John 10:31ff Sunday School

We have been working through the Synoptic Gospels, but I've sort of stepped out of that for a moment so that we might cover some relevant chapters in John.

We've been in John chapter 10 for a few weeks, and we are coming toward the latter half of the chapter here, and specifically, we have finished the portion at the beginning about 25 -26 in regards to the oneness of the

Father and the Son in bringing about salvation, and we had mentioned last time the strong emphasis upon the unity of the

Father and the Son in that act being the proper context, the interpretation of John chapter 10 verse 30.

The fact that very frequently this verse is misused, even by good orthodox

Christian people. I and my Father, we are one, is specifically in that context in regards to the salvation of the sheep.

If we are in the hand of Christ, we're in the hand of the Father, no one can snatch them out of the Son's hand, no one can snatch them out of the

Father's hand. He and the Father are one in that way. That then becomes a evidence of the deity of Christ indirectly, not directly.

It's a little inappropriate to look at this text and go, ah, here's all the inter -trinitarian information found in one verse.

That's reading too much into it. I don't think that it can substantiate that amount of weight, but it is an important text in its testimony to the fact that the

Father and the Son, that unity that has been emphasized throughout the gospel, throughout the prologue, throughout

John chapter 5, the Son does nothing of himself, etc. etc., is seen here in verse 30.

But then we see the response, and the response is also important for a number of reasons.

Let's take a look at it, and we'll see how that goes. Beginning verse 31, Then the

Jews took up stones again to stone him. Notice the again part, if you're wondering why it says again, remember

John chapter 8, when Jesus said, Ego I me, I am, and the

Jews picked up stones to stone him there. When the Jews took up stones again to stone him, Jesus answered them, many good works

I've shown you from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me? And Jesus answered, saying, for a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself

God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said you are gods?

If you call them gods, to whom the word of God came, the scripture cannot be broken. Do you say of him whom the

Father sanctified and sent the world, you are blaspheming, because I said I am the Son of God. If I do not do the works of my

Father, do not believe me. But if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works, for you may know and believe that the

Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to seize him, but he escaped out of their hand.

And he went away again beyond the Jordan to the place where John was baptizing at first, and there he stayed. Then many came to him and said,

John performed no sign, but all the things that John spoke about this man were true, and many believed in him there.

I think I may have just discovered a typo in the electronic version of the

New King James Version that I may have to report. Who has a

New King James in front of them? The first phrase of Okay, never mind.

It's good. All right, all right. When I, it's good.

When I saw that first phrase, Jesus answered him, for some reason in my mind,

I thought it was Jesus answering the Jews. I thought they put a him instead of a them, but thank goodness, just a reading error on my part.

We wouldn't want to have any errors in the Bible. Unless, of course, it's the one that I caught in the

New King James back when I was writing the King James only controversy. But that's another long story, and they fixed that anyway, so all is all as well.

Anyway, John chapter 10 verse 31, we see the response to Jesus' words,

I and my father are one, as the Jews pick up stones to stone him. Just as in John chapter 5, when

Jesus uses language that emphasizes the particularity of his relationship with the

Father. I cannot help, you know, when I'm basically a week out from debates,

I start thinking about pretty much only that, so it's always running through my mind. Next week, a week from today, this, actually a week from this evening,

I will be engaging in the first of two debates with Sheikh Mohammed Ahmed Awal in Dearborn, Michigan.

And I'm thinking about things that he has said, and things that I can expect from Muslims.

I'll be doing a number of television programs or live call -in and stuff like that. This issue of Jesus as the

Son of God always comes up in those situations, especially since the second debate we'll be doing will be on whether Jesus is, in fact, the divine

Son of God or not. And Muslims like to say, well, God has sons by the tons.

And they will go through Old Testament texts where David is called the Son and Israel's called the

Son, and in essence, to try and say that the Sonship of Jesus is equal to these metaphorical uses in the

Old Testament. But it is without question that in the 10th chapter of in the

Gospel of John, I'm sorry, the emphasis is made upon the uniqueness of the relationship of Jesus as Son to the

Father. In fact, it's interesting. They like to go to John chapter 1 and I believe, does someone have a

King James here? Wow, that's

King James. John 1 John 1 12,

I believe in the, yeah, John 1 12 in the

KJV. What does that, what does that say? Okay, that's where it comes from.

