John 1:1 and Matthew 27:46

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon and an odd day lots of stuff going on and I got a

I got a phone call. Actually. I got a text message this afternoon and My daughter has begun a college and I think

I've mentioned that her philosophy a professor

Very loud out there rich. Thank you very much wouldn't matter if there was like insulation around the door, but there really isn't so anyway

One of these days, yeah before 2010 Anyway, this fellow is like move on org with an attitude.

Okay, I Wasn't aware of the fact that you could like spend money to take a class and just get nothing but indoctrination and ultra leftist politics, but that basically is what going to college anymore is about and So I've you know,

I we've we've talked about some of the things that he said and she's attempted to engage some of the things that he said in class, but I guess today was a really unusual day and I know this

She's now experienced something in her Life that I didn't experience in mine

But I guess he was on the roll today He was ranting and raving about how they had gone after Clinton over sexual peccadillo's

And yet they won't go after Bush for being a murderer and killing thousands of people and being a war criminal and all the rest this wacky stuff and Yeah Yogi Baron channel just said

I think I had the same guy at Community College. He gets around you may have There it does seem to be a cloned type of a type of a thing.

But anyway Then he he started going after the

Bible and women Now my daughter has been raised at the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and say what you will about a little PR BC Unless you are comatose being raised there in the

Sunday school classes She has had a number of really good teachers over the years

She's had teacher Diana and mr flock and then she's had

Mr. Escobedo and mr. Smith and mr. Porter and Mr.

Broyles and mr. Callahan and and they all share one thing in common and that is that they they teach

They don't just sit there and entertain they teach and she's also

Been to a number of my debates. She's been on some of our cruises She's been to a lot of conferences that we've done.

Some of you have met her And so You know while she has never expressed interest in becoming a professional apologist or something

She has grown up in my home And so when he starts saying that well if you know, hey, but you really believe the

Bible they'd be stoning prostitutes and blah Blah blah blah blah. She's like wait a minute.

I mean this is this is basic Christianity 101 here And obviously this guy has no idea what

Christianity 101 is about. So anyway, she tries to begin to engage this now

I Go back a step and she told me at the beginning of the class that No, he was constantly saying that if you folks don't engage the topics and that you can disagree with me

And if you don't talk about these things and this is gonna be boring for all of us and blah blah blah blah blah Well, that's true.

Basically as long as you're not a Christian And so Basically, he he lost it

He started yelling at her in and she she couldn't get a word in edgewise and he's cutting her off and he's he's

Losing it and other people in the class are putting their hands up going. Hey, wait a minute, dude Can she get a word in edgewise?

I'd like to hear what she has to say type of a situation I mean there was sort of a class rebellion going on Because he just just is going on a

Bible doesn't say anything about abortion and blah blah blah blah and I guess finally at one point he's he's going look

I'll tell you what you go home and you Google the author of Matthew Mark Luke and John you come back and tell me who wrote

Matthew Mark Luke and John as if Google is the Way of getting all knowledge and and I'm sitting here, you know, she's telling me this on the phone later on and You know and give her credit, you know, honestly,

I wouldn't have done this But after the class is over. She actually went up to him and and said to him

I you know, we may disagree, but I want you to know that I respect you She actually offered her hand to shake this guy's hand

You know what? He does only thing he says back to her is Google who wrote Matthew Mark Luke and John you tell me Oh, by the way, he says

I'll give you a hundred dollars If you can tell me who wrote Matthew Mark Luke and John and so Hi, I'm listening to this just going my goodness.

Can you imagine if? Any professor did this about the Quran and Muhammad today?

how fast they would be bounced right out of of academia

It's it's it's amazing. But hey as long as it's Christianity Everything is fair game.

And that's just simply how it works and So I am contemplating writing an open letter to this professor and posting it on my blog and sending the

URL to his email address, which is publicly available So that he is aware of the fact that there has been a response

Offered to him and I can guarantee you one thing I'm one Papa that's going to be looking very closely at the grade that is that is given in this class because You know there was there was time when we'd hear about how

Christians would be abused in other lands and They would not be given the appropriate

You know grades for classes and not allowed to progress in society, etc, etc

Now it's happened right here in the good old us of a and there are books out there

I know that Rush Limbaugh's brother David Limbaugh put out a book on the persecution of Christians and I think that That kind of thing is going to be something we'll be talking about much more in the future as well, unfortunately

But we will see if you see a open letter appearing on my blog over the weekend

To a certain professor in in the Glendale and Glendale Phoenix area of Arizona, you know, you know what the background is.

So I tell you I think back on my own youth and What I was able to do in a public school system.

I was class valedictorian of both my junior high school and my high school and In both of those speeches that I gave

I was able to mention the name of Jesus Christ and referred to him as my Savior and things like that and I You know things have changed things

Have changed a lot in the past 25 30 years since since that was the case and Something tells me any

Muslim on the planet that was a in the United States Anyways, it was class valedictorian would get to say anything.

