Lecture 3.docx

The article up on the screen, I thought maybe of interest to you just to at least keep on file at least the notification. It\'s an outstanding 124 page article on God the Son covering deity, humanity, etc. Pretty much all the subject matter that we have in our syllabus in much detail. He bolds all t...

The article up on the screen, I thought maybe of interest to you just to at least keep on file at least the notification. It\'s an outstanding 124 page article on God the Son covering deity, humanity, etc. Pretty much all the subject matter that we have in our syllabus in much detail. He bolds all the verses of scripture that he quotes and there\'s a substantial number. It\'s well written. I thought you might like to know about it. It\'s from the Emmaus journal which is a little known journal in our circles but is well worth subscribing to or at least tapping into. God the Son by John Fish III who\'s a lecturer at their Bible Institute in Dubuque, Iowa. Okay, we\'re done dealing with the deity of Christ. I told you I\'d skip over the attributes. You can read those because you can just give a listing of the attributes of greatness and the attributes of goodness. When you read of these you may predicate of Christ all that the attributes are predicated of God. In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. So just because I missed this I\'ll put it in as a reminder. The Son of God on one side and God the Father on the other. The Son of God is sent from heaven by God the Father. Read these for all and across the page. Loved by the Father was obviously dependent upon the Father for guidance, for strength. Prayed to the Father fervently, earnestly every day. Claimed to be the exclusive revelation of the Father. There is no one else that reveals the Father that exegetes God. Spoke the words of the Father, not his own. Says he spoke that which he was given by the Father. Has all things given into his hand by the Father including the judgment of the world and the granting of eternal life. And the Son of God advised that he would return to the Father so he\'d come from was returning to the Father. Sets him apart completely. Has a very distinct character in his time. None like him. Think the disciples would realize that even though there\'s never a question of his humanity, never questioned that he was man, had to be struck by the fact that he was incredibly different from mankind. And one of the reasons would be sinlessness. To live in the company of a sinless man for three years must have been quite challenging experience. When you stop to think about it. Now we pick up with divine works are done by Christ. Divine names have been accorded to him. Divine attributes have been applied to him. Divine works are done by him. These are works that only God could do. He created and sustains all things and you know these chapters, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1, 2 through 3. Clear Christ is the creator. But notice Beckworth, Francis Beckworth has a syllogism that he proposes. In an article in Jets, December 1986, points you to these verses of scripture. Isaiah 44, 24. Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, he who formed you from the womb, I am the Lord who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens, and the interpretive translation all alone, who spreads abroad the earth by himself, by myself. You can add, Nehemiah 9, 6. You alone are the Lord, you have made the heavens. The heaven of heavens with all their hosts, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them, you\'ll give life to all of them and the heavenly host bows down before you. You alone are the Lord. And you have a similar repetitive statement made in Isaiah 45, 18. I am the Lord and there is none else, no one else. In the statements about creation, who created the heavens, he is the God who formed the earth, no one else. In fact, you\'d have to say to the pagan gods that they did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from. From under the heavens it is he who made the earth by his power, no one else. Notice that the article has a, took us from Fischer\'s article, there\'s obviously a typo. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, he spoke, it was done, he commanded, stood fast. The suggestion is no one else. Similarly down here in Acts 4, 24, it is you who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. Back here, John 1, 3. All things made through him and without him nothing was made that was made. Important statement, Colossians 1. All things created that are in the heavens, that are on the earth, visible and invisible, thrones or dominions, etc. Both places, spheres of existence, both modes of existence, or every rank, ranking structure of the world that exists was made through him and for Christ Jesus. Now here\'s the syllogism that Beckwith proposes. Yahweh is the, please note, only one who participated in creation. I\'ve got it on page 11 I think or 12 for you. Christ is one who participated in creation therefore and that only is important in the first line. Therefore Christ is Yahweh. If the Lord is the only one, there is no one else, he alone, by his power alone, by his word alone, participated in creation and so did Christ, that\'s clear in Hebrews and Colossians and John, then there\'s only one conclusion. Christ is Yahweh. If you want the information, Jets 29.4. December 86. Yahweh is the Father, Yahweh is God, but since Christ created, he\'s God because there is no one else. Yahweh is God, obviously in a certain context you would, because of our knowledge of the Trinity, say that\'s the work of the Father. Yahweh is God and Christ is God, see it as the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But you know those passages of scripture that show two persons in the Godhead, both to be seen as God. In this case here Yahweh creates, Christ creates, there\'s only Yahweh who creates, no one else, therefore Christ is the creator and Colossians bears that out in Hebrews. It\'s an interesting little exercise of Francis Bickworth, he does a number of articles that are philosophically oriented, this is only a two pager or less. The important point is the only, if you take the only out you can\'t complete the syllogism, not with the same dogmatism as we have just done. Okay, so the one sent from God, and going back to God the Father, he\'s actually creator of heaven and earth. And the Old Testament has made it abundantly clear that God creates, so if Christ creates it\'s a statement of deity. Okay, second thing that only God can do that was clear from the Old Testament understood by the leaders and by the Israelite is that Christ forgives sins. Colossians 3, 13 draws that amazing comparison, you should forgive just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. And these other verses bear that out. Why does this man speak this way? Was this statement in Mark 2 of Christ? He\'s blaspheming. Why was he blaspheming? Who can forgive sins but God alone? The Pharisees were complaining about the healing of the paralytic and they were complaining about the statement concerning the forgiveness of sins and they made the right statement. Who can forgive sins but God alone? They knew that to be true. Only God forgives. This was a statement of deity that they could not accept so it became an accusation of blasphemy from their lips. Jesus\' words to his disciples, remember in