Right, right there. Do you see that? Sons of God? Now, how many of you have children in your translation?

How many of you have sons? King James? Oh, so the

King James has sons. Interesting, I mean,

I'm not going to call it a mistranslation, but I think it's a misleading translation. The term that is used in the

Greek at this point is tekna, which means children. Son is hwios, or hwioi if you're going to use the plural form.

John is very careful to emphasize the uniqueness of the relationship of Jesus to the

Father as the monogamous hwios, the unique son. And I know that,

I expect a week from Monday night, my opponent to quote this text from the King James to say, see, you know, we all are sons of God.

And I will have to point out that that's actually not what it's saying. But John is emphasizing this uniqueness and that uniqueness came out in John chapter 5 when

Jesus said, call God his own Father, what? Verse 18, making himself equal with God.

Then in John chapter 8, he's the I am, and now in John chapter 10, when he utilizes this language of I and the

Father, we are one. I keep emphasizing the we, it's a plural verb.

Jesus is not saying he is the Father. He is saying he and the Father are one. The response from the

Jews is pretty consistent. Now, you could argue that the Jews get it wrong, but you'd have to argue that from what comes after this.

The Jewish response to Jesus' claims is to see him as making a very unique claim about himself.

As they took up stones again to stone him, you didn't stone people for anything but blasphemy or fornication, which obviously wasn't fornication.

So you have this charge of blasphemy. And so Jesus answered them, many good works

I've shown you from my Father, for which of those works do you stone me? And so notice

Jesus puts it right back upon them to provide a meaningful grounds for their accusation.

Their accusation is supposed to flow from what Jesus has just said, and that is it is a good work of the

Father and the Son together to bring about the salvation of God's people. Many good works I've shown you from my

Father. Notice even the works that he's shown come from the Father. Perfect unity again between the

Father and the Son. And so those would be the only grounds upon which to, if the works that he's done come from the

Father, then they're divine works. They testify the truthfulness of who he is.

And so they would have to be stoning him for having done a divinely good work. Notice immediately what is at the base of Jesus' words here, which is normally lost in this conversation.

In this particular text, you've got an unbelievable number of interpretations of this text, especially amongst various false religions, as we'll see in a moment.

But notice what is at the foundation of Jesus' words. There is an implicit accusation of injustice in the charge that is being made.

There is an implicit accusation of injustice in the charge that is being made against Jesus.

Many good works I have shown you from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?

The assumption is you must have, you must at least pretend to have some grounds, some just grounds, for bringing the law to bear, because stoning is a punishment of the law.

And so you're acting as judges. You must have a basis for your judgment.

And yet, if these are good works that come from God, then there is an implicit accusation of injustice on the part of these

Jews. That's going to be expanded upon in what follows, because notice their answer to him.

Did the Jews ever believe God has a son? Not in the sense of the incarnation, no.

Well, depends what you mean by son. You're sounding like you're repeating the Muslim accusation there.

The Muslims believe that that sonship is a physical sonship, and that clearly is not the case.

But the the Jews did not believe that there was no revelation of an incarnation prior to the incarnation itself, so they were not looking for Yahweh to become incarnate, if that's what you're asking.

Yeah, and that's used a number of different ways in the New Testament, but I can't see how someone could have looked at that and come up with the incarnation.

Not from the Old Testament. So no, the Jews were not looking for an incarnation.

There, when we look back at the Old Testament with New Testament eyes, we can see allusions to things.

In Isaiah 9, a son is given to us, a child is born to us, a son is given to us. We can see allusions, but the idea that there was some full -blown doctrine of a coming incarnation,

I think is utterly untenable. So Jesus answered and said, for a good work, we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you being a man make yourself

God. Now, we really need to hear what they're saying here.

First of all, they say we're not going to stone you for a good work. So they immediately assume a disjunction, a disconnection between the source of Jesus's works and the works themselves.

Because remember what Jesus said, many good works I have shown you from my Father. They assume, well, that doesn't actually come from the

Father, and we're not even going to deal with the reality that these are good works that you're doing. That really harkens back, remember, to the

John 5 issue as well. And that is, what was the accusation in John 5?

That Jesus had healed on Sabbath. And they were, you know, more than once,

Jesus, in fact, Mark says Jesus looked around with anger on the people in the synagogue when he healed them, when he was about to heal a man on the

Sabbath. So, whether it's a good work or not, they don't want to get into that. These are the same men that Jesus is going to accuse of calling white black and black white and so on and so forth.