They jolly well wanted to say they could talk about Muhammad And they could quote the Quran and everything would be fine as long as they didn't wear a burqa but I Tell you the yeah the

The West is is is absolutely intent upon self -destruction. There is there is no two ways about it.

So anyhow, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number eight seven seven seven five three three

Three three four one. That's the number that Stephen has already called. Let's talk with Stephen. Hi Stephen Hey James, how you doing doing good?

I got a question for you concerning the Pasture scripture John 1 1 in particular part

C Okay. Hey, could you explain the finer parts of the

Greek grammar concerning? the structure of the sentence and how it implies that Jesus is equal with God the

Father in What it would mean if the word order were reversed where log off was first and say off was second well a couple things there are a number of Articles, there's an article on ailment org on this subject there's an entire chapter in the

Forgotten Trinity for those who have those resources if Reading this material having that information available to you would be would be useful in the context of a phone call

It would not the the word order is not the issue the issue in the third clause of John 1 1 has to do with Which of the two nominative nouns has the article in front of it?

So let's let's back that up just a little bit so that people understand what we're talking about When someone says

John 1 1 see what they're referring to is the fact that John 1 1 has

Three clauses the first clause is nrk in halagas in the beginning was the word the second clause or clause

B would be and Chi halagas in prostante on and the word was with God and then

John 1 1 C is Chi Theos ain't halagas and What most people are probably aware of though?

It's been a number of it's been quite some time so we discussed this on on the program So I want to give some background information.

We don't want to lose everybody have everybody Tuning off to well, whatever else you turn off to on the internet

But anyway going over to YouTube and watching some stupid video or something the the issue

For most people the their familiarity with this subject comes from the fact that the

Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation renders the last clause of John 1 1 the word was a

God a small G God and So there is a lot of discussion that goes on concerning how you are to translate and what's called an anarthris predicate nominative now, let's

If you can put your thinking caps on remember back to when you covered grammar in school

You know that there there are parts of speech and nouns can take various forms

And various functions within a sentence and in the Greek language those nouns will take different forms depending on how they're functioning there is something called a predicate nominative there is such a thing in English as a predicate nominative as well and in fact,

I remember a very Strict strict English teacher in seventh and eighth grade that I at the time was very thankful I avoided except for one class

I had to have her and I remember her drilling it into my brain Predicate nouns follow linking verbs the predicate nouns follow linking verbs

I remembered this day and of course since then I've wished that I had had her for the whole year because my grammar would not

Be a patchwork quilt of German and Greek and Hebrew rather than it would be actually English grammar anyway you have

Linking verbs or in this case the the Greek verb I me In the Greek language as well, and it is found in the imperfect form in the third clause of John 1 1 in fact

It's found in each of the clauses of John 1 1 translated in most English translations by the word was in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God now the terms God and logos now in English we have and the word was

God and Generally in English you indicate the subject by putting it first and the verb second and then other complements predicate nominatives

Adjectives so on so forth down down the line in In in Greek you don't do it necessarily that way word orders not function the same way in Greek as it does in English instead

You have something called the Greek article and the Greek article is very very very very roughly

Equivalent to the word though, but I emphasized very because the Greek article is far beyond Anything that the

English article could ever aspire to be the word the just just doesn't you know doesn't even come close and the rule that you have in the

Greek language is that the noun the nominative noun that there's different cases in in the

Greek language and In Greek you have depending on which grammar you learn from five or eight by by form you have five

By function you have at least eight Nominative genitive ablative locative instrumental dative accusative invocative in the eight case system

But the genitive and ablative have the same form the locative instrumental dative had the same form and so you can squish them down to a

Smaller number in in the other grammars that you would use Then as it may the nominatives there are two nominatives in John 1 1

C And they are they us which means God and logos Which means word now the

If you were listening you notice that the third phrase is kite. They us ain't ha logos and logos comes last

But there is a word ha that it appears before the term logos That is the definite article ha the word the and the rule is that a nominative noun that has the article

And if you have the word I me or begin am I the the linking verbs as we my eighth grade teacher pounded into our heads

If you have those verbs then if one of the art of one of the nominatives has the article and the other one does not

Then the one with the article is the subject and the one without is the predicate

Nominative hence the appropriate translation the word was God now

Most of the argumentation then comes around whether you should translate that the word was

God capital GOD or a God a God as if it is somehow indefinite and One of the problems is that you will talk to Jehovah's Witnesses and What they will say to you is that well if you don't have if if the article was there

Then it would be the God the problem is if the last phrase of John 1 1 said

Kai ha theos ain ha logos if both nominatives

Had the article or if it said Kai theos ain logos

Neither nominative has the article then you would not only not know what the subject was in essence the language would be expressing equality

