordination question too. How would you demonstrate the pre-existence of Christ by looking at a New Testament and Old Testament passage? You go to Matthew 22 as well. Lord said to my Lord would do it. But a second implication from the Old Testament indication is the identity of the angel of the Lord. Most probably being the pre-incarnate Christ and you cross reference to Matthew 23 and 37. And references often made to the fact that this person\'s name was wonderful as given in Judges 13 to the man and his wife. And that\'s because there\'s a cross reference that\'s quickly carried out to Isaiah 9 verse 6 where wonderful actually is an adjective. Wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace. Those titles in opposition to each other are remarkable anyway. I realize that most people cite especially older folks my generation cite as I nine six says wonderful pause put the comma counselor comma then mighty God prince of peace everlasting father. It\'s more than likely that wonderful stands in relation to the substantive just as the other titles have a two part. It certainly points to some identification. When you look at Genesis 48 15 and 16 you get an obvious indication that the angel of the Lord is more than an angel. The references that Jacob blessed Joseph and these were his words. The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked. The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day. The angel who has redeemed me from all evil. Bless the lads. It\'s quite a the one before whom the fathers walked. Who\'s been my shepherd. The angel who has redeemed me. I think is equated with the angel of his presence. Angel of his presence in Isaiah chapter 63. Verse nine says there in all the reflections he was afflicted and the angel of his presence saved them in his love and his mercy. He redeemed them. He lifted them and carried them from days of old. Angel of the Lord I think can be demonstrated in every passage in which the angel of the Lord occurs and I haven\'t taken the time to put put that here. I think we\'ll highlight that more effectively under angels. Probably refer back to some of these passages but in every one of these passages there is a distinction between angel and God and then a merging an identification of that angel as being God. Separate but the same in the same context. You\'ll notice from Exodus chapter three that Moses worshiped this person. And that\'s significant because that angel of the Lord accepted the worship. And did not rebuke Moses from worshiping him. It was God who called from the center of the bush. I am God of the firstborn and Moses was afraid to look at God. The context tells you as the angel of the Lord with whom you are speaking. One other person also worshiped him under a different title that would be Joshua. Standing apparently looking over the situation with Jericho so that he could carry out some sort of strategy or think about strategy. It\'s the captain of the Lord\'s host that appears to speak to him. Usually taken as being another title for the angel of the Lord. The commander of the Lord\'s army said take your sandal off your foot for the place where you stand is holy. He did. Talk to this one. I\'ve given you a little note here which I think is important to remember. There is no record that has this individual the angel of the Lord appearing after the birth of Christ. He was involved in the affairs of the nation before, appeared at critical moments. But any of the references in Matthew and Acts to the angel of the Lord is an angel sent by God. Not to the angel of the Lord from the Old Testament. Can\'t make that distinction clearly from the New Testament record. Does not appear to have come after the birth of Christ. HD MacDonald in his book Human and Divine page 83 makes a reference. I added this note here for you. Makes a reference that this is not a title that is applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament. But it seems something that can be inferred. Son of man, son of God. Son of man, son of God. Point to Bethlehem. Has not the beginning of his existence. There is a difference. He\'s the sent one, he\'s the coming one, he\'s the one who was the Lord to David. All pointing to that existence. There is no specific identification with the angel of the Lord, but there\'s no reason not to make that identification. It\'s not the Father, not the Spirit. Yet could be seen as the Father because he did said the things that only God would do and say. Yes sir, Matthew right? Would you connect John\'s description of Jesus as the word of God with the angel of the Lord, the messenger of God, also the prologue you mentioned, in him was life and the life was the light of the Lord. That there was revelation of the word of God for the incarnation. Yeah, you can make the connection inferentially perhaps rather than direct, because you haven\'t been directly notified. Thou shalt see the angel of the Lord as indeed being distinctively the word, but you can make inference from existence beforehand, clearly been identified as God, involved in the affairs, cross reference to the fact that Christ was there beforehand, was interested in the affairs of the nation, knew about Jerusalem, spoke about their unwillingness to respond to him. Something of the same names carrying across wonderful, at