But for blasphemy, and because you being a man make yourself

God. Now, there is an implicit assumption here as well, also shared by my

Muslim friends, that God cannot take human form.

Now, clearly, God is not a man. The Old Testament says that more than once.

God is not a man, that he should lie. The Son of Man, that he should repent. He is the unchanging

God. It is not God's nature to be a man. But as we say to our

Mormon friends, the gospel is not that men can become gods, but that God became a man, the person of Jesus Christ.

God, as the creator of all things, can take on a human nature. And that is what he has done.

But in the mindset of this question, you being a man, they see a man in front of them, make yourself

God. Now, a couple things. Assumption being that God can never do that.

Why? If God chose to do so for his own purposes, why would he not be able to do so?

If he created a human nature, why could he not take on a human nature? Not while ceasing to be

God, but take on a human nature. And secondly, this is clearly how the

Jews understood Jesus' words when he said, I, my Father, we are one.

That he was making himself deity. Now, the answer that is given is going to be extremely important.

There are many people who would say that in the answer that Jesus gives, he is denying his own deity.

He is correcting the Jews. And how does that come about?

Well, Jesus answered them, is it not written in your law? I said you are gods. If you call them gods, to whom the word of God came, the scripture cannot be broken.

Do you save him when the Father sanctified and sent to the world? You are blaspheming because I said I am the Son of God. So here's the interpretation that's given.

I'm not God. I'm the Son of God. And Son of God just simply means a godly man.

And since God in the Old Testament called men gods, then you're missing the point in accusing me of blasphemy when

I simply say that I'm the Son of Man, which just simply means a righteous person. That's one of the interpretations that is offered.

One of the problems is that people generally don't take the time to look back at the text that Jesus cites.

When he says, is it not written in your law? I said you are gods. Now most of you have the reference right there.

It is Psalm 82, 6. And so let's take a look at Psalm 82 for a moment.

We want to have our context. It's a fairly short psalm, a plea for justice.

And this one we need to read the whole psalm because the whole psalm is important. God stands in the congregation of the mighty.

He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?

Defend the poor and fatherless. Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy.

Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know nor do they understand. They walk about in darkness. All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

I said you are gods and all of your children the most high, but you shall die like men and fall like one of the princes.

Arise, O God, judge the earth for you shall inherit all nations. Now notice a couple of things here, and I don't want to get too far afield, but this is a subject

I've had to deal with more than I would like to. Notice the context.

God stands in the congregation of the mighty. The term the mighty, and then you notice he judges among the gods.

There are those of a more liberal persuasion who would see this psalm as an echo of not monotheism, a belief in one

God, but an echo of a form of polytheism, what's actually known as henotheism.

Henotheism is the belief of one primary God, but an acceptance of the existence of lesser divine beings.

Well, in any theological seminary that you would go to today, that's even attempting to do serious instruction, you would at least be exposed to, and in the vast majority presented to you as a fact, the idea that monotheism developed slowly in the history of Israel, and that there are plenty of examples of non monotheistic belief to be found in the

Old Testament text, and this would be one of them. God stands in the congregation of the mighty.

These are mighty divine beings. He judges among the gods, and the term

Elohim appears twice in the text. First, it's translated as God with a capital

G, and then it's translated as gods with a small g, which it can be translated depending on what verb it's used with, and so the and I've said this too many times before, but one of the most dangerous places for the

Christian is a Christian bookstore. If you were to purchase almost any commentary on the book of, on the

Psalter that's been written in the past hundred years, almost all you would get in this text would be a discussion of this being an echo of a polytheistic view that, you know, is still there and hasn't been, you know, edited out, etc, etc.

Now, if you go before that time period, you would find Old Testament commentators who would not automatically take that perspective, but as far as modern ones, almost everything will be that way.

How are we to understand this? Well, notice, How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked, defend the poor and faultless, do justice to the afflicted and needy, deliver the poor and needy, free them from the hand of the wicked?

Well, unless you're actually going to buy into the idea that the psalmist here had the idea that judgment amongst men was actually the purview, the authority of divine beings between God and men, then you have a problem.

Instead, partiality, judging unjustly, the command to defend the poor and the faultless, do justice to the afflicted and needy, who's in view here?