John 20, 23, if you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them. If you retain the sins of any, they have been retained. Sometimes used to suggest that there\'s a special forgiving power to the disciples. I think the Catholics make use of this somewhat. How do we treat the words of Jesus to his disciples like that? In Matthew 16, 19 for example, I\'ll give you the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. One thing we can say, the disciples never understood these words to mean that they were to hear sin and extend forgiveness in exactly the same way that God is so doing. It would be, from our understanding as Revelation progresses, it would be the privilege of the coming body to make announcements authoritative of sin and of forgiveness through faith in Christ. For example, Acts 10, 43. It\'s usual the verse to go to. The prophets bear witness that through his name, speaking about Jesus, everyone who believes in him has received forgiveness of sins. That\'s an authoritative proclamation from the disciples under inspiration to the body thereafter. We can stand up confidently and say with clarity, with conviction, you believe you are forgiven. Sins are taken care of, forgiveness occurs. It is God who does that. Similarly, he bestows eternal life. John 10, 28 with parallels in Mark and Matthew and Luke. John 10, 28 saying, see if I have it here. No? You got it in front of you? What does it say? That I give eternal life to them and they shall never perish and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. Statement of security, by the way, alongside a statement of being granted eternal life and a promise there is no loss of their granting. 10, 28. In fact, 10, 27 speaks very clearly. My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. Notice verse 29, just bracketing the statement of eternal life and security and no loss of their bestowal. My father who has given them to me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of the father\'s hand. I and the father are one. Statement of deity again, of equality, that obviously would be understood by the heroes and they understood it very clearly. Notice 31, the Jews took up stones again to stone him and his response was, you know, I showed you many good works for which are you stoning me? And they tell you what they understood for blasphemy. Blasphemy? Because you being a man make yourself out to be God. And apparently they understood that the words being spoken were not the words of a wild-eyed fanatic in a frenzy who is not sane. These words could immediately be brushed aside as, you know, megalomaniac in operation here. These were words stated by somebody they heard clearly, heard the conviction, understood the identification and reacted in terms of their own teaching about monotheism. This is blasphemy. Didn\'t put it together. He will raise the dead too in the resurrection, which is what God does. You can find that if you were to check the wording of John 5, several places in that chapter, as well as in John 11. And I would even say you could add as a cross-reference, Philippians 3, 21, as a cross-reference to those or as something to look at in comparison. He raises the dead in the resurrection. There has been granted power to do that. That\'s God\'s business, understood from the Old Testament. However, point six, alongside the power to grant eternal life and to secure forever, alongside the power to raise from the dead is the power and the authority to be the final judge of the world. Granted to him, Acts 10, 42, Acts 17, 31, Revelation 20, 11, following, he stands as the world\'s final judge. Something here significant, I think, one who has been fully God and fully man, who therefore knows exactly what human life is like, and we\'ll pick that up under humanity and the reasons for his coming, is the judge. Nothing can be said in mitigation, but I\'m just a man. Do you really know what it\'s like to be man? I do. Very God of God, very man of man. Full experience of humanity was his. I put a little note in here to remind us, because of the ease with which this is spoken inaccurately, believers do not appear at these judgments, but at the Baima Seat. It\'s not a case of everybody standing before God waiting to see, you saved, you not saved. The believer is not under condemnation, does not come under judgment like that, but he goes before the judgment seat of Christ. Called the judgment seat of God in Romans 14, called the day on which the fire will test the quality of man\'s work, 1 Corinthians 3, Ephesians 8, perhaps an indirect reference to this, the good thing each one does he receives back from the Lord. Colossians 3 speaking of the believer, he who does wrong will receive consequences of wrong done. Those are references I believe, direct and indirect to the Baima, the judgment seat, 2 Corinthians 5. You can cross reference also to 2 Timothy 4, James 2, 3 and 5, 2 Timothy 4, James 2, 3 and 5, 1 Peter 1, 1 John 4. I know I\'ve spent time on the judgment seat of Christ, but just think about it seriously. There\'s a context talking about receiving back good and bad. Believers will apparently experience something of a chastisement that is not concerning salvation and eternal life, but there\'s a recompense for deeds done in the body. John Sproul, in an excellent article on the Christian and future judgment some years ago, it\'s in a little booklet form now, pointed out that that word for recompense, komi setai, means to receive back, to receive his due. It\'s not defined beyond that, so you have to speak very carefully about it. This would obviously be for unconfessed sin, but please remember I didn\'t say you\'d be judged for your sins. This is not a judgment for sinners, it would happen to the unbeliever. This is apparently some disciplining of some kind that takes place alongside the granting of rewards at the Baima. That\'s right after the rapture of the church. Then you have to leave it right there, speculating any further takes you onto a narrow path where it\'s going to be too easy to fall off, don\'t want to disturb the truth here. There\'s God taking action with regards to you and me in respect of the quality of life we\'ve lived, the quality of the works done, and I would say the keeping of a short account with the Lord himself. Leave it right there, probably safer. If you want to know the article, I\'ll have to get the name of the booklet, I\'ve just got an article here. It\'s in defense of pre-millennialism, published by the Bible School in Birmingham, Alabama. Is that South Eastern Bible Institute? Is that it? Yeah, John Sproul was teaching down there. I\'ll get the title. It\'s in the library, I know that, so you can take a check on it. He builds the church, keeps it corporately. I\'m always struck every time I read Matthew 16. I will build my church, personal construction project of Christ Jesus. Still in the future, at the time he spoke his words, important and significant point to make, there was no church when Jesus spoke, there was later from Pentecost on. And then finally, which is also the work of God, he dispatches angels on a particular mission in Matthew 13 to remove evildoers from the kingdom. Those are all the works of God. Apart from number seven, these works in the Old Testament could not be attributed to anybody else, for they were the marks of the one true God. And what is important to note is that the writers who put this