least the adjective, being used in relation to his name and not appearing at all after his birth. Then you go to Hebrews 1 and you realize there\'s a superiority here now that Christ has come. That the angels were used in the giving of the law and son, but that\'s now gone. So a good inference, theologically inferences are acceptable if there\'s a fairly wide base of facts on which to base the inference, understand? If you just have one or two little statements and too many variables, inference becomes weak. But if you have a whole array of data that you can put together, then there\'s only one way to scoop it up and say, here\'s obviously where it\'s all pointing, it doesn\'t have to be said, we can make it. And in any case, look at Malachi 3.1, I\'m going to send my messenger, he will clear the way before me, the Lord whom you seek, whom you seek, the messenger of the covenant, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. The Lord of hosts speaking about the Lord that they\'re waiting to come, who\'s the messenger of God, the messenger of the covenant, coming suddenly to his temple. Two questions, one is here, and Joshua, could we say that there were appearances of angels other than the title of, you know, as angel of the Lord specifically, there were other appearances which you could connect to and say this was the Lord himself? In the Old Testament, yes. And in Malachi, would you say, in messenger, could we connect and say that was not the prophet Malachi and not the angel of the Lord? No, because this would be the one that clears the way before him, if anything, it\'s going to be a reference to the prophecy concerning the coming of John the Baptist, if anything. But it appears here to be the one that is the Lord whom you seek, that suddenly comes to his temple, this messenger of the covenant in whom they were delighting, waiting for the consolation of Israel would be the connection. Behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. And that would be, this is Malachi who\'s already there speaking about one who is still coming. Thanks. I\'m just trying to understand, you say there\'s a grammar difference in the Old Testament in terms of an article or something, the angel or this is an angel of the Lord, or is there something else? No, actually, let me correct this. I\'m not basing it upon a definite article. You can still say the angel of the Lord in the New Testament. And we could say that without it being the angel of the Lord. Okay, would be. Yeah, this angels sent from God were used, there was an angel of the Lord that appeared to Joseph to give him some more indications. But it was clearly from the context, an angel. And whereas the context in the Old Testament of the angel of the Lord, are clearly identified with God and yet being separate from God in every one of the contexts. Oh, I have a summarization of that. We can give out later. We can give out later. Micah five verse two, well known statement points to the eternality of the Messiah. Very clear connection. As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little, too T.O.O. So little among the clans of Judah, you\'ve got nothing to offer in other words. From you, one will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel. But notice that he\'s going forth from ages. He\'s going forth from long ago from the days of eternity. One to be ruler comes from you, but notice the connection. Let\'s move on to the other track. He comes from you. But he\'s the one who\'s goings forth have been from ages past from the days of eternity. That\'s incredible. That\'s making a statement of pre-existence. Thinking unfulfilled prophecy. Jesus is not a religious group. Right. You would eventually do so in the millennium. Well, in two, actually there\'s two things here. It\'s a reference to the fact that he\'s going to come from Bethlehem. And you could make the identification that this is the Christ who was born. But is he ruler of Israel? Then you say, no, because that\'s part of the second coming. It\'s going to be the consequences of the coming to this earth to be ruler in Israel on the throne of David in the city of Jerusalem, which is the capital of the world with the nation of Israel as the central nation on the face of the earth. So that is still to be fulfilled. And then it\'ll go out into eternity. But obviously he\'ll be still seen as the lamb of God, the ruler of Israel. Good point. There was a Christian heresy, a Colossian heresy. Sorry, it couldn\'t be Christian if it\'s a heresy. Colossian heresy, Arianism, that sort of Christ is existing before human birth, but still has been created at some point in time. You understand what they\'re doing? You understand what they\'re doing? He came before the rest, but his coming also had a distinct beginning. So he was not eternally pre-existing. He has a temporary pre-existence. He was made first, then he made everything else to that heresy that constituted pre-existence, but substantially redefined and restricted. A creature not essentially divine, but having bestowed upon him a tremendous amount of power and authority to be the creator. Folks, it makes a mockery of the statement that he\'s the express image of the invisible God. Yeah? What fueled that heresy? What was the benefit? You know, a lot of things going on at the time. I\'d