Well, it's the judges of Israel, of course. It's to them that these duties have been given.

How long will you just unjustly? We know that in many of the periods of Israel's history, one of the primary condemnations brought against the people of Israel by the prophets was that of injustice being done to land, the oppression of the poor and the faultless, the showing of partiality to the wicked, the rendering of unjust judgment.

We are told that it is a judgment upon a land to be given unjust judges, and we see that today.

We may sit around and chuckle sometimes at the night circus, but that is a judgment from God.

When you see the kind of lack of common sense that people have in our land today, especially amongst the judiciary, it's judgment from God.

So what we have here is, God stands in the congregation of the mighty, he judges among the gods, is that God is amongst his people, and he will judge those who have been given responsibility to act as judges amongst the people.

That's what's going on here, and that's why you have this very human affirmation of the need to do justice to the afflicted and needy, deliver the poor and needy, freedom from the hand of the wicked, and when this doesn't happen, they do not know, nor do they understand, they walk about in darkness, all the foundations of the earth are unstable.

When justice is not done amongst men, God is not honored.

Especially amongst the people of God, his witness amongst the nations is destroyed. Again, one of the charges brought against the people of Israel by especially the minor prophets.

And given the fact that justice is the foundation of Yahweh's throne, just a few psalms down the road, you'll have that asserted.

If justice is the foundation of his throne, then when injustice is done, then there is instability in the world.

That then becomes the context of, I said, I said, you are gods, and all of you are children of the

Most High, but, but you shall die like men and fall like one of the princes.

Now, again, some have said, ah, see, this shows that they aren't really men, because it says they'll die like men.

Well, the point is, these are individuals who have been placed in a position of authority, and God is reminding them, you're mortal.

You will die like men, you'll fall like anyone of the princes. Don't think that just because you hold a divine position that you can escape the judgment of God for doing justice in the position that is yours.

So, I said, you are God. I placed you in my position amongst the people. Your judgment is to be my judgment, but, given your injustice, you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes.

So, Psalm 826 is about what? It's about unrighteous judges. It is a plea for justice in light of what happens when you have unrighteous judges in positions of leadership in God's own people.

That's what Psalm 826 is about. So, with that in mind, we go back to John chapter 10, because that's where Jesus is quoting from.

In John chapter 10, is it not written in your law,

I said, you are God? Now, the individuals who would hear this would know exactly what he was quoting from.

Remember, the Psalms, the Psalter, was the hymn book of the people of God.

Now, we don't know all the hymns in our hymn books, because we have, I don't know how many hundreds, and I always chuckle when

I go over to the United Kingdom. I've mentioned to you that they don't have music in their hymn books.

It's just the words. You have to know the tunes, and and there's some of them of 1 ,200 to as many as I think

I've seen 1 ,700 in a single little book. So, it's not quite parallel, because the

Psalter is not quite that big. They would have known the 82nd

Psalm. They would have known what the context of the 82nd

Psalm was. Remember, I emphasized to you just before this, there is a presupposed accusation of unjust judgment in verses, in verse 32.

Now, you have it brought out. Is it not written in your law, I said you are gods?

If he called them gods, and who were they? To whom the

Word of God came. There is the final interpretation of Psalm 82 for you.

I think, hopefully, at least all Christians could agree. That Jesus's interpretation of the 82nd

Psalm should sort of be normative for us. If Jesus interpreted it that way, it's probably best that we do too.

Though, again, you would be shocked at how many people teach in seminaries today that would say, oh, that's such a naive thing to say.

I'm serious. In the majority of seminaries in the United States today, what you would be taught would be,

A. Jesus never said what's in John chapter 10. That's John speaking for Jesus decades after he's gone, and B.

That's just that community's interpretation of Psalm 82, and so it's irrelevant to Psalm 82 itself. That's what you'd be taught.

That's what you'd be taught. Did you all hear that I've mentioned this school today before, but I thought

I'd mention this just in passing. It has nothing to do with John chapter 10. But that's okay. Did you all hear that Claremont Graduate School in California has decided to become a multi -faith seminary?

Claremont Graduate School is one of the United Methodist graduate schools. I would have told you a long time ago that Claremont Graduate School is no longer even so much as a

Christian school in any way, shape, or form. It's been the home of Protestant theology, which makes

God a part of the cosmos, and he's growing and evolving and changing. It's pretty wild stuff, but they announced last week, or sometime maybe early this week, that they have decided to become a multi -faith seminary.