Between the two terms that is that they are interchangeable and Most often the example that is used of where this would cause tremendous difficulty

Is when you look at first John and you see John's statement God is love it would not be appropriate because of the use the article there to translate as love is

God and Love and God are not interchangeable concepts and Despite what some people might think they are not interchangeable

Concepts and logos and God are not interchangeable concepts as they're being used in this particular text

And so if the article was there as many Jehovah's Witnesses would demand that it needs to be there

Even though in the vast majority of instances where the New World translation renders the term God Capital GOD the word

God does not have the article in fact as I recall correctly 94 % of time that's the case and they do not insist upon translating as a

God in those contexts They don't know the words. They don't even follow their own rule But if it had the article

Then this would be a very confusing text indeed because what it would say is we go back to 1 1 a

In the beginning was the word the imperfect form of I me does not point to a point in origin

It does not say at this point in time the word came into existence One of the things we need to note is that in the prologue of John John 1 1 through 18 there is a very specific use of the verbs

I me or Ain the imperfect form and then a genital is used of everything else that's created

So when it says everything else came into existence it uses a genital and that's an in the heiress It's pointing to a point in of time and origin

That's not used of the logos. That's not used the word. Did you were you trying to make a comment? uh

It just seems like Greg Stafford puts up such this fight about I Understand what you're saying.

What's the article by the way? I am a Hardcore 100 % Trinitarian. I'm just trying to see where the okay.

Well, let me get the shank in his armor is Yeah, well his argument

Let me let me first finish this for the folks who may not really care about Greg Stafford And then we can talk about mass and count nouns and I can direct you to the more in -depth stuff that deals with with that But but the point is that when we go back to 1 1 a in the beginning was the word

The word is identified here as being eternal and of course Greg Stafford tries to argue.

Well, there's different beginnings He comes up with all sorts of different beginnings to try to get around this this particular assertion

But leaving the heretics aside for just a moment in the beginning was the word Points us back to the eternal nature of this word this logos that the reader of the

Gospel of John is going to be hearing more about once we get down to verses 14 and 18 where the Logos becomes flesh and is the one who reveals the father

So in the beginning was the word and the word was with God prost on they on now Here there is a distinction made between the logos and they on in this case

It they on and they off you might say well those different words different meanings no, both have the same root one is in the accusative one is a nominative and They're they're referring to the same thing.

But the word was with God There was a relationship and we're going to see When we look at the prologue of John and we look at it as as an entire thing when

I debated Greg Stafford on this subject He wanted to divorce John 1 1 from John 1 1 through 18, and that's not how you do exegesis you do not honestly deal with what a

Author is attempting to say by cutting The beginning off of his introduction in fact when it's very clear that his introduction is meant to be taken as a whole

When 1 1 is parallel to 1 18 if you don't take that into consideration You cannot even begin to claim that you're honestly dealing with the text itself

And so he wanted to isolate this and wanted to get into an argument about mass and count nouns

And completely lose the audience and I simply would not allow that to happen I kept drawing him back to the context and the fact that you have to read these things in their context and What you find with the

Greg Stafford's and the people's he people he's trained the people who've sort of attempted to Shall we say?

Hitch a ride with him I'm sorry Be his Try to be his what his fans well not just his fans, but especially in the internet what you've got are a lot of would -be

Jehovah's Witness apologists who Now I don't know what's gonna happen now in light of the

September Kingdom ministry thing that Has sort of put a clamp on these guys who knows what what

Brooklyn's gonna do there's all those things changing back there but but there are a lot of folks who have have adopted his methodology and they find the internet to be a very safe place to basically engage in their warfare because there's a certain level of anonymity in it and So there's there's a lot of them running around and and what they really do in essence is they

They will will study one particular text. They'll grab all sorts any type of Argumentation that can be derived for example mass and count nouns even though I Don't believe that mr.

Stafford Is really shows a great deal of understanding of what those issues are still at the same time

He throws this stuff out there writes huge huge huge huge just massive amounts of verbiage on these particular subjects and then other people pick up on that and most

Christians just Do not have time in their life to even begin to interact with what in the world he has to say

So this is what they're what they're doing And what they do is they'll focus upon these key texts and they'll read all sorts of stuff and throw all this stuff out but if you took them away from the key text and the deity of Christ and ask them to Translate just a passive description has nothing to do with the deed of Christ nothing to do with the key issues of Jehovah's Witnesses They wouldn't be able to touch it because they don't actually read the language

All they've done is learned what's in these particular texts and when you drag them outside of that area they're lost they have no idea

What how to deal with any of that kind of stuff and and and they won't translate in accordance with the self -made rules

They make up to try to get around the key texts on the deity of Christ you know and and so I I have a hard time respecting that kind of of Idea as being real real ex -jesus, but anyway the point being that the second clause

Differentiates between the word and God and says there's a relationship between the two so the big issue is what is being said in 1 1

C now a Dr. Hartley, I'm gonna refer you to I'm not gonna bore the the audience to tears

With a discussion of mass and count nouns what you want to do is you want to get hold of dr

Hartley's materials on mass and count nouns. I'm sure they're on the internet. I can't pull them up right now

I've pulled them up before we're talking about some pretty in -depth stuff here.