have to sit down and check my history book again, but that sort of came out into the open with areas at the Council of Niceir in 325, I wonder. AD. They wanted a man, Christ Jesus. If there\'s a doctrinal impetus, it was such a strong desire to have him as a human mediator that all the evidence of his deity was totally submerged. But I think there\'s a second what was going on, answer. And that is that sinful men can\'t accept the deity of Christ without making some redefinition. The only way they can really say you are the Christ, the Son of the living God, is because God has touched our. And really mean it fully God of God and fully man of man. Incredible paradox. And so you can say that pre-existence does not in and of itself necessarily establish deity. But John Walford reminds us in his book Jesus Christ our Lord, of what he\'s correct and others have as well. That pre-existence has become so associated with deity that it is accepted as one of the marks of the deity of Christ. For all practical purposes, proof of his pre-existence is evidence of his eternity. Eternality. And since the Aryan controversy in that fourth century, there has been, and this is an important point, no successful denial of his eternity which has not also denied his pre-existence. If he\'s not divine, he couldn\'t have an eternal pre-existence. We add a couple of verses here for you. Romans 8.3 at this point talking about his pre-existence. Romans 8.3 What the law could not do weak as it was through the flesh, God did sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin. One who was with him sent him to the flesh, and he was sent to the flesh. And he was sent to the flesh in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin. One who was with him sent to be sacrificed. Galatians 4.4, implications there too. In the fullness of time, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law. Indicating that he has come into the stream of humanity. So I\'ll say this as we go to the diagram. You do have references, both Old and New Testament, that refer or that confirm the actual personal existence of the Son of God, the Son of Man, before his appearance in world history. The references are there. It\'s not just one verse, there and one verse over here. There\'s a fairly large number of verses and implications. So you can probably diagram something like this. And then we\'ll take a break. Here\'s your diagram. Christ has a pre-incarnate glory before he became the Son of God, the Son of Man. He had a glory with the Father. He\'ll identify that as being the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of his presence, the Angel who redeemed, the Angel who is the Lord. Then he is born in Bethlehem, and he\'s becoming the Son of God incarnate. And in sort of soft gray letters above is written the word Knossos. This would be the time of his veiling, emptying himself. You have Calvary. You have Calvary. And I would mark the cross there and the turn up as being both death, burial, resurrection, ascension. They all cluster around that particular point. Crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, back to post-incarnate glory, then go back to no glory. And he\'s now the God-man that is Christ Jesus seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high, awaiting second coming. Pick up on this a little bit later, talking about the God-man when we talk about the ascension. But he\'s the God-man. Don\'t speak in terms of God, God-man, God. As though there was a divesting of humanity at the ascension. Here\'s the difference, the pre-existing Christ with us. We have a particular beginning. So what\'s so different? Here\'s our beginning. I did not exist beforehand, not at all. Potentially in the genes, yes. And in God\'s planning, yes. But I didn\'t have any substantial beginning until I was conceived. So I begin and then live forever or exist forever. So I\'m born, I die, and that\'s not the end. Unbelievers born and dies and it\'s not the end. The believer lives, the unbeliever exists. But the difference is we have a particular point of origin. Jesus\' birth into history was one who would always be. And his death and resurrection and second coming and so on all take place. He\'s involved in those events. He\'s one who always will be. He was, he is, he will be. Part of the is and will be and was is his involvement in history, not just eternity. Okay, at that point, let\'s take a 10 minute break. Let\'s come down and let me point out to you this good little statement by J. Oswald Sanders in a book of real devotional quality. Paul links his precedence in time with his preeminence as creator and preserver. He\'s before all things. By him all things consist, which means we have to introduce as well sustaining. He compresses into three pregnant words the condition of our Lord in his former state of glory. He was rich. This enhances the magnitude of the love which moved him to lay aside the splendors and prerogatives of deity. The exercise of infinite power and the disclosures of supreme majesty. Sanders makes a lot of statements like that through the book. Somebody\'s asked for permission to do a semi-critical review of that book. That\'s fine. Just recognize when you read it that it is primarily a devotional book, but it is worth reading. Certainly will make you reflect