Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
Jeremy approaches Bible teaching with a passion for getting the basic doctrines explained so that the individual can understand them and then apply them to circumstances in their life. These basic and important lessons are nestled in a framework of history and progression of revelation from the Bible so the whole of Scripture can be applied to your physical and spiritual life.
Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
NT Framework - An Imperfect View of God
What happens when our view of God doesn't fully explain Him? What if our view explains some passages about the Father, the Son, and the Spirit but not all of them? Is our view wrong or is the Bible wrong?
More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com
This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).
Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and our series on the New Testament Framework. Today, the full lesson from Jeremy Thomas. Here's a hint of what's to come.
Speaker 2:Take a lot for granted, as if we could have just read the Bible one time or something and figured all of these things out that we know to be true, and that's simply not the case when you have a disagreement with God.
Speaker 1:Who is wrong? When you read something in the Bible and disagree with it again, I'll ask who is wrong? Well, the answer is pretty obvious it's you and I. God can never be wrong. He is never wrong. If he ever was, he wouldn't be God. And so we must ask ourselves this very important question If I don't understand something, if my viewpoint, my perception, cannot fully explain the Bible, then is the Bible wrong or am I? This is really important when it comes to our view of God. This is really important when it comes to our view of God. Is God one person? Is God three persons? Does God change over time? You see, throughout history, people have struggled with trying to explain who God is and how he manifests himself, and on the one hand, we can laugh at their silliness for being so wrong, but on the other hand, we should be gracious toward them because they did not have the full knowledge that we have.
Speaker 1:They were building upon the knowledge that we now get to see, and so we come back to this fundamental question Is God wrong or are we? Well, obviously, we, in our limited understanding, have to take time, we have to struggle with how do we describe and understand the nature and manifestation of God throughout history. Today, jeremy is going to look at several models that attempted to explain who God is, and we're going to look at where each one fell down and try and come to a better, more complete picture of how to describe God's triune oneness.
Speaker 2:Last week. What we did was basically go through the deity of Christ. As you talk about the virgin birth, of course you're talking about this event where the Holy Spirit conceived the child in the womb of Mary and this child is born, and so you're obviously dealing with what we would say is the most complicated person who's ever come into the world. His title in the Old Testament, emmanuel, means God with us, and that's who he is. He is God with us and in the incarnation. This is the first time in history when God came among men and walked in this way among men, so that he becomes the highest form of revelation of who God is. So we went through some of the evidences that he is in fact God, evidences from Christ for Yahweh. Name substitutions this is the concept that we showed. Numerous passages in the Old Testament will be quoted by authors in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, yahweh, the tetragrammaton what I call the name of God is used in those Old Testament passages. But when they are quoted by the New Testament authors, christ is substituted in place of the Tetragrammaton in that quote. So because Yahweh in the Old Testament is substituted for with Christ in the New Testament by name, and name refers to one's essence or being, then we conclude that Christ must be Yahweh. He must be God right.
Speaker 2:Another form of evidence is to look at evidences for the function substitutes, for the function substitutes. What we mean by that is things that only Yahweh can do, as the Old Testament discusses him. Christ is said to do in the New Testament. So, for example, he forgives sin. Christ forgives sin in the New Testament and the Jews say a reasoning in their hearts saying who can forgive sins? But God? They knew the Old Testament taught that only Yahweh could forgive sins. Yet Christ is saying he forgives sins in the New Testament. So, because of the functional substitution, christ must be Yahweh again. And lastly, I just showed some passages right that are evidences for the deity of Christ, some famous passages like 2 Peter 1.1, which uses the Granville Sharp rule in the Greek. Titus 2.13 uses the same rule.
Speaker 2:Also, discuss with you a little bit about John 1.1 and the qualitative use of. You know, in the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, the Word was the ideas was fully God. That's the concept at the end of that verse. It's a qualitative use, most likely. And so it's saying that the Word, the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us is fully God. He's distinct from the Father. In that verse the Word was with God, but he is also fully God. So this starts to point us in directions of our mind of wondering well, if Jesus is God, right, but there's only one God. I mean, everybody knows this. Right, there's only one God. The Bible teaches definitely, there's only one God.
Speaker 2:When we come to the New Testament we find that Jesus is God. Then the question becomes well, how are the Father and the Spirit also God? You see, in our own minds we try to wrestle with this seeming apparent paradox. How can this be One God? Jesus is God. Isn't that the end of the story? No, we also have the Father being God. We have the Spirit being God. We haven't discussed any passages in this class on the Spirit being God. We'll do that later, but I'm assuming you know some of these things from the Bible so we can have this discussion right. So how can this be?