down, I know they did it under inspiration, but you can still speak in terms of their own personality and attitudes and reactions. The writers and their readers did not hesitate to see those attributes and marks attributed to Christ Jesus. There was no modification made by the writers to somehow overcome the sensitivities, sensibilities of their audience. It was presented clearly. This is Christ, the Son of God. This is Christ, this is God. They accepted it as such, because the Father had revealed it to them. They knew his voice. They had responded, and they accepted it as truth. So they were not what\'s the word I want? What\'s the word you say when somebody becomes very angry? They were not infuriated. So thank you. When they heard, you believe in God, believe also in me. Didn\'t infuriate them because there was a recognition he was God. Divine claims are made by him too. So you have names, attributes, works, divine claims. If I was to ask you, and there\'s a reason for telling you this, what are the four major proofs with verses of scripture that you\'d give for the deity of Christ? This is what I\'m talking about. Names, attributes, works, claims. Divine claims, absolute authority over the laws and institutions of God. This immediately marks him. Marks him out as something different over the law in Matthew 5. You\'ll notice him in the you\'ll notice in Matthew 5 a number of times you have heard that it has been said, but I say unto you. In fact, it occurs five times from Matthew 5 20 on, going through the passage you heard in chapel this morning as well. Verse 24, I say to you, and then verse 21, you have heard that the ancients were told, verse 22, but I say to you, and then you can track it down, it\'s 27 and 28, 31 and 32, I mean 32 and 33, but I say to you in 34, having great authority, correcting what has been misunderstood of the law. I tell you this, speaking with remarkable authority that the Jewish rabbis and others of the day would immediately mark out. Authority over the temple in Matthew 12 verse 6. This would be an amazing statement for anybody to make looking at this temple that had taken a lifetime or more to build, but I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. Here\'s the temple, Solomon\'s temple that dominated the whole structure, dominated the skyline, and he says someone greater than the temple is here. Here, what did the Old Testament clearly point out the temple to be? That it was God\'s dwelling place, right? This is where God dwells. What could be greater than that? Only God himself in the person of Jesus. These attributes, the attributes applied to him mark him out as divine. He is the presence of God in the midst, the living word, he\'s greater than the temple. In fact, he told him that he was omnipresent, didn\'t he? As far as they were concerned after his ascension, how many presents. When they gather together to seek direction for the church, he would be there, Matthew 18, in the days to come. When they go into the world to make disciples, he\'s with them always, even unto the end of the ages, Matthew 28. In fact, Jesus said that the kingdom of God has arrived in him as the king. Since the king was there, he could say in a sense that the kingdom had arrived, Luke 11, verses 14, following. Authority over the Sabbath. Only God alone could change that. Make comments on the Sabbath, and certainly he would be the one who would rule over the kingdom fully, Matthew 16, 19. That marks him out. But what takes it even a step further is the fact that he\'s the supreme object of saving faith. You can see that either he\'s mentioned equally with the father, John 14, and John 17. I made mention to you that John 14 is an amazing passage because of what it proclaims with his name alongside that of God\'s name in the same text. It had to stand out as a sharp contrast. I mean, not a contrast, but something that just said, neon lights don\'t work, but they do. They\'re not going to work. They\'re going to be said, you know, neon lights flashing here. Have you heard what\'s been said? Let not your heart be troubled. Believe in God. We do believe also in me. Statement equally alongside of that with the name of God employed turn to John 17, verse three. And this is eternal life. And that was that they may know thee, the only true God, a positional statement, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. It\'s another remarkable statement. This is eternal life, that they know the only true God and know me, whom you have sent. Whom you have sent, putting on an equal level with God. Or there\'s no mention made of the father at all in John 3, 36, who believes in the son as eternal life. Okay? Standing alone. Same with Matthew 11, 28. Come unto me, all you who are labour, all who are weary, and I will give you rest, standing alone in the verse. In fact, since he is the supreme object of saving faith, we can go one more step. Here\'s his authority over the institutions and laws of God. Here\'s that which makes him so supreme. He\'s the one to be believed in with God. Thirdly, if this is the case, and loyalty is given to him who is God himself, then the closest of human relationships yield. They cannot have top priority. You love father and mother, son or daughter more than me? Finish the phrase, Matthew 10, 37. You\'re not worthy of me. I mean, Luke, you must hate wife and children, brother and sister, in your own life also. Otherwise, obviously, I hate love in comparison. Love for God to be so great that in comparison, whatever love you have for your wife is on the level of hate. You cannot be my disciple. They must love him more than anything. Everything else pales into total insignificance, trails behind completely. There must even be a willingness to forfeit life for the sake of Christ. Clearly mentioned in Matthew 10, Matthew 16, and Mark 8. These things you\'ve heard, you\'ve understood. Divine claim made by Christ. You follow? So we may say that all spiritual and all eternal needs of humanity are satisfied in Christ Jesus. I think that\'s the way you have to go. When you look at the I Am\'s, I\'m the bread of life, the light of the world, the door, the only door through which you enter to eternal life. I\'m the way, the truth, the life, and one that I\'ve left off. Think about the I Am\'s. Yeah, you got it. John 11, 25 through 26, I am the resurrection and the life. So even if you die, you live. If you want to go further, you can list a number of verses and see that he provides knowledge of God. He is the exclusive revelation of God. He provides rest for the soul. He provides security from danger. He gives fruit bearing energy in the works of God. And from him, rivers of living water, that is the holy spiritual flow. There\'s a special provision of the Spirit of God for the future. That sums up pretty much the verses we\'ve looked at anyway. He satisfies all needs. If you look at the verse, all needs. If you want to talk about felt needs, stuff like that, you don\'t need to look for some psychological answer. All needs satisfied in the relationship with Christ Jesus. But here\'s the fascinating thing about Christ. Energetically, repeatedly preached himself. This is the way H.D. Macdonald puts it. He contrasted himself with these countrymen. We\'ve seen this before. You are from below, I\'m from above. You\'re of the earth, I\'m of heaven. He presented himself as the one to be believed in. Himself as