more seriously upon the decision to become man. The deity of Christ. I want to spend a minimum amount of time on the deity of Christ. I believe, I hope so, substantially looked at the deity of Christ when dealing with the Trinity in theology one. It\'s not an easy term to define. Deity. Leon Morris\'s excellent little book, The Lord from Heaven, says that it is not impossible though to imagine a line. You can draw a line that separates God from God\'s creatures. And everything that concerns God is on this side of the line. Everything that concerns that which is made or created or temporal or limited or restricted is on this side of the line. All the attributes of God this side. All the attributes only of humanity or creatureliness on this side. And he says if you were to ask on which side of the line Christ is to be found when you finished reading the New Testament, your answer would be God\'s side. I don\'t want to quibble with Leon Morris. There\'s an intelligence far superior than mine will ever be. But I think there may be an additional section to the answer. Is it correct to say God\'s side alone? If we\'re focusing on deity and just deity and not the whole person of Christ, it\'s a correct answer. He does fall on the side of God and there\'s no question. If I was asking that question in a context of the whole person of Christ, I would have to say on both sides with one exception, with a proviso, with a caveat, that to put him on the side of creatures does not mean created being. So in that sense he wouldn\'t fall equally on both sides of the line. He\'d fall on the side of deity and a qualified statement to point to his humanity. Deity is not based on a few proof texts woven into the fabric. It\'s there by inference, by obvious assumption, by force of evidence. I refer you to an excellent little article by Doriani. It\'s a Canadian writer, I believe. The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels. It\'s easy to read. It\'s full of cross references. If you want to put it on file, if you can get it online, do so. It\'s a good resource. They are the divine names that are applied to God. These are names, please remember, this is the qualifying statement you make, these are names that are applied to one who is God and applied by intensely monotheistic Jews who knew exactly what their Old Testament was saying about God and what it meant, what the significance would be if those titles were applied to Christ. It\'s not like the names were applied to Christ in a neutral context with no informative background of any kind. These were men with an Old Testament knowledge. And Christ applied to himself and accepted of himself such names. My Lord and my God, Thomas said, clear ascription of deity. In fact, Jesus notes that Thomas believed and I think indicates or infers that believing involves understanding that Jesus is God. Perhaps in a limited sense, because the fullness of what it means for Christ to be deity may not always be immediately fully apparent, but he is Lord. In fact, you may conclude that Jesus was addressed in terms Lord, God, they were reserved for Israel addressing Yahweh. Following divine names are applied to Christ. The word Lord, Luke 2.11, repeatedly throughout the New Testament, kurios, Lord, not in the sense of just an ordinary master, a polite sir, or the owner of a vineyard, landlord, but a reference in contexts that are references to deity. It\'s kurios Yahweh. John 1.1 speaks about the logos already have in the beginning. Notice that Raymond Brown in the anchor Bible commentary makes a note that in the beginning of John 1.1 should not be referred to as parallel to the beginning in Genesis 1, as a mere parallel to the beginning, because he makes the note that in John 1, creation doesn\'t occur until verse 3. Notice that the reference to the beginning here is a reference to the period before creation. It actually is designating qualitatively the sphere of God. In the beginning, right there at the beginning anyway, he already existed, so it\'s pushing you back beyond the actual beginning point of creation. He\'s understood the context and the force of the statements being made. Murray Harris in his book Jesus as God makes points out three propositions that can be made and their implications. I\'ll make a copy of this page for you so you don\'t have to try and get it down. Three propositions being made, three clauses, same subject logos. Logos existed before time and creation in the beginning was the word. Implication therefore denies he was a created being. You\'ve got three propositions that he can make with these implications, the consequences, the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from the statements. Second, and the word was with God, proposition. The Lord Logos was always in active communion with the Father and he discusses that phrase from that perspective. Therefore, he cannot be personally identified with the Father. Two separate persons in the verse. You understand what he\'s saying? Thirdly, the Logos always was a partaker of deity and the word was God. Therefore denies immediately any subsequent elevation to divine status. Adoptionism is ruled out by John 1.1, apart from other statements in the New Testament. So you cannot ascribe to him a beginning as a created person or creature. You cannot