Speaker 2:Many theories have been suggested, and church history contains the story of how the Trinitarian model was accepted at the Council of Chalcedon, and that's about 451 AD, so let's just say about 400 years after Christ, right, that's when the church council. A church council came together and tried to resolve the issue of all the texts that relate to Jesus being God, the Father being God, the Spirit being God, the Spirit being God. There's all sorts of texts. We're actually going to look at some of these texts. In a few weeks we go to the Old Testament and we'll talk about texts about the Trinity there, new Testament texts about Trinity. But what I'm saying is, in church history it literally took them about 400 years to iron out and articulate this formulation we call the Trinitarian model. The model states that God is one in essence and he is three in person. So there's still just one God, right, and yet in God there are three persons Father, son and Spirit. So that's the Chalcedon model.
Speaker 2:I'm going to show you today a little bit of the story of church history, about trying to sort through the passages and other models that people came up with. We do this, on one hand, to sharpen ourselves, because these ancient models, as I will show you, still persist today in modern version. So, just because I say a word like, let's say, arianism, which we'll look at, it's named after a man named Arius. He has a model, a particular model of God in the early centuries of the church. That's not something that's irrelevant to us today, because that is very, very similar to the Jehovah's Witness model. So just because it's ancient doesn't mean it's not relevant. These ideas have persisted and remain with us today, so we need to understand a little bit about it. So that's one reason so we will become sharper in our understanding of who God actually is.
Speaker 2:Is it important to know who God is? Yeah, it's very important to know who God is, because there are a lot of different conceptions of God. For example, islam has a model of God right as an absolute, solitary God with no diversity of person within himself. So just because we use the word God doesn't mean that everybody shares the same content in the word G-O-D, and so when we talk with people, we have to be aware that there are various ideas of who God is, and if we want to have a real discussion, we have to be on the same page with the other person as to what God we are talking about or what God they are talking about, so that we can have the conversation.
Speaker 2:Another reason that I want to go through this is to show us that it takes multiple generations for people to work out various doctrines, for people to work out various doctrines. I feel like, as a 21st century Christian, we stand on the shoulders of many generations that have preceded us, many generations of Christians who studied the Bible. And the Bible, of course, is the most studied book in the history of the world, most published book and most read and studied book, and so it has obviously been thought about a lot. We come along, you know, 21 centuries after Christ, and take a lot for granted, as if we could have just read the Bible one time or something and figured all of these things out that we know to be true. And that's simply not the case. If we didn't have the shoulders to stand on from many prior generations, we would not understand or have the doctrinal development and maturity that we have today in the church. So it's very important not to become arrogant. I sense in this current generation a lot of arrogance, even spitting on people in the past who got things wrong. I don't find that to be proper, because these people, they did their best in their time to try to iron out some details, and sure they got some things wrong. I'll use an example. I'm sure this man would not mind he's not with us anymore, but even if he were, I don't think he might.
Speaker 2:Martin Luther, he ironed out justification by faith. This was a key in his generation. He was trying to show people that you didn't need to give indulgences to the church and penance and all these things and works were not involved. It was Christ's work alone and he was a proponent of pointing people to the love of Christ. And yet you know, he was anti-Semitic. He wrote a book called Against the Jews. That grew out of his experience of trying to evangelize Jews and Jews, rejecting and rejecting and rejecting. And so he concluded that God was done with the Jewish people and we can't commend him for that. But we don't throw everything that Luther worked on in the trash can just because Luther got some things wrong. It took more time and more people to come along and start to really hammer out and work out the doctrine of Israel and future things and what God has in store.
Speaker 2:So in our own generation, you know, there's this type of mentality that we kind of spit on people in the past who messed up in this one little area. I don't want that to be a part of our experience. I want us to be able to commend people where they got the truth right and where God used them for the truth, and not just focus on the things that they may have got wrong. Because if history has anything to say about us today, it will say this we have some things wrong too. And in generations to come, if the Lord tarries, they will look back and say well, they got that wrong. And do we want them to treat everything that we did in our time as wrong? Or do we want them to commend us for the amount of Bible study we did and the things that we got right and the things that we polished and became better? And I think that's what we all want. We're doing the best that we can.
Speaker 2:But I like to think of the doctrines of Scripture like the most complicated puzzle you can ever imagine. I remember we used to do puzzles. They were all just a little flat 2D puzzles, and then they came out with the 3D puzzle and I thought, oh, my goodness, what is this all about? You know, that seems a lot more complicated because it's a whole order of more complication and that's something like the Bible more complication and that's something like the Bible, and it's putting together something that is the most complicated thing in the world to put together. So it doesn't just take one generation. It takes many, many generations working on the same puzzle, so to speak, to bring us to where we are today. And we're still working on some things, some aspects of the puzzle. So I want you to appreciate that as we look at working on some things, some aspects of the puzzle, so I want you to appreciate that as we look at some of these views. Okay, so let's just make a few comments under here, under B, on the outline here.