the Son of Man, the Son of God. In fact, H.D. Macdonald summed it up like this. He was self-advancing, pointing to the truth and to himself. Sorry, I don\'t think it was H.D. Macdonald. I believe that it was Parker in his article on Incarnational Christology in John. In a good sense, he advanced himself. Me, I am the way. I am the truth. I am the life. I am the life. That\'s self-advancing, isn\'t it? What do you think today when you hear somebody advanced himself? As I heard one guy, I think he was one of the Lakers players, say, I was really good. The first thing that goes through my mind is, who do you think you are to make such a statement of comparison that puts you at the top? I\'m number one. I\'m the best. Instinctively, you cringe somewhat, don\'t you? Or are you different from me? I remember when we played soccer or rugby, which allowed for a certain amount of, rugby is a very skillful game, by the way, allowed for a certain amount of rah-rah on the sideline. If we came off game number one, number one, and expounding on the glories of the game and all the wonderful things we did, the scissors movements, etc., you didn\'t play the next game. Coach took you out. That\'s because you were elevating yourself above the team. It was considered self-advancing, proud. But when Christ makes these statements, given a context of sinlessness, there was nothing in his life they could point to, it carries a whole different quality than anybody being able to assess pride, because what he said was true. In fact, Parker said Jesus authenticated himself because he knows he can gain nothing by appealing to another. There is no higher authority. He reinforces his claim as the Christ, the Son of God, when he makes no appeal to something else. I am he. And this is the sort of clincher, closing point. Our eternal destiny depends upon our response to Christ. Eternal life only comes to those who know and confess him, to those who are known and confessed by him. No relationship to Christ, no eternal life. That\'s the point. Do you realize this is what I\'ve just said here is a statement of anti-pluralism and a statement of exclusivism? There is no selectivism or inclusivism here at all. The response to Jesus Christ determines eternal life and eternal destiny. Nothing else. It\'s not have you responded to the sufficient light you had? Are you really worshipping that which you understand to be God? Not at all. Christ or life, Christ or death, nothing else. And finally, divine worship accepted and in a sense demanded by Christ. Men and angels refused worship from men. You know this. Why? Why they say don\'t worship me? They knew they were not God. What is the statement that usually they made? I am a creature just like you. I\'m a man just like you. A person just like you because they knew that worship was reserved for God alone. I am a man just like you. I am a man just like you. That worship was reserved for God alone and that no creature could replace him as the object of worship. What\'s a good passage of scripture, the cross reference here from the New Testament epistles, that points to the fact that sinful men do understand that something can replace God as the object of worship. Yeah, Romans 1 is very emphatic. It\'s an excellent cross reference. Sinful men find a replacement. Men tried to worship and angels tried to refuse worship from men. Maybe the apostles who said no, Peter who said no, the angels who said no, could not accept what didn\'t belong to them. In some senses false teachers or cultic leaders accept an adoration that borders on worship. That\'s because they are false sinful. Christ did not, here\'s the contrast, Christ did not refuse worship from men. The disciples worshiped him, never set away. Sarah Phoenician woman worshiped him, Sarah Phoenician woman worshiped him, perfectly acceptable. Woman worshiped on the resurrection morn, no reaction. Blind man worshiped, same thing. He never said don\'t worship me. Who else fell before him in worship? Sorry? Yeah, there will be a revelation, 24 elders. What about a group who really, you say, that\'s not really worship. Demons, talk about them later. Fell before him too and you have to ask was this worship? Well of a very different kind. It was certainly wasn\'t from a redemptive heart, from a desire to adore the only Lord God who is the Redeemer, but it is a, I have to bow the knee to sovereign authority. Rich young ruler knelt before him but went away grieved. And false kind of worship also put on by the Roman soldiers, mocking soldiers in Mark 15. There were the lepers who came, but only one of them came back. Yet they worshiped him. Makes you think about the quality of the action of worship. Evidently it could be false or temporary for whatever reason. So there\'s something beyond worship that will point to genuineness of the response to God Christ. Please note, final point here under number two, all this is accepted by one who had himself very clearly indicated, declared, that men should worship God alone. See that in Matthew 4 which is at the temptation, citing Deuteronomy 6, 13 I think, you shall worship the Lord your God and serve him only. Matthew 4, 10. Let me check that. That\'s a clear statement from him and then he accepts worship. You shall worship the Lord your God and serve him only, a reference to Satan to be gone, for it is written. Deuteronomy 6, 13. Figured it was that because that\'s the book he quotes from the most in the temptation. This is written, but look at your own actions. Fine, I\'m God and I\'m man. Father himself commands worship of the Son. The host of heaven are shown clearly to be worshiping the Son and will do. Finally, all will worship him without question. Philippians 2, forced to bow the knee in submission. I think there has to be a difference between worship of submission and worship of having been saved adoration. Okay, if you understand the distinction I\'m making, there\'ll be those who\'ll have to submit to his authority, but there is no real allegiance. There\'s no obeisance at all, but there are those that have gladly worshiped him because there is an allegiance that has been given. There is a love and an adoration in a relationship that can be expressed. So one is the worship of having been saved, that action and reaction, response of a redeemed heart. And one is an action that is of submission, unwilling maybe, forced to do so, no option. Up to that point, certain degree of option. Okay, let\'s take a break at this point. Good point to do so. One thing I need to state with regards to Hebrews 1, when you talk about the host of heaven worshiping the Son, which is point 4, closing off that previous section we were looking at. When you look at Hebrews 1 and 2, you realize that there are statements of sonship and birthright for Jesus Christ and a relationship to angels. Hebrews 1, 6 for example, I\'m making a point, this is in connection with the host of heaven worshiping the Son, Revelation 5, 18 through 14, but you can cross reference to Hebrews 1 and 2. When he again brings the firstborn into the world, Prototokos, he says, let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels, he says, who makes his angels winds and his ministers a flame of fire. But of the Son, Prototokos, he says, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. You remember that statement from under the, dealing with deity, then verse 10, and you, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, pointing to the Son as the creator. The heavens are the works of your hands. You remain. Then verse 13, but to which of the angels has he ever said, so shall the angels of God worship him? Then verse 13, but to which of the angels has he ever said, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool. About 10 times in Hebrews 1 and 2, angels are mentioned, but the record quickly distances the Son from the angels. He is the uncontested legal heir of all things, and angels are to worship him. His sonship and his birthright is such, birthright is a title that\'s been used by Darrell Charles who pointed this out, such that the only expected response from the angelic host is subservience. Given who he is, given his sonship and his identity, and he\'s been born the God-man, there\'s only one response from the angelic host. You will worship him because he is the one to be exalted. You can cross-reference this to an article in Jets 33, issue 2, Jets volume 33, issue 2, article by J. Darrell Charles on this subject in Hebrews 1. Sonship, birthright, subservience is the pattern he describes. Sonship, birthright, subservience. So listen, any time there\'s an elevation of angels, there will be a deficient Christology that develops, or something about the understanding of relationship to the angels and to Christ that he\'s redefined. Okay, now remember that these words are being taught and preached at a particular time what we could call seven competitive religious forces. Influencers, probably the best word to use, influencers, religious realities of the time. There was obviously the context in that world of polytheism. All gods venerated, many gods adored and worshiped, and in that context there\'s a resounding clarion call by both the teaching and the description and the actions of Christ himself that there is only one God to be worshiped. It was a world of philosophy, logos or reason, treated as being a god, worshiped, venerated, proud of what they could reason out. There was the mystery religions of the time, secret cultic rituals, a sort of Gnosticism in the sense that you had to enter the special group, be made aware of a special knowledge that you couldn\'t get until you got into the group. Mystery religions you may remember also baptized in blood. They had these secret rituals, very cultic. Here was one who didn\'t profess that sort of thing at all. It was indeed the Redeemer. Occultism was rife, of course wherever there\'s pagan religions, polytheism, mystery religions, there will be the occult, either connected with them or is even more spiritualistic in its own right. Spiritism at all levels of society did abound, and Gnosticism also became a religion, a pseudo-philosophy. Remember we talked about the gap that had to be bridged between God and man. Gnosticism would do that. Here\'s an implicit claim of deity by Christ that responds to that teaching, overrides it completely. Here\'s one in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. He\'s not in a pantheon, he\'s alone. Your gods are idols, whereas Psalm 96 uses it, non-entities. Your gods\' ownations are non-entities. Judaism had become rather intricate, complicated, minute argumentation. Literature of the Old Testament interpreted in all sorts of fantastic ways. There was even a group called the Proto-Mendayists, who had Gnostic leanings and had some question about whether they would worship Christ, whether they would worship John instead of Christ. They probably thought more about John as the coming Messiah. Some suggest the Mandaists also hated Christ in the long run. These religious forces were prevalent. It\'s really not that much different from any world of any day anyway, is it? There\'s a lot of religious forces around today, or influences of one kind or another, ranging from atheistic philosophy to any form of esoteric New Age mystery religions, I guess would be the New Age of today. And the presentation of Christ does not allow for any body to stay connected to these groups. You break away from them. There\'s only one God. You can\'t worship Christ and still belong. To this. That would be to be influenced by the religious force of the day, incorrectly. I took that from the scatterbrain Oxford Don that I talked about, Brash Bansal, The Person of Christ, Volume 2. I thought he pointed out something interesting. Don\'t forget the religious background. The religious backdrop against which the picture of Christ has been painted. Clearly, he\'s the Lord. Clearly, they are, by extension, any thinking man who\'d reached that point, they are not true. This is what sinful man is caught up in. Okay, return back to point F, further testimony to his deity. Okay. Those others that we looked at were what I call direct evidence, names, attributes, claims, works, direct evidence. There\'s also indirect evidence, statements made, stories of his miracles and events that are not actually trying to prove specifically his deity. But they require the fact of deity. Okay. Make that distinction. For example, Luke 7, bringing this one back to you. Only God forgives sins. Therefore, Jesus must be God. This is not for the paralytic. It\'s the one with the costly perfume. Jesus\' words were so well known that obviously they knew what was being made, knew the statement that was being made. Jesus was making a claim for deity, even though that wasn\'t what he was saying. Let me prove to you I\'m divine making the statement. By the way, the context has an interesting indication of divine power. He knew their thoughts. He knew exactly what these augurers were thinking about the words that he had said. That\'s an easy one. This is the thing that only God can do. So, if he uses those words, makes that declaration, there\'s only one conclusion to draw. Either he\'s somehow off-kilter, off-center, not balanced in his thinking, or he\'s making a straightforward, honest, frank, truthful declaration. John 14, 28-29. A little bit more difficult. John 14, 28-29. That\'s not correct. Oh yeah, I\'m looking at the wrong chapter. You\'ve heard that I said to you, I go away and I will not come to you. If you love me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Some would say, see he\'s making the declaration that he\'s not equal to the Father. You\'re not to take his words in that sense at all. Father is greater. He\'s confessing that he\'s less than, for some that he\'s not even saying he\'s divine. That is point I\'m making. It is ridiculous for a finite person to try to convince others that God is greater than he. You understand? It would be insane. It would be unreal for me to stand up here and try to convince you in the next hour that I, to try and convince you that I am less than God, or that God is greater than I. That\'s obvious. There\'d be no need to spend energy trying to do that. If he were not himself God, here\'s the point. How could he even begin to compare himself with the Father? The text actually points or requires the fact of his deity. How can you make any statement of comparison with the Father in the light of the other statements you\'ve made? Unless the fact of deities are really accepted. He would be speaking here of a functional difference between the persons of the one true Godhead. Given what he is doing, fulfilling his mission, being the sent one that he\'s returning to the Father, it is quite correct to say the Father is greater than I in terms of what they are doing. It\'s a fact of deity. It\'s not a ridiculous statement. I can make statements of comparison with the Father because of who I am. I can make a statement now that relates to who he is in relation to me in terms of what I do, the mission that\'s been accomplished. You don\'t have to be flabbergasted. He declares he wasn\'t God. Everything else ruled out. You say no, everything else is not ruled out. This is the statement of one who always spoke the truth and he apparently has the right to compare himself with the Father. This requires the fact of deity. Quite easy, especially with regards to function. John 19.37. You have to think about that one. John 19.37. Another scripture says they shall look on him whom they have pierced. Quotation from Zechariah 12 verse 10. You go back to the context of Zechariah and it will show you that it was Jehovah Yahweh who was being pierced. Christ must be God because Christ has this quotation applied directly to him and that refers to Yahweh. It\'s that cross-identification that carries over from Old to New Testament quote. 