identify him wholly as being the Father and only the Father. And you cannot grant him elevated status to deity. He has it already. So he\'s with the Father and is the Father, but not one person with the mode. In other words, modalism is ruled out altogether. This is not the Father in the mode of the Son. It\'s the Father and the Son. But the Son is the Father. The Son is not the Father. The Son is God. The Father is God. You\'ll note the antitheticals here. Who existed in the beginning. Eternality. You drop down to verse 14 of John 1, the reference to him coming in the flesh. You realize he comes on the human scene. He wasn\'t always in the human scene. There\'s an antithetical parallel, as Murray Harris calls it. Verse 1b, who was eternally in communion with God, yet must be seen as temporarily sojourning amongst men. Always with God. Always in communion with God. Temporarily in communion with men. Who had the same nature as God. John 1, 14. Let\'s see, I want to just make sure I\'ve got the right phrases here. Who had became flesh and dwelt among us. We beheld his glory. Is that correct? We beheld his glory. The glory is the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Had the same nature as God, full of grace and truth. Was God, John 1, 1. Assumed the same nature as humans. Okay, interesting. Word was God. In the beginning, with God. Repeats it. Bracketing phrase in verse 1. All things made through him. Nothing was made that was made. In him was life, etc. Obviously, as fully the nature of God. Assumes the nature of man. Comes in the likeness of men. Divine. Human. So even in a verse that can be used to point to deity. In the passage as a whole. Is appointing to humanity. Which we\'ll have to deal with. In fact, John 1, verse 18 says he is the only begotten God. You realize there\'s a textual problem there. Some prefer to write only begotten son. But it is the accepted decision of the high ranking. Critical scholars, evangelical, conservative men. That it should be the only begotten God. Acts 10, 36 speaks about him as Lord of all. Obvious reference to deity. Sovereign ruler. In fact, in the context what comes out very clearly is he\'s not just the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob\'s descendants. But he is indeed the Lord over the Gentile nations. To ease the Lord of the universe. This is Lord of all. Jesus Christ. Romans 9, 5 has that statement. That God blessed forever. I\'ll refer you. I don\'t spend time there, but I\'ll refer you to the discussion by Cranfield in ICC volume 2. Where he talks about that statement of God blessed forever and does conclude that it\'s a reference to Jesus Christ. Christ who is overall eternally blessed God. A positional statement. Amen. He gives quite an argumentation for it in several pages. Sees it as a reference to the deity of Christ. Titus 2, 13. I think it is an application of the Granville Sharp Rule, which I\'m sure you\'ve discussed in some detail. Particularly if you had Dr. Fonnell. It\'s one of his favorite subjects I know there. Our great God and Savior. Jesus Christ. One definite article. There\'s your definite article. Our great God and Savior. Same person. Reference to deity. Obviously you don\'t base it just upon a single grammatical thing. You need more evidence than that. Put it together with the rest of the verses and all that you\'ve looked at. And it just is another piece of evidence. Hebrews 1, verse 8 makes it very clear that no angel was ever called my son. This one who is God\'s son is referred to as God himself. Hebrews 1, verse 8. You have that switch that occurs. It\'s so obvious when you\'re reading. Jolt anybody who\'s reading it. It\'s become very clear as you come down through verse 6, 7 and 8. Let the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he says, who makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire. But to the son he says, your throne, O God, is forever and ever. So the son is referred to as Kurios in an Old Testament statement that is obviously referring to Yahweh. 1 John 5, 20. The only true God. It\'s Aleithinos. Aleithinos theos. Inos ending on a noun you realize points to material out of which something is made. I don\'t want to use that too crassly, but it just simply means this, that he is indeed very God, a very God. He\'s the true, he\'s the genuine. He\'s the only one of a kind. He is God. Genuinely, deity. I would say this is a very God of very God statement. When you look at 1 Corinthians 2, 8 with Psalm 24, you see the cross identification of Jesus as the Lord of glory with Yahweh in the Old Testament. Also a very good exam question, this batch here of Old Testament to New Testament quotations. Acts 3, 14, Isaiah 11, 9 and Isaiah 48, 17 speak about the Holy One, which is definitely in the Old Testament the title of deity, which stands in Isaiah in opposition to the Lord your Redeemer, and to I am the Lord your God, and in Peter\'s words stands in opposition to the righteous one. So when you read 48, 17 and realize it\'s been used in the New Testament context, crossing identification with Christ, that says the Lord your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, I am the Lord your God, etc. Cross identification immediately made. This Jesus is Lord. Same with Revelation 1 and 2, Isaiah 44 and the other verses in 48. The first and the last was the title applied to Yahweh, the Yahweh of Israel. It\'s now applied to Christ. Isaiah 48, you take time to look at that passage and you realize you are, you put it together with the Old Testament. I think you can read it by itself as a reference to two persons in the Godhead. I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, etc. The Lord loves Him, and His arm shall be against, etc. Come near to me, hear this. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning, from the time that it was. I was there. That I was there, come now to me. Listen to me, O Jacob and Israel, my called. I am the first, I am also the last. Come listen to me, come near to me. Now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent me. You see the connection? I think you would have dealt with this verse as one of the indications under the Trinity for more than two persons in the Godhead identified in the same context. The first and the last, the one who laid the foundation of the earth, the one who is the Lord of Israel, says come to me, for the Lord God and His Spirit have sent me. Cross-identification clear when occurring in Revelation 1 and Revelation 2. Isaiah 44, 6 says, Thus says the Lord the King of Israel, and His Redeemer the Lord of hosts. I am the first, I am the last. And then adds this clincher. There is no God besides me. That\'s it. True, genuine, God, no other. Isaiah 44, 6. You\'ve got it next to Revelation 1 and Revelation 2. So terms, titles, obviously applied to the only God. Yahweh applied to Christ. King of kings and Lord of lords, similarly so, applied to Christ Jesus by John in Revelation 19, but applied to the blessed and only potentate in 1 Timothy 6. He\'s the King of kings, the Lord of lords. He is Yahweh. Which page are you on? It\'s my page 9, I don\'t know if it\'s going to be yours. It\'s the, right before section 4, but halfway down the page. It speaks about Him having that name written on His side, remember, King of kings and Lord of lords. The name Lord or Kurios. Let me read 45, 5 and 6 and then take you to Revelation 11, 15. Isaiah 45, 5 and 6 says, have I got it? I am the Lord and there is no other. Besides me there is no God. I will gird you though you have not known me, that men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides me. I am the Lord and there is no other. Then you go to Revelation 11, 15 and answer this. This is a great exam question, ordination question. Revelation 11, 15. Then the seventh angel sounded and there were loud voices in heaven saying, the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ and He shall reign forever and ever. Significance. Kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. Significance. We are dealing with the name, the term Kurios. Looking back to the previous section. What is going on in verse 15? How many persons are there? How many divine persons? Two. Lord, Yahweh, that is, Isaiah 45, 5 and 6 would certainly make that clear. Kurios in the Septuagint applying constantly to Yahweh. But what\'s the title used of Christ outside of Revelation 11, 15 repeatedly throughout the New Testament? Kurios. The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of Kurios and Christos. But Kurios applies to Yahweh repeatedly in the Old Testament and applies to Christ repeatedly in the New Testament. Obvious identification needs to be made and so I\'ve added point B here. That\'s the significance in the Septuagint\'s translation of the sacred name. Six thousand times overwhelming application of Kurios to Yahweh. So anybody with an Old Testament background reading the New Testament message has got to say, ah-ha! I see the connection. Somewhere the light has to go on. This Christ, about whom I\'m hearing, whom I worship, is the Lord of the Old Testament. He\'s the Yahweh. But he\'s not the Father. He\'s the Son. Acts 2, 36 also speaks about Lord and Christ. Matthew 11, 25 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, but the Jesus who spoke is the one who\'s called Lord. John the Baptist in the sight of the Lord. Obviously a reference to God the Father. Moses, who called the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. There\'s obviously significance with Kurios applying to Christ. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ spoke the word of the Lord having believed in God. That\'s even other significant. These are incredibly impactful statements. We read them casually because we\'ve got it kind of settled in our mind what all the definitions are. Everything is sort of settled in our environment. But put yourself in the context of the first people to hear this. Being informed from the Old Testament. We have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. These believed in God having responded to the word of the Lord. Exactly. Identification to be carried out. Romans 10 and 9. Romans 10 and 9. Favorite verse of mine. How\'s it going? Just tell me what it says. If you confess. Jesus Christ as Lord. Impact made. Add to this batch of verses in 4B. Isaiah 45 verse 23. Isaiah 45 verse 23. With Philippians 2, 10 and 11. Isaiah 45 verse 23. Cross reference with Philippians 2, 10 and 11. All you need to do to write next to those verses is every knee will bow. You\'ve got Bible works you can call it up very quickly. Every knee will