Dr. Hartley is a bright guy He I mentioned if fact if you use Google on our website because I'm not sure if our search engine works yet or not but I Have linked to some of his books

That he has put out He really knows his stuff and he has he has taken

Stafford apart on on this particular issue and Hartley knows the mass and count noun stuff.

He's on the the cutting edge of Research in the syntactical area in this in this subject and he unlike most scholars in those areas has actually taken time to interact with the things that that Stafford has said because Stafford and his followers like to quote people like Hartley or Wallace and things like that And so at least

Dan Wallace and and dr Hartley and others have taken the time to respond to some of the misuses of Their their materials and things like that, but to make a long story short the question that the believer needs to address in the third clause of John 1 1 is is this saying that there is a

Any an equal sign between the Word and God Especially light a 1 1

B that says and the Word was with God What is the nature of the term

God here? And of course the majority and I certainly think that this is as you read the rest of New Testament as you translate the rest

Of New Testament this makes perfect sense What is being said and in fact Dan Wallace suggests this in his grammar?

Is that maybe a a better translation at least on the meaning side?

Not so much on the actual translation side doesn't flow very well But the word was as to his nature deity.

That is the anarthrus Preverbal predicate nominative it occurs before the verb

Means that it's describing the nature of the logos not Identifying the person of the logos right the the logos is going to be identified for us in John 1 excuse me,

John 1 14 right and then the relationship of The father and the son who is being described here in 1 1 that terminology will have been introduced by the end of of The prologue and that's a something called book ending where you basically repeat what you started with at the end

Right and the relationship between the two of them will have been explained and expanded upon and in verse 118

It is it is said that this this this monogamous they asked this unique God God the one and only the one and only son who is

God is what I think is the best translation there This is the one who makes him known who explains him who exegetes him who reveals him to the world and The only one who can do that is one who is they asked in his nature in John 1 1

But as far as as as Stafford's issues there Like I said the best thing that I could direct you to would be dr.

Hartley Hartley's materials on that if for some strange reason you putting in Hartley plus Mass and count nouns or something along those lines does not pull up that material

Then drop us line. I can I can find the URL for you because I know within the past Two months or so.

I was looking at it and and I was able to pull it up on the first I think it was on the first list and They brought it up So it's very in -depth stuff and the only way to follow it in any meaningful fashion is to Already know the language and already know all the syntactical

Greek Language that you that you need to have to be able to discuss those things Right.

Okay. Well, yeah, it just it seems like what Stafford he like you said one. He's trying to isolate one text

Not take it in light of the whole and it's almost like he's saying that no, he means he's godlike not equal with God father

Well, yeah and you know the thing that that's The big question that will always be hanging out there and that maybe we will finally get a a meaningful answer to someday

And maybe someday soon is what is the Watchtower Society going to do with Greg Stafford? Because his rather open he no theism that is he he's very clear very open in the debate

In the two debates that he's done and if he's done any since he debated me, I'm not aware of it He may have don't know but certainly in my debate and the debate that he did before that he was very clear and open in in Promoting a form of he no theism and and the

Watchtower Society has always been rather I Don't know concerned to emphasize that they are monotheists

No, I think that he's certainly got a point as far as what Jehovah's Witness theology has always has always led to But one of the reasons that the

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has not allowed outside apologists to flourish in the past and back in 1970s

They kicked Nelson Hurley out for publishing of a self self publishing a book defying the Watchtower Society.

Why? Why'd they call that running ahead of the brethren because they need to control their apologetic methodology in Brooklyn They need to be able to have control over what their people are seeing.

They don't want their people reading my books They don't want their people reading Ron Rhodes books or Dwayne Mignogna's books or David Reed's books they don't want them going out and doing things and clearly that's what that's what

Stafford's doing and If they see quotes of us in Stafford's book, what's the difference, you know, they're still getting the same stuff and so they have wanted to control their apologetic methodology so that when they do need to change 1914 to something else or De -emphasize it or slowly get rid of it or whatever

They can do it at their own pace in their own way and having apologists out there

Drawing attention to certain things that they may not want to draw attention to really causes them a big problem

So was the September Kingdom ministry that came out was that the society reasserting its control saying hey

We've let these people go too far. I don't know Who knows Stafford certainly has far more insight in those things than than I do but individuals like him most certainly are are an anomaly and The average

Jehovah's Witness you're gonna run into at the doorstep is not going to be as open About saying that Jesus is a godlike one or that he is called

God and and and all these other things the way that Stafford is and so It it used to be there was a day when

I would Emphasize the fact and this is still true to a large large part, but it's breaking down.