Speaker 2:The Trinitarian model that was developed at Chalcedon, that says God is one, in essence three in person, is charged by Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons with borrowing the language of Greek philosophy, and therefore we got the Trinity from the Greeks. That's what they're saying. However, the categories of Greek philosophy do not have a concept of Trinity. That's not part of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophy is basically about the forms of Plato. So you had these two, a dualism, two levels of reality, the real or pure ideal, pure ideal, and then down here, the real, and we'll discuss more of that later. But that's not a Trinitarian concept, it's a dualistic concept, but the Trinity doesn't come from Greek philosophy.
Speaker 2:A third point, just an introduction, is the model was developed really reluctantly within christianity because other models that we'll look at didn't seem to accurately reflect all the texts that are involved. And that's what you're trying to do. You're trying to get all the texts together and ask what is the best way to organize all these scriptures that makes the best sense of all the passages, right? Okay, so the first one we'll look at is called ancient modal monarchianism, sometimes also known as Sabellianism, and a related but different view is called protropassionism, which is the crucifixion of the father. The father was crucified, not the son. That's related to this. So those first three words, they're not necessarily all synonyms. They're either nuanced versions or results of one of these views. But I don't have time to go through all the views. There's probably 20 or 30. So we don't have time for all that. But that's the ancient concept and the modern concept is oneness Pentecostals. So oneness Pentecostals are still around, so they believe something very similar to this ancient view.
Speaker 2:So let me ask you about this word monarch, see ancient modal monarchianism. If I just ask you, well, what's a monarch? What would you say? Okay, one guy is the sole absolute ruler or king. Right, a monarch. So that helps you understand what this view is. This view is basically saying that God is one, an absolute one, an absolute monarch. There's no diversity of person within himself, there's just the one, god.
Speaker 2:Their conclusions from this presupposition were basically to look at the Bible successively, like you're moving from the Old Testament to the Gospels and then into the New Testament epistles, and they said in the Old Testament the Father is God, in the New Testament, gospels, the Son is God, and in the epistles and on down to our own day, the Holy Spirit is God. What are they saying? They're saying that God has revealed him successively in three different masks. In the Old Testament, he wore the mask of the Father. In the New Testament, gospels, he put on the mask of the Son. And in the epistles and following, he put on a different mask, the mask of the Spirit, but there's really only. And following he put on a different mask, the mask of the Spirit, but there's really only one God. There's not three different persons, they are three different masks of the one God.
Speaker 2:So this view is based again on the idea of God's solitary oneness. Right, there can't be a diversity of person in him, but he can reveal himself with different masks to us. So this is their idea, okay, jesus well, god is the Father reveals himself in the Old Testament, the Son is a manifestation of God in the New Testament and the Spirit is now the manifestation of God on down to our own day in the New Testament, and the Spirit is now the manifestation of God on down to our own day Oneness Pentecostals are very similar to this ancient idea because they believe that Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they base this on Colossians 2.9 as their main verse. So let's look at Colossians 2.9. If you can't remember where it is Galatians, ephesians, philippians then Colossians.
Speaker 2:As my daughter reminded me the other day, my way of telling people to remember these four books is to remember God eats popcorn. Galatians, ephesians, philippians and Colossians. God eats popcorn. Galatians, ephesians, philippians and Colossians. God eats popcorn, which is a whole other question we could discuss, since God is spirit. Has he ever eaten popcorn? And we know he doesn't have a body, so he doesn't eat popcorn. But then you ask the question well, does he know what popcorn tastes like, since he never ate it, but he's omniscient. So we have lots of questions there. Colossians 2.9.
Speaker 2:This is their main verse for saying that Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Spirit, for in him, that is, in Christ. Right Into verse 8, christ In Christ, right Into verse 8, Christ In Christ, all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. All the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. So, oneness, pentecostals, use this verse as a key interpretive verse to explain all the other verses in the Bible and emphasize that Jesus is Father, son and Spirit, and emphasize that Jesus is Father, son and Spirit. So what are some thinking about this model? What are some problems with this? Okay, one of the problems is that this model makes it very difficult to explain text where Jesus is talking to the Father, since, well, he is the Father, or just a manifestation of the Father, however they exactly view it.