bow. Isaiah 45 speaks about God himself saying. I have sworn by myself. That to me every knee will bow. Philippians 2, 11. At the name of Jesus. Every knee will bow. Correlation to automatically be carried out. Okay. Now let\'s see how we do. You\'re holding up? You better nod your heads. It\'s a little warm in here. That\'s because of all the cables and everything else. I\'ll speak to the, what do you call them? Custodial. Custodial, see if we can get it turned down a little. I\'m feeling it as well. Have the name Son of God. Going to deal a little bit more with sonship, Son of God later. I want to first find out from Dr. Pettigrew just how much you had on sonship in his notes before I step into that. Son of God is also a name applied to him. Already done saying Psalm 2, 7. Hold questions on Psalm 2, 7 until we get to the section on sonship where I\'ve got some statements to make. It obviously meant in Christ\'s day equal with God. Those references show the equality. Certainly in the context that comes out. Jesus said that God was his father, making himself equal with God. It wasn\'t a special relationship. It was an equality that aroused the anger. I and the father are one of the same kind. Not a heteros, not a heteros idea, but an alos idea, one of the same kind. Jesus made himself God. I am the Son of God. Said it boldly. Jews said he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God. This is blasphemy. This is making yourself equal with the only God. Monotheistic Jew couldn\'t tolerate somebody saying, I am God. Related expressions also do not mean origin. And then hold that until we get to sonship. Only begotten means absolutely unique and does not correspond with procreation. You know that from the fact that monogamase has a single nun, not a double nun root. It was mistakenly seen as monogamase, monogamna, not one of a kind, but one born of. Firstborn of creation marks priority in position. A scribe to a position of superiority doesn\'t designate coming into existence through procreation and chronologically being first. Repeatedly God changed the normal pattern of culture by making the firstborn, not the firstborn, but someone else who is chronologically second or third to be first, scribing with power. This one is the firstborn, Genesis 48, 18. It says to Pharaoh, Israel is my son, my firstborn. He\'s stated as having a top priority position. Probably the best cross-reference for you here would be Psalm 89, verse 27. Where firstborn equals priority of position, not origin. I\'ll make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. And the nation, remember, was nothing to be looked at. Now is the number one nation. Anyway, then I\'ll come back to these expressions, particularly only begotten under sonship. So hold it till then. Father does not equate him with men. Call God his father without in any way indicating that he is like men who call God their father. What was made? How is the difference brought out? There is an apparent distinction between the way he referred to father and the way men did. My father, your father. My God, your God. Making some distinction here. Probably revealing, I think, a special filial relationship, a special sense of union with God. Particularly when you see that he said, I and the father are one. Or he speaks so often about my father. Many times he used your father talking to them. And my father, it was not a sort of our father approach that was studiously avoided. That\'s got to be significant. I can understand an attempt to make some sort of emphasis by saying my God and your God, that is our God. But it\'s done often enough for you to understand that there\'s something different in his relationship as a son to the father than you and I to the father. Instructed them to pray our father who art in heaven. See, having designated son of God several different times in his life, put this up now. Designated son of God several different times. That phrase meaning equal with God. At his birth, Gabriel the angel appears to Mary. Called the son of God, that holy one to be born of her, that is conceived in her. At his baptism, Mark speaks to his readers. Says, yes, the gospel of Christ, the son of God, ascended by messenger. Adds also in context, you are my beloved son. At the transfiguration, God speaking to Peter, James and John. Matthew 17, this is my beloved son. Plus son of man used by Jesus three times in the context. Son of man on his lips, carrying the force of son of God, really. At the resurrection, psalmist words in Luke to his readers. Acts 13, you are my son. You are the holy one. You are holy one. At the second coming, Paul revealing to his readers, particularly about those in Thessalonica. Wait for his son. Whom he raised, even Jesus, the one who delivers from the wrath to come. Clear designation of son of God. Taking place in the record. At the bottom of the page, I\'ve given you a listing of others who gave a recognition of his being the son, such as these. John the Baptist, obviously. This one is the son of God. Satan in indirect acknowledgement. If you are the son of God. Demons in direct assertion, interestingly enough. You are the son of God. Jesus, you son of God. Romans Centurion in his testimony. Truly, truly, this is the son of God. Sought sufficient evidence at the crucifixion. And at the