It was a multi -faith seminary where they will train people, starting with Christian ministers,

Islamic imams, and Jewish rabbis. You'll all get to be taught in the same school, and not just in different.

You'll be taking classes together because we all need to work together. We need to break down these walls between us.

Dorm rooms, yes, and kosher food, and yeah, I'm sure all sorts of interesting things.

And I can guarantee you, well, I remember back in the 90s, I was speaking over in Southern California someplace, and someone mentioned they knew a friend that had actually applied to teach there, fully qualified, but he was rejected for teaching there because he actually admitted in the interview process that he believes in the deity of Christ.

That's just way too conservative for Claremont. So now they aren't even a

Christian. They aren't even pretending to be Christian anymore. They're everything, you know.

It's just, I don't know. I just, what a world we live in.

Anyhow, that is what you would have presented to me. Yes, sir. Well, obviously they grew an understanding of what that meant.

Jesus had to deal with all sorts of false ideas of what the Messiah was supposed to be. We've seen in the synoptics a number of times

Jesus forbidding people from running about saying that he was the Messiah, and the primary reason for that was called the messianic secret, was because of how many false ideas were attached to that.

And even after the resurrection, at the ascension, what are the disciples doing? Time for us to rule

Israel on thrones, and you know, there's still all this misapprehension.

I don't think there's any question, especially as we see Thomas, you know, confessing

Jesus to be my Lord and my God in John 20, 28, that that is exactly what it says that it is.

But the full, you know, a full understanding of all the ramifications of that,

I think would require the the ministry of the Holy Spirit, reflection upon the

Scriptures for a full understanding that we see developing, coming out in Philippians and things like that.

I mean, there, we can just tell from the questions that are asked by the disciples.

John 14, show us the Father and it suffices us. What is Jesus' response?

Have I been so long a time with you, Philip, and yet you have not known me? So, there was a, it wasn't just a sudden, oh,

I understand incarnation and everything, just like that. There was a growing and understanding of what all of that meant, that I think becomes very clearly stated in Luke 24, 45.

When after everything else they've seen and all the ministry they've seen and heard and the teaching, it says

Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures and what they testified concerning Him.

So, it was, it was a process. It's an act of revelation, you know.

Well, they certainly ended up seeing the Old Testament witness to that in texts like Isaiah 7 and 9 and in Psalm 2 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 110 and obviously, we know that those

Old Testament texts become part and parcel of that. How much at any one point prior to the opening of their minds to understand the

Scriptures and the coming of the Holy Spirit, I don't know. They had their, their, their foundation of Jewish monotheism and yet Jesus, they clearly saw, commanded the winds and the waves.

They knew He was not just merely a prophet. And John goes so far as to use the name

Yahweh of Him. So, I think it's clear. But I want to get this text done because we're gonna run out of time here.

And then it's going to be two weeks before I get a chance to finish up and we're gonna have to redo the whole thing because it's, we will have lost it.

So, notice what Jesus says, if He called them gods to whom the Word of God came.

So, Jesus identifies the ones to whom it was said, you are gods, as the ones to whom the

Word of God came. Now, if you're thinking, okay, that sounds like a prophet or somebody who's revealing

Scripture. But that's actually a better description of someone who is a judge. The Word of God has come to them and they are to judge based upon what

God's Word says, not unjustly, not with partiality. The Word of God has come to them and since it has come to them, they are to judge on that basis.

That's why they were called gods, because they're judging on the basis of God's Word. And so, if He called them gods to whom the

Word of God came and the Scripture cannot be broken, we could stop there and preach for quite some time as to what that means, the

Scripture, the writings, the graphe, cannot be broken or destroyed.

Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and send the world?

What's the first thing Jesus does? This isn't just a self -description.

This takes us right back to what He had said back in verse 32. Verse 30,

I am the Father of one. Verse 32, many good works that I've shown you from the

Father, the unity that exists, my good works are divine because they come from the

Father. Do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sends into the world?

And so, here is here are men who have only received the

Scriptures upon which they are to judge, standing in front of him whom the

Father has sanctified and sent into the world. You are blaspheming because I said

I am the Son of God. The argument is not, oh, anybody can be called gods.