Speaker 2:So, for example, look at John 17. This is Jesus' high priestly prayer, and you notice right off the bat in 17.1, jesus speaking these things, lifting up his eyes to heaven. You might ask yourself even there well, is he looking toward himself? Oh, wait a minute, you see, if he is all that there is of God, who is he looking at? He said Father, the hour has come, glorify your Son, that the Son may glorify you, even as you gave him authority over all flesh. So you know like who is he talking to. If he's all of God that there is, there's no one else to talk to see. So these types of passages get very difficult to explain. Another one, for example verse five here Now, father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was. That doesn't make a lot of sense. If he's the only God there is and there's no one else there, who exactly are you talking to? You're, the only other person you could possibly be talking to is yourself, and you're telling yourself to do something. So it doesn't make much sense. And this whole chapter has a number of those types of statements throughout.
Speaker 2:Another problem with this concept of God is it doesn't explain how the Father is the Father of the Son. If they're really the same see, just different manifestations of God. So Father-Son passages don't even make sense. There have to be two distinct persons for us to have a concept of Father and another being Son. They can't just be the same. Father and son can't be the same. So this view, while it attempted and tried to explain the idea of God and some multiplicity as multiple masks that he puts on it doesn't do a good job of explaining certain texts that seem to indicate two distinct persons in God. So that's one view.
Speaker 2:It's ancient, but it's also got a modern counterpart oneness, pentecostalism. Here's another one Ancient, dynamic monarchianism, not modal Modes are masks. That's the first view. This is dynamic, also known as adoptionism, which I think is more helpful when I explain it. But it is a form of monarchianism, because monarch means what? One solitary king or ruler.
Speaker 2:So that is their presupposition a solitary one, god, an absolute one with no diversity in himself. That's the key presupposition. We know the Bible teaches that. We know the Bible teaches God is one. Nobody is surprised by that in this room. Old and New Testament teach that. But the question becomes well, what about passages then that teach a distinction between Father and Son in this God see, or a distinction between Son and Spirit in this God? That's what they're trying to wrestle with in the early church, also known as adoptionism, and in the modern day it's in Unitarianism, judaism and Islam.
Speaker 2:Now, everything I mentioned under the conclusions will not be true of each and every one of those, but I'm just saying they all share the same presupposition that there's an absolute oneness to God. Does Islam believe that an absolute oneness in Allah? Yeah, they don't believe any diversity exists within Allah. It's just a solitary one being with no persons of distinction within himself. Same thing for Judaism right, they're strict monotheists in the sense there's no diversity of person within God. The same thing for Unitarianism they're called Unitarians because they uni means one right. Uni like the Unibomber, remember that guy. One right Like the Unabomber, remember that guy. They're not Trinitarians, which would be three, a reference to the oneness in a unified God, a single God. So they're Unitarian. So those are modern forms of this.
Speaker 2:Again, the ideas have not gone away. So the presupposition, again solitary monotheism. But it's different from the previous idea where God put on different masks successively in history. In their view, only the Father is God and God adopted Jesus. That's why I say adoptionism is a good term to understand this view. God adopted Jesus, either at his birth, his baptism or the resurrection. That's Bart Ehrman's view, by the way.
Speaker 2:Remember the guy who always debates Christians? He used to say he was a Christian, but he rejected all this stuff. Or the resurrection and gave him godhood at that adoption. So, in other words, jesus is just a man, okay, but God adopted him and bestowed on him godhood. That's what they're saying. He adopted him, but he's really just a man, because there's only one God. They say so because he was bestowed the title or given godhood. He is a god, but he's not of the same essence of the Father. He is a lesser essence. Okay, he is a lesser essence, he's a lesser essence. So we're in John.
Speaker 2:Go over to John 14, 28. This is one of their favorite passages. To try to explain this or make this claim Jesus' words himself. Right, they're in red in red letter editions John 14, 28. You heard that I said to you I go away and I will come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I See. So since the Father is greater than I, since Jesus even said that, they say that means that Jesus is less. Since the Father is greater than I, since Jesus even said that, they say that means that Jesus is less than the Father and in some sense he is less. In some sense the Father is greater. But the question is in what sense they are concluding that he's less. In essence, he doesn't share the same essence, he doesn't have the attributes of God or the functions of God or the names of God and things like that. So he's less than God in essence.
Speaker 2:We would probably argue that this is an expression that discusses subordination within the Trinity, that the Son took a different role or a lesser role than the Father and came into this world and took to himself a true humanity, went through all things as we tempted right, yet without sin, and gave himself up for us. So it's subordination of role, and the greater lesser would relate to a role distinction, not an essence distinction. You know all of these passages like this one. He says the Father is greater than I. We have to. That doesn't clarify everything.