1 Timothy 1.13. Obvious requirement of deity. He was a Pharisee, a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Blameless he said and this is recorded in the inspired scripture blameless with regards to the keeping of the law. I mean zealot enthusiast Pharisee, enthusiastic Pharisee and one thing he did not do, would not do and could not do was to blaspheme the God of Israel. That\'s something they would not do and I\'ve said even could not do in the sense that they guarded this so carefully. Blaspheme in the God of Israel was a capital offense but he did speak against Christ. That\'s the point. So what assumption is he making when he speaks against the Christ? He assumes, I think you can say this, he assumes that the reader has made the correct identification of Christ with God. Even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor, yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly and unbelief. How could you have been a blasphemer as a Pharisee? I spoke against Christ. Read the record in Acts. I stood up against those who believed in Christ and I hailed him in prison. If that\'s the case, I blasphemed. Make the connection reader. Christ is God. I blasphemed Christ therefore I blasphemed God but I\'m a Pharisee. I\'d never do that. Statement requires the fact of deity on the part of Christ. Okay. So in fact, his oneness with the Father is such that an attitude towards Christ is an attitude towards God. Reaction towards Christ is reaction towards God or vice versa. And I\'ve listed some here for you. Identify the actions toward him with actions toward God the Father. Know him, you know God. See him, you see God. Hate him, you hate God. Honor him, you honor God. Receive him, you receive the Lord. Whoever receives one child in my name, receives me. Evidence of the reactions here in John 8. John 14.7 in fact is Philip\'s questions, remember? John 14.7. Good evidence. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you know him and have seen him. Philip said, show us the Father and it\'s enough. What did Jesus say? I\'ve been with you so long and you didn\'t know me? You have seen me, I\'ve seen the Father. How do you say show us the Father? Look at me. Here I am. Clear statement who he is. So Berkow, I already know, some of you may want to read this book, I\'ll let you do it. Especially if you like following up on some of the European theologians. He is very important therefore to note that in scripture, this is a good statement by Berkow, the confession of the deity of Christ is not a threat to or in competition with monotheism. Excellent statement. Confession of the deity of Christ is not a confession that there\'s no monotheism. It is still a confession of monotheism. He is God, he\'s God, there\'s one God, three persons, one God. So to speak of Christ as divine, spirit as divine, the Father as divine. He\'s not a threat to nor in competition with a confession of monotheism. We believe in one God. Now let me ask you, is it possible that Jesus was deified by his followers given the direct and indirect evidence? Just let it tumble through your mind. Could they have deified Jesus? His followers. Think about the Romans. They might have done so because they were pluralistic, they were not monotheistic. They didn\'t think it bad to deify a man. They did that with the Caesar, right? Consider him to be a son of God. Political gimmick perhaps, and they knew that. Maybe there was a deification of the emperor to give cohesive unity to the empire. Some say, Michael Green writing about this in evangelism in the early church says, you know, that intelligent men of the Roman Empire understood this was a gimmick. They didn\'t take it seriously. But at least once a year they were required to sacrifice to the gods and to Caesar. And all that would do would guarantee allegiance to the Roman Empire, but, you know, we\'ll just deify him for a purpose. So yeah, they could have, if they chose to, deify Christ for a political sociological reason. They didn\'t, but they could have. How long does it take for a legend of deification to occur? Long time, right? How long does a sort of, yeah, I mean, I\'ve given the answer away. If you have a legend of deification, you know, there\'s been a long time lapse. Stories have to be repeated until all weaknesses and failures have faded out of the biography and the figure has become enlarged. One good example to look at for this would be the sainthood in the Roman Catholic Church. It\'s not that easy to come by. Years of investigation, years of stories until the person becomes bigger than life. Okay, then you get a sainthood. So it takes a long time for a legend of somebody to be divine to occur. But what is distinctive about the life of Christ that smashes that whole thing? Galatians written by 40 AD? By following him years afterwards. That\'s a good point. Still following Christ, preaching him as Lord. Years after the resurrection, years after the first, I would go further than just Galatians. Years after the first century is gone, canon of scriptures complete, the apostles have died, that the eyewitnesses with the apostles have died, people still preach Christ. Now believe you me, if he was not truly the son of God and not truly risen from the dead, people would not have responded just to a book that had no more eyewitnesses. Speaking about things on an ordinary human level, now what\'s the striking, distinctive fact about the life of Christ that says this is no legend, this is no pluralistic, sociological, political gimmick to somehow bind a revolutionary force together. This is the real God. What? Not the resurrection. Even before his death. I\'ve been saying it all along today. What\'s the one thing that we\'ve been talking about at the end? That resulted in you and I, if we were there doing what? The prophecy. Because of the high spirit. Proskonev. He was worshiped while he was still alive. He was not adored and revered and deified after he was dead. He was recognized as such before he died and when he rose again it became a tremendous clarion call that he was indeed the son of God that had fulfilled the mission of God. And the book that was written is the book of God that inspires the hearts and minds of men as they\'ve been redeemed to continue to proclaim a Christ who is divine regardless of all the world may