There was a day when we went out to Mesa and When we'd witnessed the

Mormons Even the Mormon kids said the same things they knew what Mormonism believed

And they knew it Mormonism taught and that's changed that has changed You can talk to adults out there if you get a chance to talk to anybody more

Thanks the King James only fundamentalist wackos out there, but if you can There's much wider spectrum of belief being expressed under Mormonism and so for a long time

I contrasted that with Jehovah's Witnesses where at least when you talk to Jehovah's Witnesses about central core core issues

You always got the same answers and that made sense. I mean they're all sitting there reading the same magazine and They all sing the same hymns in whatever language

They're in all over the world on every Sunday And they're all sitting there answering the exact same questions in the exact same watchtower issues at the exact same time that tends to create a fair amount of unanimity and then long comes

Greg Stafford and Now especially when you're online it would seem to me.

There's a greater probability That you're gonna run into a Staffordite Apologist in an

AOL chat room or a Yahoo chat room or a web board Then you are a plain old standard

Jehovah's Witness and so now you've got one Spin on their theology that you encounter in the internet world the cyber world the pal talk world

Can't believe I said that Somebody could you give me a drink rich? I'm terrible taste in my mouth

It's terrible and then the actual Jehovah's Witness standing at your door Or if the business or wherever else it might be and so there's there's a little bit of a spectrum

Developing there where you're going to get a different. You know kind of viewpoint expressed within those those two those two contexts

Right it just it seems to me like if John wanted to imply That Jesus Christ was less than the father.

He would have either What is the last clause differently or just he's the different word all together like chaos a toss

Well, you know it's it's hard to It's I Really hesitate when we get into the he would have used such a term

Type thing because the a -te -tos is not a term Theot is not a stem found in John As you're probably aware it only occurs twice and and they're they're both

Pauline uses so While the term is available Generally in the

New Testament era to assume or to even suggest that it would have been something that would have suggested itself to John Or something.

I'm really leery about About things like that. I think that John's gospel especially

John's gospel provides such a clear context of that it's it's really hard to avoid the the contextual meaning of what

John is you have to cut John into little pieces and Not allow everything in John to come together and I've used this this illustration before It's a little bit like my talk with with Mormons about the first vision.

I present all this information I was editing a journal for the see an article to see our journal a couple days ago that I've written on the first vision and There's so much information that demonstrates the first vision story is the result of Can't hear me.

No, I Must be must be your phone because nothing's changed on this end.

Sorry about that. Would you rather listen on online then? I Guess we'll have to guess we'll have to have

Steven listen online. So anyway Too late, I don't follow that.

But anyway, um never mind. I can't follow your hand signals there No, I took him off I took him off because couldn't hear me anymore

So the only way to get him to listen to rest of the comments is to listen to them Webcast so anyway, the point being there's so much factual information about the first vision and and what they do is they they

They take all that information. They put it out in a line and then you try to find a way around this one and then you try to find a way around the next one and then try to find a way around the next one and The illustration

I've used is it's like saying that that theoretically you could avoid every single rock in an avalanche

I mean theoretically, you know You could plot this rock and I move over here and I plot that rock and I move over here

The problem is truth is like an avalanche. It doesn't come at you one stone at a time

They all come at you at the same time and It's the Gospel of John's the same way if you take it as a whole.

It's testimony to the deity of Christ is So clear that's why liberals hate it

The liberals see it the people who actually don't believe the Bible's inspired.

They see it They recognize it and that's why they reject it because no one could have really ever made these claims

Because we start off the presupposition that whatever Jesus was he wasn't who the church says he was down through the ages

So therefore John must have been making all this stuff up even the liberals recognized Hey, you take

John as a whole John's teaching is clear but what people like Greg Stafford they do they they try to take it one rock at a time and Truth is like an avalanche avalanche.

You can't you can't do it that way. All right, let's continue on with Have no idea how to Let's try race.

Is that race? Correct? Yes Yes, sir. What can we do for you? I had a question regarding Matthew 27 46 and It's basically in regards to what in what sense was

Christ forsaken By God, I had a discussion with a with a guy and we were talking about this passage

And and my my understanding has always been that yes there was a sense in which

Christ was forsaken by the Father on the cross just kind of it was a result of a teaching by RC Sproul on DVD and he kind of went in to detail and was talking about this and This other gentleman didn't agree.