Speaker 2:We have to ask the question greater in what way? Do you remember in Matthew, chapter 10, the Lord says about John the Baptist that no one has been born a woman who's greater than John the Baptist. Do you remember that no one has been born a woman who's greater than John the Baptist? But you still have to ask the question greater in what sense? Like he's the greatest person who ever lived, morally or ethically, he's the greatest intellect that ever lived. Like what do you mean greater? So all these questions have to be asked and answered in these contexts to determine in what sense was John the Baptist greater? I concluded in my study years ago on that that he was greater in privilege than any other human because he was the one who prepared the way for the king of the universe to come into this world. So he had the greatest privilege he got to for the king of the universe to come into this world. So he had the greatest privilege he got to announce the king and proclaim his arrival. But the text goes on to say later Jesus even says that someone who enters the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist. So the privilege of entering the kingdom is greater than the privilege of announcing the king's arrival.
Speaker 2:So all these passages that talk greater, lesser or any type of comparison like that have to be interpreted in context of what the sense would be. So we know things like if we go to John 10, for example, jesus just said there in John 14, 28, the Father is greater than I. But what do you do with something like John 10, 30? This is also in the red letters. He says in verse 29,. What we just read in John 14, 28, 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. And then he says I and the Father are one. Probably this is a reference to essence. They share the same essence, but as far as role, the Father greater because he sent the Son Order of procession. Father sending Son, son sending Spirit. So in that sense, as well as role, you can have greater or lesser within the Trinity, but of the same essence, the Father and the Father are one. So again, all these passages have to be put together and the best sense of them has to prevail, we would say what is most likely.
Speaker 2:So what are some of the problems with dynamic monarchism, sometimes called adoptionism, this idea that the Father adopted Jesus, who was just a man, and bestowed on him Godhood? First of all, it does not explain how christ was with the father before the incarnation. I mean, if he's just a human and he was born through mary, then he didn't exist before that. But the the bible seems to indicate that he was with the father before the incarnation. You're still in john, so just flip back over to john 17, verse 18, to see that christ, the son, was with him before the incarnation. Uh, 17, 18, as you sent me into the world? Now, wouldn't you have to be with him before you got sent by him? As you sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. So that's an indication. How about verse 24?, father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, be with me where I am so that they may see my glory, which you have to have that object in existence. Or verse 5 again, we already read verse 5, but we'll read it again 17.5. Again, we already read verse 5, but we'll read it again 17.5. Now, father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world. Was that one's super clear right? The Son was there before the world was there and he shared in the glory with the Father, right? So this is a problem for people who say that Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation and was just adopted by God at the incarnation or at his baptism or whatever.
Speaker 2:Number two it does not explain Christ for Yahweh name and function substitutions which we've been over those last week. If he's really just a man whom God bestowed Godhood on, if he's really just a man whom God bestowed godhood on, then why does he share the name with God. Why is he substituted for Yahweh in places? Because he's really just a creature. You do realize that in this view, god is just absolute one. Jesus is just a creature. So how could a creature take on God's names and titles and functions? So that doesn't seem to make much sense. It does not explain the deity of Christ passages that we looked at last week Our great God and Savior, jesus Christ. Well, if he's our great God, then he's more than a man. He's not just a man who was born and then adopted by God and given a title Godhood. And fourth, it does not explain why Jesus himself permits himself to be worshipped. John 20, 28,. Here we are in John. Isn't it so convenient? We're just all in John. John 20, 28, this is where we looked last week.
Speaker 2:Thomas remember Thomas wasn't there at one of the appearances of christ in his resurrection body and they told him about it, but he didn't believe because he didn't see it himself. And it says a few days later, and he was there and he appeared in the midst of this room and thomas is there now, right, and you see, in verse 28 or verse 27,. He said to Thomas reach here with your finger and see my hands and reach here your hand and put it into my side and do not be unbelieving, but be believing. And Thomas answered and said to him my Lord and my God. Now what you would expect next if Jesus was not God was to say no, no, no. There's only one God. You should not call me God, you should not worship me as God. Right, that's what you would expect. But does he do that in verse 29? No, he does not tell him he's wrong. He says because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who did not see and yet believe. Okay, so he does not deny that he's God.
Speaker 2:But if you looked at Acts 14, here's a place where turn to Acts 14. Paul is at Lystra with Barnabas and they make a man. Well, they heal a man. And that happens in verse 10. It says with a loud voice stand upright on your feet. He leaps up, the man begins to walk and when the crowd saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycianian language the gods have become like men and they have come down to us and they began calling Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes, because he's the chief speaker, the priest of Zeus. And it goes on. And in verse 14, it says but when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out in the crowd, crying out and saying men, why are you doing these things? We're also men of the same nature as you and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living god, the one who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that's in them. We're not gods, we're just men of the same nature as you.