say an attempt to provide evidence to the contrary. It smashes any attempt to say you guys just made him a God because you needed to have something to overcome your grief and get your little band going together. No, no, no. He was adored and worshiped and loved before he died. That\'s unlike any else. You can check this out in Michael Green\'s evangelism in the early church. It\'s just two pages 34 through 36. It also introduces you to two categories. Two categories. There was religio which was public worship and there was superstitio which was private worship. He had this tension within Roman circles. Public worship was the formal link between the gods and the state. Private worship was exactly that. Your personal affair. You could worship whatever god you wanted to worship in the confines of your own heart. That\'s fine. You\'ve got the freedom to do so but don\'t you dare be missing from the public worship of the formal link with the gods in jail. That\'s when all of a sudden your private worship is not allowed to be expressed. Just do this at least once. Let\'s make sure that gods defend the Roman Empire. Go home and worship your own god. What did the Christians say? No. Christ is god. We cannot do that. Superstitio is religio. That\'s our life. Confrontation. Clash with the authorities all over. You understand the clash? Steve? That was out of Michael Green\'s evangelism in the early church. Not the later one. The early book. 34 through 36. That\'s from Hodder and Scarton of 1970. It\'s a good discussion of those categories. That was the backdrop. You know with those seven forces I talked about plus this backdrop of sociological and private individual belief. Believe what you like so long as it doesn\'t interfere with what was formally demanded by the government. And Christianity down through the ages in any society which says you can be a Christian if you want to be. You can be a Christian if you want to be but just do this one thing. It\'s always had to say no because of who Christ is. Okay. Not surprising then to find theories that are opposed to the deity of Christ. Not surprised. Arianism. Socialism. Socinianism. Unitarianism. If he\'s been divine was so important so clearly said you know that somehow Satan the enemy of the cross is going to raise a teacher a body of men to deliberately undo the deity of Christ. That\'s a given aspect of us still. He\'s got to oppose his humanity, got to oppose his deity, got to oppose his miracles, got to oppose his teaching. Let\'s bring him down to some level that we can manage and control. Christ is a created being. Exalted in the sense that he was made first but he was not God. Oh he had a relationship with the father. He was of similar essence not of the same essence. The big debate. Homo eusios to homo eusios. Just one iota difference between the two. Major conflict. Affirmed to human nature but seriously reduced to divine. So that he was not the Christ pictured in the New Testament. Condemned by the Council of Nicaea 325 AD. You know the story from historical theology. So Shinianism. Good man. Created creature. Exalted to sharing the divine nature because of his perfect obedience. Therefore worthy of worship which is a redefinition of worship do you understand because it\'s not the adoration of the one and only God. It is an adoration of somebody who as a human being had perfect obedience. What the Sicilian stress is the normalcy of human life and please get this the normalcy of procreation. So what\'s that? A rejection of the virgin birth. His life was normal. His birth was normal. He had a normal father and mother. But he was a good good man. Therefore a good example to follow. Unitarianism essentially the same thing. A great good man who lived in close communion with God. Honored and imitated but not to be worshipped. Just taken as one of those heroes those sages of the past. So Shinianism said there is a worthiness of worship. Unitarianism says no. Expect to find these oppositions to deity. I say the data on his deity that you have in the scripture and all the reminders of his implicit claims to deity effectively destroy all three. I\'ve given you a listing here that from Doriani\'s article. You should have the whole thing on the page. So I probably don\'t need to put that up. You can summarize his implicit claims to deity under 12 headings. I\'ve given you 12 bullet points here. Three divine rights to judge mankind to forgive sins to grant eternal life. And he declared that his presence was God\'s presence etc. So you\'ve got these 12 headings. 12 points summarizing implicit claims to deity. It\'s an excellent article by Doriani. The deity of Christ and the synoptic gospels which I referred to earlier. And also pain. There\'s an article called Jesus implicit claim to deity in his parables. Trinity Journal of Spring 1991. The chart he has on the back of the article is well worth putting on file. It\'s something you\'ll use in the teaching of the parables in years to come. So you\'ve got 12 bullet points summarizing effectively. You know these 12 with a reference. You\'ve got a good summarization of the evidence for deity. One last thing. Notice the 10th bullet point. That is the third one up from the bottom. This one here. He assumed his life was a pattern for others. This is not that he said imitate me. But he assumed it. He assumed that he would be followed. What Jesus did the disciples may have to do. Be denied by the family. Live without a home. In this case because he was there they had to refrain from fasting. And that since he welcomed and ate with undesirable people they may have to do the same in proclaiming their Christ. So add to the page six basic heresies on Christ. Six basic heresies on Christ. We\'ll probably come back to these a little later. Just get the sense of this. If his genuineness is denied, if you deny the genuineness of deity or the completeness of deity you\'re either going to ebionism or arianism. If you say he\'s not divine, ebionistic. If you say the completeness of deity is not there, you\'re arian. If you deny the genuineness of his humanity then you are docetic. If you deny the completeness of his humanity you are a pollinarian. At least you\'ve been influenced by those ranks. If you divide his person you are an historian. If you confuse his nature you are a eutichian. You don\'t need to know all these. What are the two things that are important to you? You don\'t need to know all these. What am I if I do this? I\'m not going to ask you that type of question. If you have to say anything about the historian you can look it up in the dictionary first. But the point is this. There\'s always some way in which men are found to deny one aspect of deity or humanity. It\'s not genuine, it\'s not complete. You\'ve got to redefine it. If you do that you no longer affirm the god man. You no longer affirm his deity if you deny the genuineness of it, the completeness of it, or if you divide him and confuse him. We\'ll come back to this. You may find it in Wayne House\'s charts number 28, False Views on Christ. What I want to bring for you though, and I\'ve lost it, I\'m looking for it, is an article by Demarest in Christianity Today of 1979 where he speaks about six modern Christologies. I\'ll bring that for you next time if I can find it. I started looking too late. Okay, any questions on deity? You get the point. Is Christ divine? Absolutely. Any questions? See