That would completely miss everything Jesus is saying. The argument is, if you claim to be the leaders of God's people, as they did, we know

Moses, we know this man's a sinner, blah, blah, blah. Remember John 9? We are

Moses' representatives. Here they're standing in front of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world.

They've only received the Word of God. Now the Word of God is sanctified and sent into the world and standing in front of them.

Remember how John begins, the Logos, the Word. You are blaspheming because I said

I am the Son of God. If one has been sanctified by the Father and sent into the world, that's the very definition of the

Son of God. And so, what is the accusation? You're just like the unrighteous judges of Psalm 82.

They had the Word of God in their hand and they judged unjustly. They showed partiality. The Word of God said don't judge unjustly and don't show partiality and gave you exactly how you to judge.

They ignored that. It was right in front of them. And now Jesus, sanctified by the

Father, sent into the world, right in front of him. You're blaspheming. You're the Son of God. You said you're the

Son of God. That's blasphemy. But notice as well, Jesus makes no differentiation. He does not correct their statement that they made earlier.

You, being a man, make yourself God. Jesus' restatement of that is, I am the

Son of God. Don't let somebody get away with diminishing what Son of God means in that text.

Don't let them get away with that. By referring to some other use of some other context.

Because I said I am the Son of God. If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me.

But if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works that you may know and believe the Father is in me and I in Him. Was that a repudiation of his claim?

No. In no way, shape, or form. Notice, he goes right back to the same testimony.

The testimony that they skipped. Remember what they skipped in their response to it. For a good work, we do not stone you.

They wouldn't deal with the fact that the works that he did were divine works that come from the

Father. They skipped that part. So he goes right back to it. If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me.

But if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works that you may know and believe the Father is in me and I in Him.

Now, Jesus didn't have to add that last section, but he does. Because it brings us right back to the end of verse 30.

I am the Father of one, that you may know and believe the Father is in me and I in Him.

Sound a little bit familiar? That you may know and believe that I am, John 13, 19.

John 8, 58. The very words Jesus could say in John 18, when he says,

I am the soldiers and they fall back, that you may know and believe, John 13, 19, that you may know and believe the

Father is in me and I in Him. Therefore they sought again to seize him, but he escaped out of their hand.

Now, some would say a miracle here, or I don't know. The text doesn't say.

But their response is to press with the charge of blasphemy.

They do not see that Jesus has repudiated the charge of blasphemy. What they do see is that Jesus has placed it right back upon them and accused them of being false judges.

And hence, hypocrites. And hence, the false shepherds that come in for so much of the

Old Testament's condemnation. All right, it's not revealed at all in the

Old Testament. It's not revealed at all in the Old Testament. Revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity takes place in the incarnation of the

Son, the outpouring of the Spirit. Revelation of the Trinity is between the Old and New Testament. Hence, it is a revelation that takes place before the first words of the

New Testament were written, which is why the New Testament is not where the Trinity is revealed.

It is the record of the triune religion itself. If you want to read a tremendously good work on this subject,

B .B. Warfield's article on the Trinity. You could probably read it in an hour.

It is one of the most clear, compelling articles

I have ever read. I would highly recommend it to you. I actually put on my iPod last week or week before last and listened to it again.

In fact, there ought to be some way I can make that available to everybody else. You could go, well,

I don't have that. Well, I could make the mp3 available for you. If you don't mind listening to a computer voice, which is a very good computer voice, by the way.

You know, once in a while it mispronounces something, but not so much this problem. But B .B. Warfield's article on the

Trinity. Excellent, excellent stuff. The doctrine of the Trinity is revealed between the Old and New Testaments in the incarnation of the

Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In light of that revelation, we then can see those important texts in the

Old Testament and what they were alluding to. But I think it's massively important that we do not make the mistake of attempting to assert that the

Old Testament is the locus of that revelation. Because it just isn't. It just isn't. So, John 10 .34.

I said, you're gods. You understand Psalm 82, background context, things like that. You see how it all goes together.

I know we've covered it before, but I think it's important that we understand it. Because it does come up over and over and over again.

All right? All right. Let's close the time. Father, we do thank you for this day.

And again, the freedom that we have to open your word and consider these things. Help us to remember. Help us then to be bold in our witness to others and to give a good testimony for the hope that is within us.