Speaker 2:Anytime a godly person in scripture is identified as god or worshipped as God, when angels like John bows down before an angel in the book of Revelation to worship the angel, the angel says no, no, no, get off your knees, get on your feet. I'm not a god, I'm just an angel. They don't permit the worship. There is one place in Acts chapter, toward the end of Acts, chapter 11, one of the Herods permits himself to be worshipped as God. And where is that? Acts 12? 12, not 11. The very end of the chapter, verse 20. And following, herod is there in a large crowd. And verse 21,.
Speaker 2:On an appointed day, herod having put on his royal apparel, he took his seat on the rostrum, he began delivering an address to them and the people kept crying out it's the voice of a God, not a man. And he didn't deny it. He didn't say I'm not a God, but he accepted that glory as if he was God himself. And it says and immediately, an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died. See, but the Lord Jesus Christ, he's called God by Thomas, and Jesus never says no, I'm not God, see. So these types of views where he's just a human, really just a creature upon whom God bestowed godhood, don't really fit very well with the text.
Speaker 2:Let's go to the next view. So that's adoptionism. It's the easiest way. Modern Unitarians are like that. Judaism is like that. Islam is like that no diversity in God, just a one solitary being. So. This one's a different one. This is like that no diversity in God, just a one solitary being so. This one's a different one. This is ancient Arianism. I mentioned it earlier. It's also parallel to modern Jehovah's Day witnesses. Right, there's a presupposition here in their system too, and their presupposition is actually based on Greek philosophy. One of the ironies is that they charge Christians with getting the Trinitarian idea from Greek philosophy, whereas there is no Trinitarian idea in Greek philosophy. There's a dualism.
Speaker 2:Plato was projecting, as he looked at the world, what we call the real world, that there had to be some universal forms behind the things that we see in this world. Just take, for example, a triangle. Everybody knows what a triangle is. You've got various triangles, isosceles. Whatever the idea was that Plato asked, and other philosophers at the time were struggling with, was can you make a perfect triangle? And so you get your pencil and paper out, let's say, and you're going to make the perfect triangle, 360-degree angle corners, and you say, oh yeah, it looks really good. But then you get a magnifying glass and you look closer and you see there are imperfections on the lines of the triangle because of the lead on your pencil and the imperfections in the surface of the paper. And so you realize it's really not perfect. And yet you have this thing that's a triangle.
Speaker 2:And Plato said well, this just imitates this real, the pure, ideal triangle that must exist. So he said there's a world of these forms, which is this pure world that somehow exists? And it was just a mental projection of Plato. He says this world must exist and that was what he was really interested in. And everything down here is. We call it the real world, but everything you're seeing is just an imitation of the world, this pure ideal world. So what happened was in Jehovah's Witnesses and ancient Arianism named after a guy named Arius was they projected this idea of God as the pure ideal, very similar to Plato's projections of this pure ideal world that must exist and God is that pure ideal. That's their idea of God. World it must exist and god is that pure ideal. Okay, that's their idea of god.
Speaker 2:So some of the conclusions that result from that are that jesus christ is begotten, which by which they mean made, because we we know the word begotten that's used in the bible, right, it's in our translation. Question isn't isn't that is that word used in a translation, but what does it mean? They gave the meaning to begotten of made, meaning he was created. So Jesus Christ is created before time, they said, by the Father, and therefore Jesus Christ is a creature. God made Jesus Christ because he, as the pure ideal, could only communicate with the non-ideal real world that's down here with us through an intermediary being so, jesus is like an intermediary between the pure ideal and us down here in the real world, as the son of the father, then he is less in essence. Okay, he is less in essence because he's a creature, he was created.
Speaker 2:So let's look at first corinthians 8 and now. Then I'm going to show you why this is very, very practical in theology. I'm going to hammer on this one point, for pure practicality, of why the trinity why we get this question right is absolutely critical for your whole life. Okay, I'm going to talk about marriage, but in a few weeks I'm going to actually talk about everything. Okay, about everything, how you view everything.
Speaker 2:So when we solve the one and the many, this great philosophical problem that the holiness christianity can resolve, problem of the one of the many, so in first corinthians 8, 5 through 6, this was one of their main verses, to try to show that the son is less in essence than the father. 8, 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one god, the father, from whom are all things, you know, we exist for him, and one lord, jesus christ, by whom are all things and we exist through him. So they centered on that part of verse six where it says there's just one god, see, so jesus can't be god. He has to be created by this one god. That's how they interpret this, this verse, okay, um, is that the meaning of this verse? Is Jesus really less than God? Well, again, problems, right, and then we'll back up Problems.