me afterwards with your bag packed. I did just want to ask about the difference between divinity and deity. It seems like there\'s\... Yeah, you know what? It depends often upon the age of the writer. I\'m not allowed to take that off. If the older British writers said divinity, and in fact still say that today, we probably say more deity, but they are synonyms. He\'s either deity, either you affirm his deity or his divinity. Same thing, it\'s a synonym. You know, can you think of a distinction being made by somebody? Well, I\'ve heard that\... I don\'t know if it\'s like neo-orthodox or who it is, but I\'ve heard that there are some that have tried to make a distinction and they will affirm his divinity, but not his deity. Like they\'re redefining what those mean. Then they\'ll really\... This becomes a semantic jungle, redefining divinity, because divinity means deity. He is divine. So if there\'s an attempt to do that, then it\'s one of these denial of\... I\'m going to redefine a word to redefine completeness or genuineness. And that would be\... I\'ll have to think about that before. Have you said neo-orthodox? I think it was liberals. No, you never know what a liberal is going to do next. Okay, Charles Briggs. You affirm that he\'s divine, you affirm he\'s deity. Otherwise, he\'s redefined divine. Do you know what the definition was? What was the title of the book again? Yeah, I was looking for a specific source. I didn\'t check it that quick. I noticed\... I didn\'t see that on there, that there\'s a DLA meeting without a credit anonymity and the DOS McDonald and John 824. Yeah, I am. Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sandwich. What do you think about those? Are those legitimate? They are. Yes, they are. I just gave you the summary from Doriani and Payne. But you can add the I ams, which clearly indicated that he was to be identified with the I am of the New Testament. And because you don\'t need it, you can\... The way he said it was such that it had to reverberate back to the Old Testament, you know, grammatically. So that becomes a statement of deity. So his own teaching, his own declarations, the application of son of God and son of man in particular, affirming his deity. You can add that to the list too. Okay, we\'ve got a few minutes to start on the humanity of Christ. I\'ve asked you to read this article, The Man Christ Jesus. By Ivan French. Two reasons why. Because I know this man personally. He was the chaplain in Theology, Prophet, Grace Seminary for many years. He\'s a dear friend of mine now. But second, and I didn\'t say, okay, it doesn\'t matter if the article is bad, he\'s a good friend of mine that wrote it, so I\'ll let you\... You know, it\'s a\... You get your article published because I like you. Now there\'s a second reason. This article was written at the end of some 20 years of teaching the life of Christ and the doctrine of Christ. This man\'s teaching on Luke and on that subject was an awe-inspiring experience. Okay, because he showed in his own life and actions as the chaplain of the campus the Christ-likeness of the person he was teaching on every week. It is a beautiful, concise, articulate presentation of humanity. So I\'ve asked you to read it. It\'s not because there\'s nothing better. I think it\'s a great example of crunched down, no wasted words. It\'s an example of the type of essay I\'d like you to write. I\'ve summarized the article here on the page on the page under a number of headings. The gospel testimony describes true humanity, makes that point abundantly clear in the opening line here. It says here\... Oh, here it is. The testimony of the New Testament, particularly the narrative of the four gospels, presents a consistent picture of a true man walking in dependence upon his heavenly father. Never been any question about that. The portrait of Jesus Christ painted is the portrait of a man. That\'s it. Genuine human characteristics. Human birth, human growth and development, human ancestry, human appearance, human experiences, a human will, a human relationship with God. That\'s the summarization of the portrait of humanity in the New Testament. Conception clearly miraculous, physically birth normal. Normal, I think, in every respect so that not only was there the normal gestation period, nine months of pregnancy, but probably labor pains and the normal delivery of a child for Mary. Just because the son of God was born of Mary, he was a virgin, and it was the Holy One who was being born of her, doesn\'t mean it ruled out normal birth, which means labor and pain. I have a question about the birth itself. This may be going beyond what we know. Was it Mary\'s ovaries or was it just all of God? Okay, I don\'t have time for that question. Suddenly I realized I\'ve got to redo the question so the guy that\'s listening is sitting there going, what on earth are they talking about? How did God use Mary\'s ovaries and so on? I think the answer is simply this. This one will be conceived in you by the power of the Holy Spirit. The power of the Most High will come upon you and that which will be born of you is the Holy One, the Son of God. But whatever Jesus needed, and we\'ll come back and talk about this again, whatever he needed to be fully human, he got from Mary. So all the traits of humanity he got from his mother. The reason why there was no father, I\'m going to talk more about that too, so I don\'t want to jump in too much now. The reason why there was no father is because you didn\'t need a person to come into being. You needed a person who already existed to enter the stream of humanity. You needed to be fully human but didn\'t need a beginning. That conception was miraculous in that it was taking someone who was and always was and now putting him into the womb to be born like an ordinary person and be fully human without having a human father. Because if you had a human father, you would have had a conception of a creature, a person. That\'s when you and I began, the point of conception. And there\'s also the argumentation about being sinful descendant. He got all he needed from Mary except sin. And don\'t say that Mary was not a sinner or imply that she had no sin because she was a descendant of Adam. That was the miracle of the virgin birth. We\'ll pick up on that again later. But frankly, the mechanics have not been defined, so you kind of talk your way around. The point we want to make is the shepherds came in. What did they see in the manger? Real, new, born baby. One they could pick up, pat on the back, kichikichiku under the chin. I\'m sure they didn\'t do that. They worshiped rather. And he didn\'t know what they were doing. But they could tell this was a real, new, born baby. People have seen enough babies to know this is a real baby. This is not a fake or a freak. This is something right on. Human growth and development. He grew and developed just like other children did. No problem with that at all. In fact, you know that Hema Martin Luther\'s, I think French mentions it, the crying he makes? Babies cry. When they get hungry, they cry. It\'s not a sinful reaction. When they get six or seven years of age and they start howling differently for food, that could possibly be manipulation, sinfulness. That Christ wouldn\'t have done. But that which is normally associated with normal development, he did. Okay, we\'ll pick up on that on Thursday. Let\'s take a break.