He didn't it to him it really Didn't he couldn't understand how the father could turn his back or forsake the son and I know

It's a messianic psalm from Psalm 22. Yes, and The guy that I was talking to he said if you go on with Psalm 22

You actually it'll actually lead you away from the idea that Christ was forsaken because he said in Psalm 22

He says for he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted and he has not hidden his face from him

But has heard when he cried to him. Yep, and He said based on that he didn't see how that would make sense.

And then he would all he also quoted John 16 32 and John 16 32

Says behold the hour is coming indeed It has come when you will be scattered each to his own home and will leave me alone yet I am not alone.

The father is with me. Mm -hmm So his his argument was is that Christ wasn't forsaken?

He just felt forsaken but in fact, he truly was never forsaken and I just wanted to get your

Input on that. Okay. Well if you Want to follow up on this there is a not extensive but fairly lengthy at least paragraph length footnotes on Matthew 2746 in my book the

Forgotten Trinity Where basically I said everything your friend said and I would agree with him

I think that there are a large number and I do this with a little bit of fear and trepidation but there are a large number of very godly men who have preached some real stem wind or sermons on the holiness of God Illustrated in his turning his back upon his son when he becomes sin for us and and all these other things all based upon Eli Eli, Lama Sabbath and I my god my god, why have you forsaken me?

I had a professor in Bible College Dr. DC Martin and dr.

Martin was a was a brilliant man. He was he was a great guy Passed away a number of years ago, and I miss him a lot.

I learned a Tremendous amount from him and most of the time that I learned from him is when he was stepping on my traditions and skewering my my presuppositions and this was one of them that that he skewered and So I give give credit where credit is due at this point.

I think your friend is exactly right I do not see anywhere despite the fact that some great men have preached some some real moving sermons on this

I see no evidence, especially in the key texts like in the book of Hebrews that would surely if there was anywhere where you would

Have a discussion Of this taking place you'd find it there in Hebrews, but nowhere do any of the

New Testament writers Pick up on anything instead what you have is a constant emphasis emphasis upon how the father is pleased with the self sacrifice of the son and he accepts these things and the unity of the father and son and bringing these things together and So as I considered those things you put together the fact that yes, this is from Psalm 22 1 and the

Psalter of course is the hymn book of the early church, and if I were to Break out in song right now and start saying start singing

Amazing grace how sweet the sound I would not have to sing the entire hymn to Communicate the meaning of that hymn to my audience because everybody in my audience

Knows what I'm talking about because everyone knows that hymn and in the same way if you say

Eli Eli Lama sabachthani Those who are steeped in the Psalter know exactly what you're referring to and it's going to bring to mind the entirety of that song which is not only just a

Messianic song, but it is a messianic song that likewise speaks of the suffering of that servant and It speaks of the vindication of that servant as you read the whole thing

And so given the fact that Jesus is upon a cross where breathing is extremely difficult and painful.

You would hardly expect him to be breaking in the song with the entirety of Psalm 22 nor would you need to do so in light of the fact that the

Jews would understand where this came from It's the only only place in the Psalter where this language is is utilized

Secondly, it it really raises some tremendous issues for me that at the very point of the son's greatest obedience to the father that you would in essence have a

Disruption in the Godhead. That's what is really being posited when you talk about the father turning his back upon the son or anything else and As your friend pointed out from John chapter 16 and as I would point out from the rest of the sayings upon the cross

There is there is no follow -up to this in the sense of of Jesus showing any

Acknowledgement that now the father is somehow Far away from him. In fact if we put them in some sort of an order

The next words at least provided by the synoptic Gospels would be father into your hands. I commit my spirit.

That's second -person That's direct address. That's someone who's there and so you'd have to posit that well

The father turned his back just at that point and then by the time Gia says father in your hands to commit my spirit now

He's turned back again or something or something along those lines Which I again I just don't see any evidence for or any reason to believe that the very point of the son's greatest obedience

There is this disruption in this turning of the background which of course is not a biblical phrase There's is there's nothing that raises that type of an issue at all and so it seems to me that since the the the cross is flows from the very decree of the father and the love of the father and it is entered into voluntarily by the son and There is no emphasis or no discussion or picking up of this concept whatsoever

Anywhere else within within the New Testament that while it It's like I said has caused some folks to preach some real emotional sermons.

I don't see any reason to believe it I think there's a much better way of seeing this as a citation of Psalm 22

Bringing the entire Psalm before people's minds the person who's observing this and who's thinking Sees the servant sees the fulfillment in what's going on in Psalm 22 with this one

And then that inevitably leads you then to the vindication at the end of Psalm 22 of the servant that likewise

The Messiah himself is going to experience and so I would say that your your friend is correct at that point

I think RC seemed to build up to a point as almost that there was a point in time where the

There was the imputation of sin and at that point when the sin was imputed upon the son

He was the most despicable the most obscene Thing in the world That would have ever been and at that point the father

I know you said this is not really biblical terms that turned his back and then I think he almost

Hinted at the idea that that was the that was the cause of the darkness the the father turning the lights out during that moment of of his forsaking the son and I guess one part that I always kind of struggled with is the idea that it is taught that it was the holiness of God Doesn't allow him to have anything to do with sin

But I guess at the same time for you to say that you would you would have to Almost in some sense deny the deity of Christ because he would be

Unless you would divide it up into his and it was his only his Human nature aspect.