Speaker 2:Does not explain the Christ for Yahweh, name and function substitutions we could go every time. It doesn't explain that. It doesn't explain the deity of Christ passages and it doesn't explain why Jesus permits himself to be worshipped. Right, as we saw, this view also cuts us off from truly knowing God, does it not? Because Jesus is just an intermediary between God and us. He came to communicate something about God, but he's not God. So we really only know him partially, maybe through the, the intermediary, but we don't really know him because he never really came down here and dwelt among us. See um john 118. Let's look at john 118. Back to the gospel of john. Lots of good stuff in the gospel of John on this topic, john 1.18.
Speaker 2:Passage about the Word, the Word becoming flesh, all things being created by the Word. We'll look at things like that, john 1.18. No one has seen God at any time. Remember, moses was put in the cleft of the rock right so that he only saw God's back, which would just be the concept of a partial seeing of God, looking through a filter or something. The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father and by that they mean these people are going to say we'll see he's created. Begotten means made or created. The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father. He has explained him. But see, this word explained is the Greek word exegeted, which is the idea of drew out. He drew out who he was. He also says later if you've seen me, you've seen who the Father. Now wait a minute. In other words, how am I understanding this word? He has explained him. Does that just mean he's an intermediary being? You know, and he gave us a glimpse of what God might be like. Well, that doesn't fit with this other passage that says if you've seen me, you've seen the Father. Right, because that means no, he's not just giving us an idea, he's giving us exactly who the father is.
Speaker 2:John 10.30,. I and the father are one, not two, not a creator and a creature, but the creator. How about Hebrews 1, 1 through 3?. There are other passages. I'm just showing you a few. There's so many passages Hebrews 1, 1-3. Hebrews 1, 1-3.
Speaker 2:God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers and the prophets, in many portions and in many ways speaking of the Old Testament prophets, right In these last days he has spoken to us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world of all things, through whom also he made the world. So, agency, okay, father, source, son, agency of creation, creating all things. And he, that's the son, is the radiance of God's glory and he is the? What? Representation of his nature? Partial representation of his nature? No, exact, exact precision. He is the exact, precise representation of God's nature and he upholds all things by the word of his power. He's not an intermediary who kind of gives us an idea of what God is like. He's the exact representation of what God is like.
Speaker 2:There was a in church history. Have you ever heard this saying? It doesn't matter one iota. You've heard that right. That came from Gibbon's book, the Decline of the Roman Empire. In the book he talks about the same thing we're talking about here, this discussion in church history, about Christ and who he is and what he's like.
Speaker 2:And there were people who said that he is homoousius and that means homo means same right. Everybody knows homo same, so same nature as God, meaning exact nature, homoousios. There were another group that said homoiousios, homoi, the oi. There's a little iota on the end there that changes it from homo to homoi. Homoi means like, not same like. Homoi means like, not same like, and Gibbon was reading this in church history when he wrote his Decline of the Roman Empire and he said you know, he just got fed up with all these details and he said it doesn't matter one iota because of that one little iota at the end of homoi. That's the only difference between homo and homoi is one iota. That's where it came from, and he's reflecting on this debate about who Jesus Christ is.
Speaker 2:Let me tell you something. It matters. That one iota matters a lot. It's the difference between him being God and him not being God, just being like a God. Does it matter? Well, yeah, it's the difference between our view of Jesus Christ and Jehovah's Witnesses' view of Christ. Okay, the one iota matters a ton.
Speaker 2:So it cuts us off that's the fourth criticism. It cuts us off from truly knowing who God is, because he's just like God, he's not really God. Lastly, it does not explain how all things were created by Christ. They say he's a creature. Right, I mean that's the view. Jesus Christ is begotten, made, that is, created before time by the Father, and therefore he's a creature.
Speaker 2:Okay, let's go to John 1.3. And then I'll tell you why this is practical and why this is real. John 1.3. He's talking about the Word, right, and the Word was with God and the Word was fully God. That's the concept in verse 1. He was in the beginning with God. Verse 2 and 3. All things came into being through him and apart from him, nothing came into being that has come into being. Well then, doesn't that make him the creator of all things? How could he then be created? He couldn't create himself. Some people say, well, yeah, but it says anything that has come into being and that doesn't include himself, because he did come into being. So it's isolating and saying, well, he came into being, but other things are counted there.
Speaker 2:But let's go over to Colossians 1, and there are other passages on this topic Galatians, ephesians, philippians, colossians. So again, god eats popcorn. At least now you know the order of those books here, colossians 1.16. In this exaltation of Christ, verse 15, he's the image of the invisible God. He's the icon. It's basically like a well, that's what it is an icon. He is the visible icon of what god is in his invisibility, meaning exact representation.