words being spoken, the things that occurred. This is the son of God. Disciples in their own assessment. Truly, you are the son of God. The Christ, the son of the living God. The son of God, the King of Israel. Interesting statement by Nathaniel. The Christ, the son of God in John 11. So there\'s a steady recognition throughout on the lips of men and of Satan and of demons. On his sonship. Gave you quite a long list. But notice in context, I summed up it in a paragraph and this probably sums it up the best. If you stop and think about son of God in those various statements, you\'ll see a linkage with messianic themes. Gabriel and Martha Nathaniel statements certainly make that linkage. Gabriel to Mary speaks about the throne of David and the kingdom without end. Obviously messianic overtone. Jesus speaking to the high priest says, son of man coming. When you see the son of man coming, that is the Lord returning. The Christ. Demons to Jesus are speaking to him as the Christ as well. Nathaniel to Jesus unveils title King of Israel, applying to the Messiah. To the son of God, that is, one who is equal with God. More than a political king. More than a conqueror against the Roman Empire. This is God appearing. Martha to Jesus, this is the Christ who used to come into the world. She understood her Old Testament messianic message. For to his readers. This is God\'s son. Of the seed of David, son of God, son of David. So you have a messianic theme attached to the title son of God. In more than one context. Okay. And do I need to say anything about the last little paragraph here before B. After the chapel message this morning. Markers at Calvary. Indirectly acknowledged his status by their challenge. If you are the son of God. Ironically. They were stating he was. But they didn\'t really believe that. Matthew knew it. Remember the readers know it. He is the son of God. Words, what was the phrase Carson used? Drenched in irony. Got to have to use that sometimes. Communicates. He is the son of God. And all that that means. For deity. For messiahship. For sonship. For specific identity. You will notice here that I have given a grocery list. I am just going to let you read through this for yourself. Divine attributes are applied to Christ. You could take each one of these and expand them in some detail by going back to the Old Testament. In other words you could take Matthew 18, 20. When you are looking at attributes of greatness. I have divided the attributes of God into greatness and goodness. And presented them like this. Omnipresence, self-existence, life or aseity. Immutability, omniscience, omnipotence. Are the attributes of greatness and they are all applied to Christ Jesus. There is only one way to look at them now without taking all the time to say let\'s track down omnipotence in the Old Testament and so on. It\'s too obvious for us to have to do that. Here is the list. You may be required to know it. I will let you know. In respect of goodness. He is holy, righteous, faithful, merciful, loving and true. Can track all those down. In terms of attributes of God. And they would just simply solidify the list here. All of these are applicable to the son of God. Born of the Virgin Mary. I don\'t think I understand anymore. All these attributes have been predicated of Christ. And what\'s significant is that this was of men who knew what they were saying. All things the Father has are mine. I have manifested your name. In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead. Bodily. It\'s an amazing statement. What\'s so incredibly amazing about that? When you think about that time. I knew I had this. That was the incipient Gnosticism of the time. God is spirit is good. Man is material is evil. Contact between God and spirit. God who is spirit and material which is evil. Just can\'t occur like that. The distance between them is so great. So what you have is a ladder of intermediary beings in Gnosticism. From the one that was incredibly evil. Tiny wee dot of good. And increase the wee dot of good. Till you get to the top one who is incredibly good. It\'s a tiny wee little dot of evil. When you work your way through the ladder you finally get in touch with God. Gnosticism defeated by Colossians 1. Fullness of the Godhead bodily in Christ Jesus. One stroke of the pen and this is destroyed. Some years before it became the great heresy of Asia Minor. I think that it\'s a reference to the fact that the totality of divine powers and attributes are all in Christ Jesus and permanently so too. He is the only intermediary because he is both God and man. So what you have. We\'ll close on this. Guarding three persons. I assume you dealt with the Trinity. Therefore modalism is intolerable. Three persons not modes. Each person is fully guard. Ontological subordination is intolerable. We\'ll come back to this phrase. There is only one God. So try theism is intolerable. Denial or modification of any one of these propositions is a denial of the Trinity. And many cases is a focus on the deity of Christ. So the denial of the Trinity becomes Christ. He\'s just one of the modes. He\'s not fully guard. And if you make him fully guard, you\'re going to make more than one God. Any pressing question? Can I leave that as a closing note? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.