I mean you would still have I think he would still have the same problem to deal with even with Christ Well, yeah

Like I said, there have been some very imaginative and very strong sermons preached and and I'm not interested in you know

Trying to contradict anybody. I just simply think that on a on a theological exegetical basis that you run into some pretty serious problems when you attempt to assert that there is in essence a

Disruption of the Godhead here and the eternal fellowship that is always exists between the father and the son is somehow broken

In some sort of wrathful anger at this particular point in time And yes,

I I heard I've always heard grew up hearing the repeated statement. That's well

The father cannot look upon sin. Well, yes, and no he looks upon the world all the time and sees sin

So that that's what that means is he doesn't look upon sin and have fellowship with it

But again when when Jesus takes upon the sins of the world, he's not sent to hell for eternity either

So there's something going on here. That is that is much more than Then then meets the eye and so I do not want to in any way try to say it there is we can plumb the entire depth of the mystery of what takes place in in on on the cross of Calvary and certainly there is something that causes the

Lord Jesus to say if if there is any other way Let this cup pass from me and so to there.

I'm not minimizing in any way Paul's statement. He became sin for us those though.

All those things are completely true but I don't see how any of that necessitates a a a the insertion of an unbiblical phraseology about turning back upon Or anything else and reading into a citation from the

Psalter Something that would actually disrupt the flow of Psalm 22 because the actual sufferings of Christ come after that And so not before that, you know, if this is in the middle somewhere, okay, maybe you might have a case at that point

But still there's there's no New Testament teaching that picks up on this and so it's

I really feel that it I'm just trying to be consistent with the kind of theology that I do in light of the abuse of Christian teaching in the apologetic context that I see all the time and I just want to be consistent in in applying the same rules all the way along and I just If someone says well, you know, is that a

New Testament teaching? Oh, well the New Testament writers didn't seem to say anything about it they didn't seem to pick up on it and in every other context we would look at the the salt is the psalm that is being quoted from the

Psalter and and what it's communicating and I think we need to do that too. I think we miss that if if we don't see the connection to Psalm 22 but once we see the connection to Psalm 22, we don't have to follow through with all the

Separation of the father -son type stuff that is again very very common some big big big names, but I just disagree

This may be this make this question may be off the wall. So please excuse me It is but is it is it possible that we could say that Christ?

Bore the full measure of the penalty of sin if there wasn't a separation that took place well

Ask yourself this question given that it was a it was not eternity

That was the wrath of eternity that was being experienced What does what does that say?

I mean we are not told this this the specific mechanism whereby Jesus becomes sin and and everything that that involves

And people want to try to pry into those things and I don't know that we necessarily should in many instances

What God's truth does is is it delimits lines that say the truth is within this and it's not outside Here, but it doesn't necessarily give us everything.

We'd like to know even within those lines And so when it gives tells us that Jesus Christ the

God -man, there's all sorts of speculations and questions We'd like to ask about well What's a God -man like when he's 12 or when he's 10 or you know things like that?

The Bible doesn't tell us and only the Gnostics in the second century decided, you know Start delving into those things in the same way

We know that he who knew no sin was made sin in our behalf We might become the righteous of God in him and we know

That the offering that he makes propitiates the wrath of God and we know

That because of this by having faith in Christ, we can have peace with God and the imputation of his righteousness but the specific mechanism whereby there is

Some kind of one -to -one correspondence. There isn't a one -to -one correspondence. You have one taking the place of many

You have one act of righteousness justifying the many and and all these speculation that we can try to throw out there isn't really

I think going to answer the question of Well, could there be a true propitiation without without abandonment?

Well is abandonment necessarily Part and parcel of what it means for God to be to God the

Father to accept The the sacrifice of the Son so that his justice is fulfilled

Is is that what we're what we're trying to to argue and if so, why? Would it not follow that length of time would have to then enter into this as well.

Would there have to be a temporality? you know, there's there's all sorts of questions like that that I don't know that there the

Spirit of God has given a sufficient basis upon which to To answer those things and from my perspective,

I think it's far better to address this issue exegetically within the key context and be able to say okay, here's where Hebrews chapter 7 tells us that because of Christ being our high priest and because of what he does in the work of intercession

He is able to save to the uttermost those drawn. I under God by him. Okay, there's positive didactic teaching

And there's so much of that That we should be satisfied with that. I sometimes get worried about folks who want to sit around going.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah fine Hey, I wonder about this over here. You know, those are the folks who You know,

I've seen them in the churches and they're the ones you worry about. They they they really really are they They get tired of the same old same old after a while move on to the next show.