Speaker 2:He's the firstborn of all creation, which makes him the heir of all creation. This has nothing to do with being created. This has to do with the firstborn in a family. In the Old Testament, the firstborn was the what, the heir. That's what this is talking about. He's the heir of all creation, is what it's saying. And then verse 16 explains why. For by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. He's before all things and in him all things hold together. See, he's the creator. He's not created. But Jehovah's Witnesses want us to think, and ancient Arians want us to think, that he is begotten, meaning made or created, the first created thing of God. But this passage seems to strongly support the concept that, no, he's before everything and he created everything.
Speaker 2:The way I divide it up, because there's three persons in God is God is the source, christ is the agent and the Son is the revealer of creation. But they're all involved. All three members of the Trinity are involved. Why is this? Practically, we won't go to the next one. Why is this practically important? Why does this model, where you've got one, god, and in him three persons of equal essence, but you do see subordination of role, you know, you see the Father sending the Son, you see the Son sending the Spirit, you see the Son dying on the cross for our sins, right, not the Spirit, not the Father. You've got distinctions in role and subordination in these roles inside of the Trinity, but they're all God, right, they're the same essence. I and the Father are one, so forth.
Speaker 2:Why is this model important? Why can't we have this concept that well, there's God, the Father, and then Jesus Christ is inferior to him in his essence. Why is that a problem to have Jesus Christ inferior to the Father in essence? Okay, because there are other things in creation that follow the same type of pattern. For example, in the chapter 2 of Genesis, he tells the man to leave his father and mother and to cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh, and to cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Two, male and female are going to become one flesh.
Speaker 2:Now, wait a minute, how does it work in a marriage? Is the man superior? Now, the man's the head right, he has headship. But is the man superior to the woman in essence? Is the woman inferior to the man in essence? Are women less than men and men more than women? No, not at all.
Speaker 2:This is a reflection, in a finite relationship, of Trinitarian relationship. Just as the son is not inferior to the father in essence, neither is a woman inferior to her husband in essence. They're both equally, fully, human, full. All the capacities that a human could have are shared equally between male and female. It's just that they have different roles, just like the father and the son, the spirit, have different roles. It doesn't make one more inferior to the other or one more superior to the other, does it? This is why I say it's very practical. We also share this in work environments. You have a boss, maybe, or you are the boss and you have employees. Is the boss superior in essence to all the employees? Sometimes they act like they are, but no, but there are relationships here that we share in creation.
Speaker 2:That model, or should mirror Trinity. The unbelieving world is. They have no idea what this stuff is about, but they do have this problem. I'm going to talk about it in a few weeks. It's called the problem of the one and the many and philosophers have dealt with it for centuries and centuries and centuries.
Speaker 2:And I'm going to show you just as Riven and I are up here we're trying to do rhythm and harmony and melody or whatever. I'm just saying music is one, but it has how many parts? Three, but wait a minute. Just music, yeah, it is, it's all music. One. There's a oneness there, there's a unity, there's this qualitative oneness, but there's also diversity in the harmony, the melody, the rhythm. I mean there are hundreds. I've got a list of over a hundred of these that we find in creation. I've got it in art, I've got it in music, I've got it in theology, I've got it in math, I've got it in every area.
Speaker 2:Every branch of thinking that you can get involved in always has oneness and unity and diversity, oneness and diversity in it, and diversity, oneness and diversity in it. And why? You say well, why? Why is it this way? Well, because God is who he is in Trinity. That's why the creation reflects and models him in a finite way, in a finite way. So we'll look at all that.
Speaker 2:But it gets really practical. For example, the marriage example. Right, because I hope you're not, as a husband, leading your wife as if you are a dictator, some solitary king or ruler. You know sending down, you know commands to the wife. That's not going to go very well for you. The reason it's not going to go very well isn't because she's insubordinate, it's because that's not the model.
Speaker 2:And anytime we try to do anything that's outside the form God created, it doesn't work. It doesn't work. So a Trinitarian model is behind all these things. We're going to work with some more next week when we look at the other things I put on the list, and then we'll get specifically just into Christ and his natures, his human nature, his divine nature and how he's only one person and all of that.
Speaker 2:So all these things have to be massaged and very carefully looked at because in the end, we just want to reflect the scripture, we want to know who God really is, we want to know who Christ really is, as close as we can okay, as close as we can, and I hope you appreciate that people have looked at this. They have really tried and tried and while all these things were condemned and said, no, that's heretical, that doesn't fit, at least people were working on it, right, they were working, and basically it's there, so we just need to understand it better. Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas. If you would like to see it better.
Speaker 1:Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas. If you would like to see the visuals that went along with today's sermon, you can find those on Rumble and on YouTube under Spokane Bible Church. That is where Jeremy is the pastor and teacher. We hope you found today's lesson productive and useful in growing closer to God and walking more obediently with Him. If you found this podcast to be useful and helpful, then please consider rating us in your favorite podcast app, and until next time, we hope you have a blessed and wonderful day.