Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Now, we are supposedly in John chapter 17, where we were last week and didn't make a whole lot of progress because we sort of stepped aside and did a little study on Trinitarian theology there for a while.
But we will continue in John chapter 17 next week. I will be, I don't know where I'll be at this time, probably somewhere between here and Madrid, Spain. Probably about 36, 38 ,000 feet, I don't know where they cruise over the Atlantic, but that's where I will be or I will have already gotten into New York or something, I don't know.
Time just sort of doesn't have a whole lot of meaning at that particular point in time. But anyway, so I will be traveling back next week at this particular point in time, having engaged in two debates, one of which is going to be exceptionally challenging because I'm debating a subject that is not my forte against a guy who did his PhD in it.
So, fools rush in and all that kind of stuff. But we pressed on in John chapter 17 last week. I had started, we had already covered verse 3. We were looking at the doctrine of the Trinity and the background of the misuse of verse 3 by those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the deity of Christ.
The category error that is made by people who cite verse 3 in saying that when Jesus says, the Father is the only true God, this means Jesus is functionally describing himself as a mere creature. And the fact that people need to ask themselves the question, what exactly would the incarnate God say if one person of the Trinity became incarnate?
Would they be a separate God? Would they be another God? Would they be a lesser God? Would they be an atheist? Just how would that work? And if one of the divine persons becomes incarnate, does that demand polytheism?
That's what the Muslims tell us, etc., etc. And so we went through various of the aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity at that particular point in time. And we also pointed out that verse 3 emphasizes that eternal life involves a knowledge of Father and Son, that they may know you.
There is a term that is frequently used today called Gnosticism. Gnosticism was pretty much the most popular heresy of the first number of centuries. The early church struggled mightily against Gnosticism.
We can see early forms of this, not the fully developed Gnosticism that you get later on, but early forms of this being warned against in 1 John, in Colossians, in the Gospel of John. And you'll hear people today saying, oh, that's Gnostic, or you're slipping into Gnosticism.
It's a real easy shot that you can take at somebody to sort of blur distinctions, and you don't want to be called a Gnostic. The problem is the result of that is, for a lot of folks, the idea of knowledge, and that's the term Gnosis, Gnostic simply means one who has knowledge.
The idea of Gnosis, of taking in knowledge, is fundamental to New Testament teaching. Right here, in order that they might Gnoscosyn, they might know you. Remember a couple weeks ago when I preached from Paul's comment to the Corinthians, chapter 4, where he talks about the light of the knowledge of the Gospel.
So, knowledge is absolutely central, and it's the how you receive the knowledge that is the issue. The Gnostics believe that we are basically, well, you're a spark of the divine that has become trapped in a physical body.
And salvation is obtained by gaining knowledge, and this knowledge is not publicly proclaimed. This knowledge is kept only within the enlightened ones. And you gain this knowledge by going through all of these rituals and levels of initiation, and so on and so forth.
And the goal is to eventually allow your spark to be reabsorbed into the one true God, so that you cease to exist and you are freed from this physical body that traps you. So, unless someone's teaching that, they're not really a Gnostic.
And there are a lot of folks running around saying, well, if you tell people that they need to know this, they just need to get zapped by the Spirit and all will be well. No. There is a specific content to the message that brings salvation, and it's focused in the person of Jesus Christ.
It is outward of ourselves. It's not a message about us, primarily. The Gnostic message is very focused upon us, because we're the divine spark. It is a message about someone else. Now, it includes knowledge about us, specifically that we're sinners, we're creatures, we're under the authority of God, etc., etc.
But it focuses us outside of ourselves upon something else, someone else, specifically, upon the person of Christ, who's a revelation of God. So, there's a vast difference between the Gnosticism of the ancient world and telling someone, well, there is a content to the Gospel.
Now, one of the reasons that I bring this up is I was directed, a friend of mine directed me to a very interesting video. It's not real big over here, but in the UK, the guy's name has slipped my mind, but I almost feel like bringing it in so we could watch this one portion.
He is a, claims to be a former Christian, who is now an atheist, and he goes around, he calls himself a mentalist, and he went around and he came to the United States, where he's not known by face or anything like that, and he decided, could I convince believers in God that I have supernatural powers?
And the portion that I watched specifically was fascinating because they gathered a group of unbelievers together, and he just started talking with them about why they're unbelievers, and then what he was doing is he was trying to convince this one pastor, a Christian pastor, that he has the power to convert people merely by touch.
And it was fascinating to watch him manipulating these people, and he's talking to this one young woman, and, oh, you know, I just don't really see any reason to believe any of this stuff, and things like that.
He says, well, just be honest and open with me, okay? And then it gets real quiet, and he just puts his hand next to her, and it gets real quiet, and then he steps away and says, now, just be honest with me, just be honest with me.
And she's, you know, my mom used to say, you know, and she becomes real reflective, and she's not nearly as skeptical as she once was, but then he gets this guy, and this guy says, no, I just don't see any reason to believe any of this stuff.
And he says, well, just do me a favor. Stand up, and he has the guy stand up, and he has him facing the other way, and everybody else is watching this. It's not big. The room is smaller than this. And he says, now, just trust me.
Whatever you feel, just go with it, and I will be here. I think, I think he actually even said at one point, I think he said, and I will catch you. So maybe that's where he planted the idea. I don't know.
But the guy didn't say that. I don't know. But he just stands there, and it gets real quiet. And if you notice, like during the pastoral prayer, has anyone ever counted how long before I normally start?
It seems like forever, because so few of us are accustomed to silence. We are so accustomed to noise constantly, that when it becomes really quiet, it catches people's attention. It's really, we talk about a few moments.
If I actually stood there for three minutes, everybody would be going. Because it's rarely more than 60 seconds. It seems much longer. So there's this silence. And you see the mentalist, and then he sort of comes up behind the guy, and he just reaches out.
He does not touch him. The camera angle is very clear. He does not touch him. And he just goes like this, and the guy falls back into his arms. And just lays him down on the ground. And then he has him sit up, and he says, Now, just be honest with me.
What do you think now? Are you skeptical? I don't know. After what just happened to me, I can't really be skeptical. There's got to be something to this. It was really a fascinating thing to watch. And what it really illustrated, what the Benny Hens of the world are doing, isn't all that difficult to do.
And the difference, what's absolutely necessary, what makes the Christian faith something other than playing with people's minds, that's one of the reasons I remember when I first came here, which, now that it's 2014, what year does this make for me, Roxy?
See? It's just scary. And it's absolutely frightening. Brick and I were sitting over there, and we were going, Let's see, what year was, when did we get the carpet? And we're doing all this stuff. And then at one point, Brick just goes, We'll just ask Roxy.
So it's like, yeah. So, yeah. So, yes, a quarter of a century now. But what was I saying about that? I've totally lost my train of thought. Yeah, I was. But why in the world did I bring up how long I've been here now?
Anyways. When you first came. Yeah, I know. When I first came here. When I first came here. Oh, yes. I'd taken a slight left turn there. I came from a church where the altar call was just, well, I came from a background, literally.
I mean, when I went to Grand Canyon, when we took homiletics, which is a class on how to preach, how to speak, how to preach a sermon. Most of what I remember in that particular class was about how to craft the sermon with one goal in mind, and the goal was always the altar call.
It was always the altar call. And once in a while, we will sing here one of the hymns that was one of about the three that were used as part of the altar call at the church we were from. Just As I Am is one, and what was the other one?
There was another one. And the choir just had to have these things memorized. And, you know, most of the time, it wasn't, at least at that church, for example, if you got up and tried to sneak out early during that, the pastor literally called you down from the pulpit.
Did you ever experience that, Rick? You didn't remember? There are a couple times I remember when someone tried to sneak out early, and the fire came down from heaven, shall we say. And there was this pile of ashes near the door, you know, which was a former member of the congregation.
But at least there were a couple of times when it really went on for quite a while. I mean, you know, once you've gotten to the third repetition of the third stanza, it's been going on for quite some time.
But there was this... The whole idea was to focus people's attention upon this, and I was in the music ministry enough to know that the music was really important, and the lighting was really important, and you've got all this stuff that is...
And the problem is, at least in that situation, the knowledge of the gospel had been imparted. But unfortunately, in a lot of what you see today, that part is just gone. It is all the emotions. And I can't see the difference between using that kind of methodology to trick somebody into a religious commitment without knowledge, and what the atheist mentalist was doing when he somehow put suggestion in this man's mind, and his knees buckled, and he ends up on the floor.
What's the difference between the two? In Christianity, it is God enlightening the mind. It is a divine action, and it includes knowledge. And all that going back to that they may know you. It's a divine self-revelation.
So much of man's religion is not divine self-revelation, it's human self-revelation. It's getting to know you. I got this insight about myself, and all the rest of it. Sure, we learn the light of God's Word, but that's not what the Christian message is about.
It's about who Christ is, and what God has done. All going back to, once again, the vast difference between being God-centered and being man-centered. Someone who is man-centered may still say lots of things about God, but it doesn't change the man-centeredness of the worship, and the teaching, and the very gospel presentation itself.
The Bible is very much God-centered. And man... Well, if you haven't read it, may I please recommend to you one of the classics of Christian history, but the Institutes of Christian Religion, the first section of the Institutes, where the discussion is on what comes first, knowledge of God or knowledge of man, because of the interrelationship between the two.
You can't really know yourself until you know God, but if you're deceived about who you are, then you have warped views of God, and so on and so forth. It's just such an excellent discussion, and as I've said many times before, the ink is still wet on that particular book, which is what separates it from what the rest of us write on a regular basis.
So, anyways, I think we need to move on. Password is three, or we're never going to get through any of this stuff. Jesus says, I glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you have given me to do.
Now, it's interesting, again, my Muslim friends find this to be a contradictory verse. They find this to be a contradictory verse. Why? Why do you think they find it that way? Anyone? Because Jesus hasn't died on the cross yet.
Jesus hasn't died on the cross yet. And so, how could he have accomplished the work which you have given me to do if crucifixion hasn't taken place yet? And so, the certainty of the sacrifice of Christ that is envisioned in this entire prayer is misunderstood, primarily, but the only people, well, I'll take that back.
There are some others that likewise raise that objection, but primarily, the Muslim who raises this is just not looking at the entirety of John chapter 17 and the reality that Jesus is viewing his hour as having come.
This is all part of the same thing. And the certainty of his sacrificial death is behind everything that Jesus says here. And so, it's not that I have accomplished the work which you have given me to do which was just simply to train the disciples or whatever else, and now there's something else and it's ancillary or secondary or some other type of work.
No. This is talking about the entirety of the Incarnation and it's spoken within the light of the certainty of its taking place. And so, there is a work which the Father gave to the Son to do here on Earth.
This is really a statement of the Incarnation. I glorify you on Earth having accomplished the work which you have given me to do. Now, it only really makes sense in light of all the other statements that have been found in the Gospel of John that point us to the obvious assumption of the pre-existence of Christ.
I just have to remind you again that if you leave these nice, safe, faith-filled walls and venture into the classrooms of the local community colleges and universities, that kind of assumption is gone.
And to understand what's being said by your local professor of religion, you have to recognize the vast majority of them do not believe in such things as the pre-existence of Christ or its divine character or issues like that.
And that can leave you a little bit confused as to why they read things the way they read them, but you need to be aware of that fact. And so, the obedience of the Son to the Father's purpose for the incarnation glorifies the Father.
I glorified you on the earth. So there has been a glorification of the Father in the obedience of the Son and in His accomplishment. He has accomplished. He has finished, talai 'a 'o, to complete, to finish, the work that was given Him to do.
Now, when you keep in mind that this is the same book that contains John 6, 39 and following, I have not come to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me, and this the will of Him who sent me, that of all that He has given me, I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day.
Then, once again, you see that from the God-centered perspective of the writers of Scripture, the perfection of the work of Christ is an accomplished reality. It is a given. It is not something that is up in the air.
It's not the idea that, well, Jesus has made it possible now for someone to get saved, but, you know, we don't know if that's actually going to end up working out. We don't know if we can take advantage of this in such and such a setting.
No, there is certainly an emphasis upon the perfection and the completeness of this work in Jesus' words. And so, having said that He has glorified the Father on earth, He has accomplished the work which He has been given, now, Father, glorify me together with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
I have mentioned before there are three primary texts that I utilize. They're not the only ones, but I think they're the clearest ones. I think they're the ones that, on a consistent, exegetical basis, are supreme in making this point.
But, last week, we talked about the three foundational doctrines of the Trinity, and we talked about the fact that there is only one true God, the existence of three divine persons, and the personality and equality of those persons.
It's the three biblical doctrines that whenever you listen to someone, you hear them denying the Trinity, you find out which of those foundations they deny, and that's where you need to go in Scripture.
Well, for that second point, that point that most people really struggle with, that point that modalism comes into the issue, I mentioned three verses that I believe are the... Well, they're the ones I've used in debates with modalistic leaders for the past...
Oh, when was... When did I... Starting about 99 or so, so what, it's been about 15 years now. When I debated Dr. Sabin, who's a well-known modalistic proponent, there are three texts that I emphasize.
The first is John 1 .1. In the beginning was the Word, where it was with God, and the Word was God. The third was Philippians 2 .5 -11, the Carmen Christi, where the pre-incarnate son is envisioned, and he does not consider equality with the Father as something he grasps or held on to, but he makes himself into a reputation.
These are all actions of the pre-incarnate son. And then, this verse right here, John 17 .5, has the three texts that in a debate situation where, you know, it can't be speculation, it can't be, well, I take it this way, it needs to be something I can take into a debate and defend against the best the other side has to offer.
John 17 .5 is, for me, that level of, has that level of clarity in its revelation of the fact that the Son, as a divine person, existed prior to his birth in Bethlehem. Okay? So, why is that? Well, now Father, now in light of the fact that the work which had been given to him to do has been completed.
Now, Father, glorify me together with yourself. This is another reason why we have to see that verse 4 is anticipating the completion of the sacrificial act because it's referring to the glorification of the Son.
The glorification of the Son takes place at his resurrection and his ascension into heaven. And so, that's another part of the evidence that clearly that's what is in mind. Now, Father, glorify me together with yourself.
Now, this is an imperative form in the original language. It's a command form. But, it's the kind of command form that's frequently found in prayer. It's not meant to be saying Jesus is commanding the Father to do something.
That would be inappropriate. But, it is a command form. Father, glorify me. Now, what was verse 4? I glorified you. Now, verse 5. Now, Father, glorify me. Now, that should catch our attention. That should be a striking reality to see that first you have the Son saying I glorified you on the earth having accomplished the work which you have given me to do.
We all utilize that kind of language. We want to glorify God. We want to glorify God in our sufferings. We want to glorify God in our obedience. We want to be pleasing to God. All of these things. So, that doesn't really strike us until you see that the very next sentence is now that I've done the work you've given me to do, glorify me together with yourself.
Remember John 5? Remember when we went through John 5 and we emphasized the fact that when you have particularly strong statements of the deity of Christ in the Gospel of John, there is clearly a concern on John's part that we don't fly off into some kind of binitarianism by deism, by theism as if there's two separate gods and they're at odds with one another.
In John 5, remember it says Jesus basically claimed the prerogatives of the Father to work on the Sabbath. And what did the Jews say? This man calls God his own Father making himself equal with God. And Jesus doesn't go, no, no, no, no.
I'm just a prophet. You don't understand. That's what Jesus said. But he will say about you need to honor the Son even as you honor the Father. And the Son gives life to whom He wills and all the rest of these things.
But interwoven in that discussion is the Son does nothing but what He sees the Father doing. The Son does nothing, but by Himself there is a perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son. And even here when the very exaltation of the Son in light of His accomplished work is in view, notice, now Father glorify me together with Yourself.
Perfect unity. Perfect harmony. You never have division. You never have the Father trying to do one thing and the Son trying to do something else. You have perfect harmony all the way through. I think that is something that must be remembered.
And it's exciting to me to see that emphasis and to realize how important it is for us. So, glorify me, Father. Paratheato. By Your side. Again, for someone, John chapter 17 is a nightmare for all modalists.
If you're one of the oneness-only type folks, this text is a nightmare. All of Jesus' prayer texts are a nightmare for modalists because you're really stuck with the idea that Jesus is having an internal conversation here.
And it's the human nature talking to the divine nature type idea. It's sort of a schizophrenic thing. And it's just a nightmare to see them try to exegetically handle these things. Clearly, the Son here refers to Himself as a person.
He uses a personal pronoun. Glorify me together with Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world was. If the use of personal pronouns means anything, this is one person speaking to another person and identifying Himself as having been in the presence of, by the side of another, and sharing glory in eternity past.
That's why this text is one of those three texts. Because clearly, the Son, as a glorious person, existed in the presence of the Father before the world was. So, there just isn't any way around the idea that the Son, as a glorified, divine person, pre-existed His birth in Bethlehem.
There's really no other way to read this, which is why the vast majority of liberal theology in our day just simply dismisses the Gospel of John as having any relevance at all. It's written later, and it's ahistorical, and blah, blah, blah.
They have to. There's just no way you can fit the shrunken down anemic Jesus of liberalism into the Jesus of the Gospel of John. They don't go together. So, that's why you just get rid of the Gospel of John, and you don't have to worry about it that way.
But, on every level, you have, in any way that language can be understood, you have one divine person speaking of a state that existed in eternity past in relationship to another divine person. How else can it be read?
How else can it be read? Now, Father, glorify me together with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was. Now, I'll tell you what they say, if you really are going, well, how do oneness scholars handle that?
Jesus was, the Son was a an idea in the divine mind. It had always been God's plan to manifest himself in Jesus of Nazareth. And so, while the human son did not exist, the plan existed in God's mind. Well, of course, in that sense, so did you and I.
And so, I've often asked, so you mean we could say the same thing as Jesus said here? No. Besides that, plans don't go the glory which I had with you before the world was. It doesn't work, but that's the best they can do.
Their theology just isn't big enough to fit the text. And so, the best you can do is to say, well, this is a plan speaking or something like that. It doesn't make, doesn't really make any sense at all.
So, here you have a statement that once again, and I didn't emphasize this, but it seems so painfully obvious. A statement that could not be put upon the lips of a merely created being. Whether it be the Muslim Jesus or the Jehovah's Witness Jesus or whatever else, anything less than the Christ of faith and history, nothing less than that will fulfill the requirements of this particular text.
Now, of course, I think it would be appropriate, it is interesting, that both in Philippians 2 and here, two of the three texts that I would use to demonstrate the pre-existence of the Son, the term glory appears.
Remember in Philippians chapter 2, you have every knee will bow, every tongue will confess. But that, when you go back, that is to the text in Isaiah where Yahweh says, every knee will bow to me, every tongue will confess, and my glory I will not share with another.
And so, when you think about that reality, the fact that Yahweh says He will not share His glory with another. Now, there are people who say, well, but there are glorious creatures and things like that.
But this is a specific glory. This is the glory of the Father. The glory which I had with you before the world was. Father, glorify me together with Yourself. This is not some secondary kind of glorification.
This is the glory that the Father Himself had in eternity past. There is no greater glory than this. And Yahweh says that He will not share His glory with another. I believe the text is Isaiah 40 verse 8, if I recall correctly.
Just off the top of my head. So, you put all these together and you have a text of incredible strength on every level. Demonstration of the pre-existence of the Son, demonstration of the deity of the Son, the relationship of the Father and the Son, the fact that the glorification of the Son does not detract from the glorification of the Father or vice versa.
This idea of co-glorification when you recognize... See, if you don't recognize what I said about John 5, John 6, John 7, it's all through, but John 5 especially emphasizes it. If you don't see the perfect harmony that exists between the Father and the Son, you end up with a lot of what we see in evangelicalism, whatever that is today.
And that is, you get this imbalance to where, as I've said often, many evangelicals may be monotheists, but they're not really Trinitarians. They don't recognize the relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
And in many people's minds, you end up with the idea that the Father is this distant, harsh God who is reconciled and made to be at least sort of nice to us most of the time by Jesus who is the warm, lamb-hugging, door-without-knob-knocking type guy, if you know what I mean.
Some of you are going, what are you talking about? You haven't seen some of the artwork, I guess. But you know what I'm talking about. Jesus is the warm, loving type, and the Father is this, meh. And where does this come from?
It comes from not seeing the harmony. What Jesus did, the words that He spoke, you heard from the Father. There is perfect harmony if you see love and compassion in the ministry of Christ. It represents perfectly the love and compassion of the Father for His people.
In the same way, the evangelicals who have a real hard time with the picture of Jesus in the book of Revelation, from His mouth comes a two-edged sword, and He rules the nations with a rod of iron, and the power and lordship statements, that frequently comes again from this chopping the Godhead up, because we don't see this emphasis upon unity that is right here in the text in front of us.
We just sort of skip over it, is the problem. So, John 7 -5 is, I think, truly one of the key Christological texts in the New Testament, if we listen to what it has to say, because it protects monotheism.
It presents two of the three divine persons directly, and it clearly teaches the personality of two of the three divine persons. And remember, this is coming right after John 14 -16, so we've already had all the roles of spirit laid out there, and clearly teaches the equality of those divine persons.
So, it is, I think, without a doubt, one of the most Trinitarian texts. But again, let me emphasize, it's not that the Trinity is being revealed here, it is that the Trinity has already been revealed in the Incarnation, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, now the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, because this is written after all that has happened, and the Trinity becomes the context in which this verse has to be read to make any sense.
Don't get the idea that, well, this is where it's revealed, this is where it first, no. That has already taken place in redemptive history, and now what we have in the words of Scripture has to be understood within that context, or it makes no sense.
And that's what gives us much more of a strong, firm, consistent understanding of all the Scripture together. And I think that's a very important point. Well, two verses is better than half a verse, I suppose.
But especially when you're talking about one of the key Christological texts in all the New Testament, we can't rush over it overly quickly. So, all right, let's close the time for a word of prayer. Once again, our gracious God, we are thankful for your word and for the revelation that it gives to us.
We truly must remove our shoes for we walk upon holy ground as we consider even this text, where for a moment the very veil of eternity is drawn aside and we are able to glimpse upon the relationship of the Father and the Son in eternity past and the glorious relationship it was.
We thank you for your word and for the privilege that is ours of knowing these things. We ask that you would indeed be glorified in what takes place in this next hour. We pray in Christ's name.