So You know, that's sort of where I come down those things. So would there be a resource?

I do have the forgotten Trinity and I will look that up. Is there a resource that you would recommend that would go?

into this because I Go into my reading. It seems like this is the minority position the one that That you're promoting.

Yeah. Well, yeah it well when we say minority position Yeah, as far as the other viewpoint is is very popular but there's there's there's two ways in which something could be a minority position because the issue is discussed openly and the majority of people disagree or The majority position is the default tradition because of preaching and exposure but there's almost no discussion whatsoever about the merits of that position versus the

The minority position in other words the majority of those who hold the majority don't know what the minority is

And that's the situation we're dealing with here in other words The vast

I I grew up Until I was in college. I had never heard anyone challenge anything on that subject

I did not know that there was a controversy So while I would have been a part of the majority I would have been a part of the majority by default not by choice not by I know what the issues are and I've chosen

You know I've studied it and I've come to the conclusion and I'm in the majority and so in this situation

Well, I would say that I'm in the minority viewpoint I don't think the vast majority of those who are in the majority viewpoint have ever

Even recognized that there was any issue here at all. Let me give you another example.

That's actually fairly closely related is the fact that the statement when when

Jesus is upon the cross and he says father forgive them for they know not what they Do that's a textual variant and in fact, there's good reason for not believing that that textual variants original

I didn't know that all the way through seminary Never mentioned didn't know it.

I hadn't had a fact. I would say it was 2003 Before I even became aware of that fact now that really is

Important, but it's not necessarily something that everyone is aware of and therefore

You could look at all these people who have have preached long sermons on father forgiven

They know what they do But how many of them actually bothered to look down at the bottom of the Greek text?

They even had a Greek text near them and go. Oh, well, look at that hadn't thought about that, you know and so That that's that's an illustration

I think speaks to this issue as well as to resources. I don't know Just off top my head again, it's not an area where I you know go out and and Once I found someone who's preached the other way

I attacked them after the service and beat them over the head of my Greek New Testament or something, you know I don't don't do that. But I Really don't know what to refer you to.

I mean, I would I would assume that the majority of meaningful Exegetical commentaries are going to probably focus upon the psalm 22 issue

But unfortunately, they may not even go into the theological issues. So I'm not sure what to direct you to I mean the folks going on the cruise are reading the death of death and they're reading

Owen's material on the vindication of God's justice, but As far as modern resources,

I really don't know what I could direct you to. I'm sorry Okay, if it's not something that would would probably come up in the the debate on the cross with Shabir Ali is

Something that they would even address or well, I think it's definitely something that you need to be aware of and I'm thinking back

Over all of Shabir's discussions and I could be wrong here, but I don't recall it really coming up But believe me if it does

I'll be ready for it Wow two calls and that took us to within one minute and 40 seconds of the end of the program well, okay, all right,

I talked about Summers professor, but We we I don't think

I'm gonna have any opportunity to start the Shabir Ali Here I suppose

I could just you know, do you know something like It's not even on anyways. Oh, well, I tried to start it, but you didn't have the computer on anyhow

So it doesn't make a difference. You did now, but it's too late. The the humor is gone You just shot it just it's gone.

So and you don't really look like you care a whole lot one way or the other You're just good. You're Stretching it out.

Aren't you? Yes. I know I know So we don't have an opportunity to go to the Shabir Ali or the Bible Answer Man thing because We have less than one minute left, but keep an eye on the blog this weekend because I'm gonna have a have a chat with with summer and say hey, should we just flush this grade anyways?

No, we ain't gonna do that let me tell you something right now we ain't flushing that grade and I am going to be

Sending an mp3 player with her to every class from now on and I'm recording every lecture from now on and I'm keeping examples of every lecture from now on and I'm gonna keep everything she submits that class and if if what

I expect to happen happens We're gonna I'm gonna be meeting

I'm gonna be meeting with some people in the administration you had better believe it

Because I'm gonna tell you Just not gonna let it happen. Just it's it's wrong.

So watch over the weekend. See if something appears that'll tell you one way or the other and Let's see next week next as far as I know

Lord will and we'll be here But something's coming up real quick folks. It's called the cruise.

It's called the conference. It's called the class It is called the debate in Seattle with Shabir Ali on the atonement.

It is only a month away It's the 19th and today's 20th So it's less than a month away, but it's four weeks from tomorrow night.

Let's put it that way is how that's gonna work out So it's coming keep praying for us and we'll see you next week on the dividing line.

God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks