The Real Reason to be Thankful

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 at 602 -973 -4602, or toll -free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. Angabar, welcome to The Dividing Line on the Tuesday morning of Thanksgiving week 2011.

Good to be with you. I hope you have your Bible available, or you can pull it up on your screen.

I did notice, and was very happy to see, that Olive Tree Bible Software now has a desktop application for Macs.

You do have to have Lion, unfortunately. I tried to put it on the unit in front of me, and since I haven't upgraded the

Lion on that, I couldn't get it. I'm not sure it's worth upgrading the Lion just to be able to have it, but it is nice on my other that has

Lion on it, and it does sync with the iPad.

The notes, for example, the notes that I produce to preach from in Olive Tree will now sync, so I can actually create them on my desktop and then sync them to my iPad, and that will make things even faster.

If you're looking at stuff like that, the folks at Olive Tree are keeping themselves competitive, shall we say, especially in the very usefulness category.

You might use that. You might use Accordance or Logos or BibleWorks, whatever it is you might have. I hope you will follow along today as we look at some scriptures.

I'm not sure whether we're going to be getting the calls. I'm not really even sure how long the program's going to last. It's a very, very, very, very, very busy week.

Wife's family is in town, and therefore, much to be done on the family side of things.

And then I have this Friday evening is when we're recording the exchange on the subject of the

Trinity and the Deity of Christ, and then I have both services on Sunday. Hopefully be back in Hebrews chapter 10, so I have that coming up.

And then the next week, I am in, next weekend, I'm in St. Louis at Covenant of Grace Church again for the 11th year in a row.

I'll be speaking on the King James issue and the canon of scripture and so on and so forth, which we haven't done there before, interestingly enough.

Shockingly, in 11 years, this will be the first time we've done that. And then maybe even something the very next weekend as well out of town.

So much, much, much going on, and I would love to be able to try to work out extra programs during the week and things like that, but there's just only so many hours to do the amount of studying that needs to be done and preparation and things like that.

So this will probably be about the only program we can get to. Philippians chapter 2 is where we will be this afternoon, this morning, whatever time it is where you are.

Philippians chapter 2, a text that I have addressed many, many times before, but not so much necessarily here on the program, but in many other contexts, especially in giving a defense of the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the

Trinity. Philippians chapter 2 is one of the greatest Christological passages in the New Testament.

And as I have been preparing for my encounter

Friday evening, once again listening to, well, it's pretty much the same

Unitarian attacks upon the Trinity. It fundamentally results in a tremendous undercutting of the perspicuity of Scripture.

You really are left with the conclusion that no one really knows what any text is saying, because, well, there's scholars who said this, and there's scholars who said that, and we just don't know.

It's tremendous theological agnosticism, which is funny because it's combined with tremendous theological certitude and dogmatism, because while we may not really be able to answer all the questions, one thing we know for certain, it isn't the

Trinity. The Trinity can't be it. It's got to be something else. And I've been listening to hours and hours of this and still have hours left to go.

And so in that process, I have, once again, as I mentioned in the last program, heard myself being referenced numerous times and would like to respond to some of the things that are said, and hopefully it will be educational to everyone else.

I want to go through the text. Now, I generally utilize an accepted standard

Bible translation. When I'm preaching, I will very often translate as I'm going along.

But if I'm making a particular case, I always feel it's best to go with a committee -translated version of the

Bible. You can always—the Unitarian quote collections, which are produced every couple decades by folks who just renew the ages -old attacks on the

Trinity and the deity of Christ. They love to utilize translations done by a single individual.

When you start hearing just translations you've never even heard of before, done sometime in the 1800s by somebody you've never even heard before, and you start hearing them over and over again, you pretty much know what you're encountering.

I first encountered that, like I said, with Nelson Hurley's work back I think he produced it back in the 1970s before the

Watchtower kicked him out for running ahead of the Brethren, as I recall. But be that as it may, I think it's best to use those.

I do offer my own translation of the Carmen Christi Philippians 2, verses 5 through 11.

But I also, then, in the process of exegeting it, explain why I chose to render it the way that I did, and I'm not seeking to say, well, all those other translations have just missed it.

No, this is just as I have worked through the text. In—I forget what year this was,

I think it was late 90s—I wrote an article for the CRI Journal on Philippians 2, 5 through 11, the hymn to Christ as to God.

And after working through, just briefly, the opening sections of the text,

I provide my own translation of the rest. I would like to read those, however, because the fact that it is

Philippians 2, verses 1 and 2, verses 5 through 11, is a great example of what I'm following that give us the real background of what is going on and why, fundamentally, we can be certain of what is actually being said in verses 5 through 11.

So, beginning at Philippians 2, so if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the

Spirit, any affection and sympathy—and by the way, Paul is not saying, I doubt that there is, it really,

I think, could be translated, since there is encouragement in Christ and since there is comfort from love and participation in the

Spirit and affection and sympathy, since these things are a part of what we experience in the body—complete my joy by being of the same mind.

Think in the same way. This isn't just a lockstep, you need to all be clones of one another.

But there needs to be a harmony and a unity of thought amongst believers in regards to what our purpose is, what our calling is, what the truth of the faith is, and how we are to live together in the bond of love.

Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

And so, really, you could almost say there's repetition here, but Paul is emphasizing the fact that when the church is experiencing the blessing of God, there is unity in the expression of the faith and the living out of the faith.

That is a blessing from God. And what can destroy that? Well, it's easy. Look at verse three.

Do nothing from rivalry or selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

And so, Paul already knew very early on—of course, he would have known even before his conversion if he had just looked around the synagogue—whenever you get somebody who develops me -itis, you're going to have divisions in the church.

And in many, many, many situations, quite honestly—and don't write in and complain about this, folks—but in many evangelical churches today, if you want to see where this falls apart, look to the music ministry, where you have all the folks that are me, me, me, more me,

I want to hear more me. And we're all going, we don't want to hear more you. And, you know, so many divisions have come from the people who want to be out front and seen.

But Paul's exhortation is, do not do anything from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind.

Tapaina safrune, tapaina frasune—I think

I lost a syllable in the process of that one. The frasune part is the mind, the tapainao, the humility, a humble mind, it's an attitude here of humility.

Humility of mind, do what? Regard and keep that word in mind, because that's something that Jesus is going to do in verse 6.

He is going to give expression to the thinking that is said to be ours here.

Regard one another as more important than yourselves. And so make a decision in your mind that even though we as believers have equality before God, even though we as believers have, quote unquote, equal rights, no one's more of a

Christian than somebody else, even though we have that status, that we are to look to others in this attitude of humility, and we are to voluntarily put ourselves in a lower position of service to others, a lower position of service to others.

So even though we have equal rights, it is a matter of laying aside those rights, and not asserting them, not being like, what we hear in our society all the time,

I have my rights, I have my rights. Well, when you have people marching through the streets constantly talking about nothing but their rights, and no one's willing to serve anybody else, what's one of the biggest problems we have in our political systems in the

West today? Politicians who aren't there to serve others, but to be served.

I mean, this is just, this is, yes, it's very true of the Christian community, but it has just as much application in life itself.

So in humility of mind, consider others more important than yourself, not merely looking out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

So literally, you know, what's the phrase that is used in our society?

Looking out for number one, looking out for number one. If you don't look out for number one, no one else is going to look out for number one.

And yet, in the Christian community, what is supposed to be what we see is we're looking out for others, not for ourselves, because we don't have to worry about ourselves.

There's only one person we have to worry about as far as ourselves, that's Christ, and he's the one that's going to reward us. And so we don't have to worry about that.

We don't have to look out for number one. And besides that, we shouldn't even be viewing ourselves as number one.

So there is a completely, it's a complete antithesis of the worldly attitude, this humility of mind seeking the position of servitude, laying aside rights that are yours in the service of others.

This is the path to peace in the church, in the assembly of the saints.

And why mention all this in talking about the deity of Christ? Because so often the key texts that reveal to us the deep secrets, the deep mysteries, the deep elements of the revelation has been given to us in scripture about the relationship of father and son are found in places like this.

Philippians 2, 5 -11 is a sermon illustration. And aren't the best sermon illustrations where you draw from the common experience of the people in the pew?

Well, I would say that that's the case. And so what you're doing here, most people believe that we are in this context drawing from a hymn fragment of the early church.

And if that's the case, then the early church truly had a tremendous hymnology.

And it was a hymnology focused not upon mankind and not upon our feelings and things like that, but upon what

God has done in Christ Jesus. And so the command is given in verse 5.

And here I'll just read through the translation I've provided, and then we'll go through it a little bit more slowly.

This is from our research department phoned in from, and let me know that this was from 2000, the

CRI Journal, volume 22, number 3 is where this was published.

You must have the same mindset among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus, who, although he eternally existed in the very form of God, did not consider that equality had with God the

Father something to be held on to at all costs. But instead, he made himself nothing by taking on the very form of a slave by being made in human likeness.

And having entered into human existence, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even the death one dies on a cross.

Because of this, God the Father exalted him to the highest place and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.

So at the mention of the exalted name of Jesus, everyone who is in heaven on earth and under the earth bows the knee and every tongue confesses

Jesus Christ is Lord, all to the glory of God the Father. Now, as I provided that in the article of the

CRI Journal, I put it into poetic form because it is, in fact, a poem.

It is in that form, which is what has led many to the conclusion that this is a fragment of an ancient hymn.

And if it was something that was sung amongst the people, and there is that interesting statement found in secular history from this time period, in degrading the

Christians and in attacking the Christians, that they would meet in the early mornings and they would sing hymns to Christ as to a

God. And might this have been one of the hymns that was heard?

Maybe someone came along just out of interest or they sent some spies in or whatever it might have been.

Remember, it was a period of persecution. And you would hear these songs about this man, this man who died under Pontius Pilate on a cross.

How foolish. I mean, this was a part of the scandal of the cross, the scandal of the

Christian faith, the one who had died under Pontius Pilate in the most horrible way that you could die.

That these people are rising early to sing hymns of praise to this one?

This would obviously strike people as being exceptionally strange, extremely unusual, and obviously out of place.

Paul says to the Philippians, you must have the same mindset among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus.

Now, what was that mindset? He's just been saying humility of mind, humility of mind, considering others is more important than yourself.

Not self -promotion, not holding on to what you've got, which seems to be what we are so easily tempted into, is

I have my rights. Don't force me to serve you.

I have my rights. I'm not going to lay aside something for you. And yet,

Paul says, you want to see the example of the attitude that you need to have if you're going to have peace in the church?

You want an example of this? Well, you must have the same mindset among yourselves that was in the

Messiah, Jesus, who, although he eternally existed in the very form of God, did not consider that equality he had with God the

Father something to be held on to at all costs. But instead, he made himself nothing. Now, immediately we see, no matter how else you, what other issues we will be bringing up, and we will be bringing up a lot of them, the main question that has to be asked is, how does any of this relate to humility?

I was listening, as I mentioned, in preparation for my encounter on Friday to a lengthy discussion of this text.

And I have found it very interesting, one of my primary criticisms of not only this work, but all works like it, and like I said, there are many of them, is that they tend to approach texts in a very atomized way.

They don't tend to be very contextually sensitive and follow overarching messages and arguments very well at all.

And that was certainly the case here. But even at that, there was one point where this work attempted to say, well, it certainly wouldn't be humble for Jesus to actually have been equal with God the

Father. And yet, if he's not equal with God the

Father, if he is, I'm not exactly sure what this author thinks Jesus is. I mean, he's the son of God, whatever that means.

He's eternally preexistent. Well, he can't be eternally preexistent, so he's preexistent in some form.

We just don't know. That's one of the things I have to find out. Over and over again, the book says, see, we don't need to have all this later stuff.

The Bible is sufficient to define it for itself. But then you ask questions. Well, what do you mean by those words? And you discover that what you get back is post -biblical theological development.

It's just unorthodox post -biblical theological development. And I honestly don't think that the author is aware that he is far more enslaved to his traditions than the people he criticizes as being allegedly enslaved to Trinitarian traditions.

He just doesn't realize it. He's just blind to it. And as we have said many times before, those who are blind to their traditions are the ones who are the most enslaved to their traditions.

But if Jesus was something else, he comes into existence at a point in time, he's a creature, he's not eternally existed, then how could this be an example of humility?

Because the argument was, well, it wouldn't be humble if Jesus was actually equal with the Father. And yet the only way that this could be relevant to us as believers is if there was equality between the

Father and the Son, and yet the Son did not consider, remember the word consider? Consider others is more important.

There's the same word here. The Son did not consider that equality he had with God the Father something to be held on to at all costs.

You see, the Greek term harpogmos that is used in verse six, it's in the accusative, so harpogmon here, that term can be translated either actively or passively.

There's lots of more examples where it's used in the active sense of grasping hold of something, seizing something, reaching out for something.

And so there are people would say, well, he did not give consideration to an act of seizing something.

That is equality with God. So there are those who say who, although existing in the form of God, did not give consideration to trying to become equal with God, but made himself of no reputation or emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.

Now, while that would be a wonderful thing, that's not humility. That's simple obedience.

Because, you see, any created thing to even consider the act of seizing equality with God is blasphemy.

It's pure sin. It's it's foolishness. It's it's it's idiocy. It's the lump trying to say,

I'm going to become the potter. And so are we really suggesting that when

Paul decided to give us an example of humility, he decided to give us an example of humility that actually isn't humility at all.

It would have absolutely no connection to us whatsoever. If there is, if, if Tainai Isatheo does not mean that the equality he had with God, the father was something he already possessed and did not give consideration to grasping it or holding on to it.

If that's not how we interpret it, we have no example of humility here.

It's just not there. And I was just amazed as I sat here listening to this. I don't remember if it was the author or a quotation of someone else at this point.

It sounded like it was a quotation of somebody else. But the statement being made, oh, well, it's certainly

Jesus could not have possessed this equality with the father or or that would just that would not be humble at all.

Completely missing the whole point. Those first four verses, especially verses three and four are so important because you have their consider others as more important.

Are they more important to God than you are? No, we have equality. But the path of peace and the path to be exalted by God is to lay aside those equal rights and to serve others.

And if you want the greatest example, you look to Jesus. Now, I said eternally existing in the form of God.

And there are many people. There's no eternally there. Well, they're right. There is no eternally there.

That is an interpretation based upon the time frame and the syntax of the language.

Specifically, the phrase is has en morphe theu huparkon. Huparkon is a participle, a present participle of existence.

And yet it's placed into the past. Now, there are some Robert Raymond was one of them.

Who actually try to transport this text into the human life of Jesus.

I do not see how that is, how you can even begin to do so. Because the act of emptying of verse seven is accomplished by two sub clauses.

Two participial sub clauses. Taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of man.

And you can try, I suppose, to say, well, you know, on the night of his betrayal,

Jesus took the form of a servant as if he hadn't done that before. And that's that's what we're talking about here.

But it doesn't make any sense to look at taking the form of a servant and being made like and being found in likeness as a man.

All of that is incarnational language. It's not mere service language. It just it just doesn't work.

And I think this author that I was reading, I think, pretty much agreed with that. At least that's how

I was hearing what I was listening to. In any case, who existing in the form of God, if this is in the past, then what is the form of God?

And why do I say eternally existing? Well, the present would not point us to any point of origin where he begins to exist in the form of God, which if you are a

Unitarian, whatever your belief is about whether Jesus did or did not as a person, pre -exist his birth in Bethlehem.

Whatever that might be, I don't know. I cannot determine from this book exactly where this person is.

Seems that he believes in some kind of pre -existence, but it's clear the sun is not eternal. There was a time when the sun was not.

The sun came into existence at a point in time. This does not use a form of the language that points us to a point of origin.

Instead, it's describing an ongoing condition of Jesus existing in the form of God.

Now, I am criticized in this book for allegedly misrepresenting what

Morphe means. I would like to demonstrate that our author is once again in error in his accusations and does not seem to have a very firm grasp on Greek lexicography, syntax, and the translation of the language, let alone my own position.

When I address the issue of Morphe and its meaning,

I would like to read specifically what I said in my

CRI journal article, which is my fullest discussion of this particular subject. I said most of the discussion in this passage has focused upon what it means that Christ existed in the form of God.

Paul's term is Morphe, translated literally as form. The NIV renders the phrase being in very nature

God. The NLT oversimplifies, as the NLT always does. That's not in the article, by the way.

Though he was God. But the majority of translations render it being in the form of God. When we refer to the form of God, what do we mean?

Is this saying nothing more than Jesus was a spirit? Or is there more to the word? Part of the answer is found the word existing.

Paul does not say came to exist or entered into existence, but uses the present tense to indicate ongoing existence.

And since the timeframe of the passage is clearly eternity past, the beginning assertion is that the one we know is

Jesus Christ, eternally existed in the very form of God, that which communicates the inner reality to the outer senses.

The form of God is not merely a category of existence, like spirits or creatures. The form of God presents a direct correspondence to reality itself.

That which exists in the form of God is truly deity. Warfield, that's

Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, the great Princeton scholar, back when Princeton was still a

Christian school, primarily. Warfield was correct when he said, Paul does not say simply he was

God. He says he was in the form of God, employing eternal speech which throws emphasis upon our

Lord's possession of the specific quality of God. Form is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities, which make a thing the precise thing that it is.

When our Lord is said to be in the form of God, therefore, he is declared in the most expressed manner possible to be all that God is, to possess the whole fullness of attributes which make

God, God. The idea of, and then I, that's the end of his quote, and then

I went on with the commentary. The idea of temporarily existing in this form is inconceivable, which only emphasizes the continuous existing that we just mentioned.

Paul makes it plain. The pre -incarnate son who did not consider equality with God something to be held on to at all costs, made the decision to make himself nothing while existing in the very form of deity itself.

And so when I address the term morphe,

I recognize its literal usage, but then I also recognize common lexical errors on the part of those who frequently attack the faith.

Let me read specifically what is said in the book by Patrick Navas.

It's N -A -V -A -S, by the way, for those interested. And this is on page 341 of the edition that I have.

In his book on the Trinity, Dr. White proposes a twofold definition for morphe that apparently seeks to accord with its true lexical meaning while at the same time retaining the desired meaning often advanced by Trinitarian apologists.

I've stopped the quotation for just a moment to say that the book is filled with accusations that Trinitarian apologists and scholars are slaves to their presuppositions, that they are non -reflective on their biases and their traditions, and that we are constantly basically twisting the data.

And of course, it's only the completely unbiased and free -from -tradition biblical

Unitarians that are speaking the truth. I continue with the quotation.

According to White, quote, the Greek term form means the outward display of the inner reality or substance, end quote.

Continuing, actually, the quote, sorry. However, Dr. White's proposal of this exclusive sense for morphe is shown to be highly improbable, not only when we consult the definition given in the standard dictionaries, but also when we take into account how a word derived from morphe is used by Paul in other places throughout the

New Testament. Let me just stop for a moment. Let me grab the discussion here in the

Forgotten Trinity. And there we go.

It's footnote number six, but that doesn't come up very easily here. And I would assume that, yeah.

Page 123 of the Forgotten Trinity. What does it mean to exist in the form of God? The range of translation shows that the term can express a wide variety of things.

The Greek term for morphe means the outward display of the inner reality or substance. Here it refers to the outward display of the divine substance, i .e.

the divinity of the preexistence of Christ in the display of his glory as being an image of the Father. Now, what's ironic here is that that is a quote.

And unfortunately, Mr. Navas didn't note that that was a quote in his citation.

So he attributes this to me when actually I am quoting someone else. And so if he has a problem with this, and he does directly attribute to me trying to sort of fudge the information here, he should actually recognize that's a quotation from Fritz Reinecker, A Linguistic Key to the

Greek New Testament, edited by Cleon Rogers Jr., page 550 of the 1980 edition.

So it's not my proposal. I was quoting a recognized lexical source.

So there is a rather glaring error of research right there that would probably need to be dealt with.

But be that as it may, the linguistic key, likewise, is giving you information based upon the usage of the term in a given context.

And that's the argument that I make because I continue on after quoting that. This is why a number of translations run the term nature.

God's nature would refer to the state of being God. This would not merely be referring to existence as a spirit, but to divine existence.

It is hard to get away from the fact that Paul is plainly presenting the deity of the preexistent Christ. We shall see in a moment that, in fact, a later comment by the apostle leaves us with no doubt about this.

So that is the statement that I made in The Forgotten Trinity. And my quotation of Warfield in my full article on the text, likewise, demonstrates that what we're talking about here is allowing

Paul's context to determine how we read his words. But what does

Mr. Novus do? Does he respond to my actual argumentation from the text and the flow of the text and the syntax of the text?

No, he jumps to 2 Timothy and talks about lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God holding to a form, a morphosis, of godliness, although they have denied his power.

And so he takes that, which is a completely different context, which many of the people he cites, as authorities, would say is a completely different author, by the way, but I won't raise that at the moment, but a completely different context.

It's not talking about Morphée. It's not talking about Morphée connected with Hoopercone.

It's not even slightly contextually, grammatically, or syntactically parallel.

And yet he will quote that and say, here the point made is clear.

There would be those in the last days who would hold to a form or outward appearance of godliness, but who were in reality ungodly.

If one were to accept Dr. White's definition of Morphée, which, by the way, wasn't mine. It was a lexical source that he didn't recognize was a lexical source and didn't see the quote or something.

I don't know. This would mean, in effect, that such people would hold to an outward display of godliness, which would reflect the inner reality or substance within, and yet they still somehow denied the power of godliness.

Well, that's a great way of arguing, as long as you don't really care about the truth and are not trying to accurately represent someone.

Because there is no parallel between the two. And you've taken a form of the root in a different context and different usage and tried to read it back in.

And this is just, this is not scholarship. This is very poor argumentation.

And it stands as its own refutation. It really does.

I never suggested, and no serious scholar would ever suggest, that the definition of a term in one context can then be plugged into every semi -related term in every other context in the

New Testament. That was one of the things, remember just last week? Week four last. Whenever it was.

That I was reviewing the Calvinist versus Independent Fundamentalist, Baptist, King James only.

The list goes on and on. Landmark, et cetera, folks. And what did we hear from those

IFB fellows? They have this weird exegetical idea that you define a word, normally when it first appears in the

Bible, and then you just cram that meaning into every other occurrence that's ever found,

Old or New Testament. The result is a hodgepodge mishmash of insanity.

It's not how you do language. And so no one would suggest,

I would never suggest, and it is a grossly invalid argument against my position to suggest, that every root with morph in it has exactly the same meaning in any context that it is used in.

So again, this is the kind of thing, we get people coming to channel all the time, we get people calling the ministry, we get people sending in emails, and they're confused because they've encountered somebody on YouTube or someone out in the internet that says, well, look, the

Greek here is dot, dot, dot, dot. And in the vast majority of instances, it is this kind of very, very poor non -scholarly argumentation that is being used.

And it's a shame, but it is very, very common for this kind of thing to be argued.

And I don't know how many pages here, I'm on the third page just scrolling through here, three, four pages.

Like I said, this is a huge book. If there was an

A, an editor, and B, if the material was actually limited to the material that would be relevant to the case, it would be shorter than my book was.

But it's not, and so I'm working through all that. So, going back to what the form of God means.

Here you have one who does not exist as an angel.

That's the form of an angel. The form of God is not just merely spiritual. Remember the term morphe is going to be used more than once in this particular text.

And so obviously, if that term is used more than once, it would be a good idea to see how else it is used.

And it's used in verse seven. He took the form of a servant, literally of a slave.

Now, given the fact that the emphasis here is upon the kenosis, the emptying in verse seven, the tremendous humiliation, becoming obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross, even the cross death.

Then I think we would be in perfect right to translate this as slave.

That's how I did translate it. And so he eternally, there's no, if you're going to say no, if you're going to take

Mr. Novice's position, then I would challenge Mr. Novice, show us where Paul says here in this text, that Jesus came into existence as a creature, as a spirit creature, and that this is what morphe theu means.

Spirit creature. Because that's the only way I can possibly understand his position.

All right. So, is it actually almost 18 minutes before the hour and I'm in verse six and you're looking at it?

Yeah. Okay, this, my assumption was at the start that we'd probably be doing a jumbo, but it's probably going to end up being a jumbo.

So that's how it's going to work. I'm not going to hurry through it because hopefully this will be something that will be useful for folks for a lengthy period of time, even after this particular encounter takes place.

Who, although he eternally existed in the very form of God, I submit to you that morphe theu is unique to the category of deity, and I do not believe in multiple deities.

And you can quote Exodus seven, till the cows come home, Moses was never eternal. Moses was never the one who created all things.

Moses was never identified as Yahweh. If you cannot see the categorical distinctiveness of the ascription to Jesus of the characteristics of deity, then

I submit to you that you are blind, that there is some kind of tremendous veil over your eyes.

That's just the only way that I can understand it. It really just is that way.

Now, I need to move on. So we have this one who has eternally existed in the very form of God, but he did not consider, there's the same word that we had before.

Remember, I mentioned to you, hegesata is used in verse six, and it had likewise been used in the plural form, hegumenoi in verse three.

Consider others is more important than yourself. So since we're being commanded to give consideration to our position and relationship to others, here,

Jesus, eternally exists in the form of God, did not consider ta 'anai esatheo, the equality he had with God the

Father, and the term Father is not there. I am providing it because the end of this entire hymn provides the distinction.

All to the glory of God the Father. And so you have, did not consider that equality he had with God the

Father, then you have harpagman, something to be held on to at all costs or something to grasp.

As we've already argued, if this isn't something that he possesses, then none of this is an example of humility to begin with.

It is not humility for even the greatest creature to not give consideration to trying to cross the infinite chasm between creatureliness and the uncreated creator.

That is not humility. That's just not committing blasphemy. And I've never heard anyone be able to explain how that's not the case.

Just not, I haven't. And I listened. And I listened carefully. And it would have no meaning to the

Christian community for Jesus to have not possessed equality with the

Father. And then he just goes, well, I'm not going to, you know, I'm not going to try to grab it. Equality with God the

Father. And Mr. Novus does not explain that to us, even though it's very clearly a part of the argument that I'm putting forward.

So he did not consider that equal. So what's the result of this? That there was an equality between God the

Father and this one who entered into human flesh. There was an equality.

That equality is not an equal sign in the sense that he is the Father. But we have to allow all of scripture to speak.

And what Unitarianism is, is a rationalistic unwillingness to allow for revelation to challenge our simplistic categories of existence.

That's what Unitarianism is. And so what we have here is

Paul able to, in essence, assume on the part of all of his listeners, a fundamental acceptance and belief in a tremendously exalted view of Jesus.

And here at the very beginning of the Christian era, this is not Nicaea.

This is not some post -biblical development. You have to explain this stuff away.

Or recognize it's this very stuff that forced Nicaea and Constantinople and Chalcedon and everything that came after.

That's why I'm a biblical Trinitarian. And there is no such thing as a biblical

Unitarian. Doesn't exist. You have to chop up the Bible and get rid of stuff if you're going to take that position.

He had not considered that equality he had with God the Father something to be held on to at all costs. But, and here's something, and I could have missed it, but I was listening pretty closely.

I didn't hear anything from Mr. Navas about the fact that the second word of Philippians 2 -7 is one of the most beautiful words in all of scripture.

It's a reflexive pronoun. You want to have something to talk about, you know, holidays coming up.

And I love Thanksgiving. I'll have to admit, I'm going to be so busy this week that I don't know that I'm really going to be able to get to enjoy it the way

I'd like. Someday I'm just going to have to X out everything from November through December and just actually get to enjoy all these things again.

I've just got so much going on. But, you know, one of the things that frequently you'll do at Thanksgiving dinner is you'll go around the table and talk about things you have to be thankful for.

And all of us, I mean, that should be something we do regularly, because it's, no, thankful for,

Mr. Ladin. Not, anyway, it has nothing to do with sports or sports teams.

How about the fact that your wife is still with you a year after last year?

How's that? Isn't that a little bit more important to be thankful for, Mr. Ladin? Yes, we have a studio audience and sometimes they get a little out of control.

And sometimes people who should be controlling the others don't control them the way they should. Okay, very good.

Just slapped it upside the head. That's good. And I see that. I do see new age Bible versions are hewed. Yes, very good.

Very good. Anyway, we go around the table and we talk about things that we're thankful for.

If you ever, as a believer, feel like your list is getting short, first of all, shame on you.

But I understand sometimes there are difficulties in life. If you want something to always give thanks for, that should always cause you to overflow with thanksgiving, even back in May, which is as far from thanksgiving as you can get.

If you want something to be just a precious source of constant giving of thanks, then may

I suggest to you the term, hey, Alton. Hey, Alton.

Now, see, Altos, he, she, or it can mean also the same depending on how it's used.

But hey, Alton, there's that hey at the beginning. That's a reflexive.

And Philippians 2 .7 says, Allah, hey, Alton, I am so glad it does not say, but he was emptied.

Because to be honest with you, that's what the Unitarians are stuck with. They are, they are stuck with an example of divine love, less than that of Abraham in the offering of Isaac.

If you take the position that Jesus is an exalted creature, whatever an idealized plan,

I don't know, whatever you come up with, he's still a creature. God made him. And God gave something he made as the ultimate symbol of his love.

But you see, the divine revelation has an epsilon in it.

And thank God for the divine revelation of an epsilon. It says, hey,

Alton, not Alton. It's not he was given.

He gave himself. He emptied himself. Now, the term emptied, as I point out, it's never used literally by Paul.

He never uses that terminology in the sense of pulling something, you know, pouring something out, et cetera, et cetera.

If you look at Romans 4 .14, 1 Corinthians 1 .17, 9 .15, 2 Corinthians 9 .3, it's always used in a metaphorical, not a literal sense.

In the idea of, I don't want my labor amongst you to become empty.

That is vain or nothing of no reputation. And so it's not that the son ceased being the son or ceased having the form of God or any of these things.

Just as John 1 .14, the logos became flesh, didn't cease being the logos. But he made himself nothing.

And the point is, it's a reflexive pronoun. It's Jesus who does this. It's the son who does this.

That even more so substantiates the interpretation we gave earlier that he eternally exists in the very form of God and was equal with the father, because this is a divine act.

This is a divine act, unless you're going to say, well, yes, Michael, the archangel can in and of himself become incarnate.

You see, just as Paul has said to the Christian believers, you must consider others.

You must look to the affairs of others as they're more important than yourself. Don't just look to your own things.

Serve others. Here's a further example. He made himself nothing.

As a pre -incarnate divine person, he had made the decision, this position

I have of being worshipped by the host of heaven.

John 12, who is the one who was seen by Isaiah sitting upon the throne, lofty and lifted up in Isaiah six, it was

Jesus. But he did not consider that position.

It was his something to be held onto at all costs. But he made himself nothing.

It was a voluntary act. Yes, it's in unity with the father.

Everything the son does is in unity with the father. The son does everything he sees the father doing. And no mere creature can ever do that.

But he makes himself nothing. And then

I understand the next two phrases as being the participles in them as functioning in a modal fashion.

Means, what is the means by which this emptying, this making of no reputation is accomplished?

Well, there's two. And if there wasn't a chi, it'd actually be three.

But I think there's two very clearly laid out here. The first is, and this is why

I've put the word by before each of these clauses. By taking on the very form of a slave, by being made in human likeness.

So what we need to understand is the emptying is accomplished by a positive act of what?

Incarnation. Incarnation. Now, Mr. Novice wants to say, well,

I see these Trinitarians, they just read so much in this text. And I just simply say, Mr. Novice, you read so much out of it.

It's like, you can't even see it. It's so sad to me. It really is.

He took the morphe, the form of a servant. And whatever else you want to say, how,

I mean, clearly, are you going to limit the term morphe seriously?

Just the word form so that, well, he had a form of a servant. Well, what does that mean? Has anyone ever more truly been a doulos, especially a doulos of God than the son was?

Perfect lifetime obedience, perfect submission to the will of the father.

Is that not the essence of being a doulos of God?

He took the form of a slave, of a servant. He who had been served for eternity serves.

And he is made in the likeness of men. Now, don't read into that an idea that he really wasn't a man.

It's just the likeness. It's just, well, he sort of looked like that. Instead, when we saw him, what did we see?

He didn't glow. He didn't have the halos that medieval painters would put over his head to sort of set him apart.

If you have been walking down the streets of Nazareth, Jesus walked by carrying wood to the carpenter's shop.

You would not have gotten any warm, fuzzy feelings. If you had a compass with you, it wouldn't have gone crazy, spinning in wild circles.

And Jesus walked down the road in the dark. He needed to carry a torch or a lantern, just like anybody else.

He didn't just glow. He was made in the likeness of men.

And nobody looking at him said, oh boy, there's something special about him. Now, they might have by his behavior.

Certainly, when he was 12 in the temple, there were things that did set him apart, but it wasn't some physical manifestation.

That's interesting. There was a whole section stuck into the discussion of Philippians 2, where I just made reference to the fact that he's made in the likeness of men.

And there was really only once during his lifetime where that changes on the

Mount of Transfiguration. And evidently, it seemed to be a reason to try to refute me.

Well, what was really going on there is that God was changing his form. Well, why would

Jesus' form, why did Jesus glow with bright light in the presence of the

Father and of Moses and Elijah? But Peter doesn't. If Jesus is just man, then why doesn't he just, why does he all of a sudden start glowing?

Why is there light coming forth from him? Well, it's because the words made flesh.

And for just a moment, there is a glimpse of the glory of the one that Isaiah saw.

Again, that's if you just want to allow the Bible to speak for itself, and you don't want to just rationalize it all the way.

But the thing to remember is that this is voluntary on Jesus' part. He made himself.

And notice, Philippians 2, 7 starts, Allah health on himself.

And then Philippians 2, 8 begins, he humbled, health on himself.

The emphasis is on the self -giving, the self -humiliation on the part of the

Son. And is that not, again, the continuation of Paul's exhortation to humility?

That's why this section of this hymn applies so perfectly to Paul's exhortation that we are not to consider ourselves as more important to others.

We consider others as more important than ourselves. We're to look to other things of others, not just to ourselves.

And so, being found in likeness as a man.

Now, there's a chi there. That's why I put the by before by taking on the form of a slave and by being made in human likeness.

But then, and having, I translate, having entered into human existence. So, the incarnation is, the means the incarnation is described in the two phrases, taking on the form of a servant, being found in likeness of men.

And being found and having entered into human existence, he humbled himself, exact same route that is used in the exhortation when we talk about humility of mind.

Here is the closest, tightest connection. But he, again, here is that precious, reflexive pronoun.

He humbled himself. Now, if he was just a creature, this whole concept of the humility that is seen in the incarnation doesn't make any sense.

But now, having entered into human flesh, he doesn't go around saying, I used to be this. I used to have this position.

No. He humbles himself becoming obedient. It's command of God.

It was the will of God for him. It is necessary that I go to Jerusalem, Jesus said. Peter says, no, no, no.

What is Jesus' response? Get behind me, Satan. You're not minding the things of God. You're minding the things of men.

He became obedient. Mekri Thanatu. Thanatu Dei Staru.

Became obedient to the point of death. Even the cross death. And I think that's why it's repeated twice.

I think that's why you have that last phrase. Thanatu Dei Staru. Because it's one thing to be obedient to death.

Obedient the entirety of one's life. But the cross death.

I mentioned that Mr. Navas is very deeply influenced by Jehovah's Witnesses. And I chuckled a little bit.

I was listening to this while writing, as I always do. When I mentioned on the cross or the torture stake.

Because, you know, Jehovah's Witnesses, torture stake. You know, one nail through the hands up above the head. You know, it's that little thing that Jehovah's Witnesses like to do.

Death upon the cross. Crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low.

And so I think the repetition is to say he became obedient to the point of death. But not just any death.

He became obedient to the point of death on the cross. A humiliating death.

A horrific death. And he knew it was coming. He told

Peter it was coming. And yet, that is how he humbled himself.

Well, how is that humility? Why is that? Why is that the obedience a form of humility?

If he was just a creature, that would just be obedience. But because he is the

Logos made flesh. Because he is the one who has eternally existed in the very form of God. You must see the humility of the cross.

Humility is having power and restraining it. Rights, but not asserting it.

Here you have the very creator of heaven and earth.

Restraining that divine power. So as to control it and bring about redemption.

Remember, Jesus said, I could ask my father. One angel. Remember what one angel did the Assyrians? Can you imagine what legions of angels could do?

The cross, the suffering of the Christ is a massive example of humility.

Restraint of divine power. He becomes obedient to the point of death.

Even death on the cross. Therefore, because of that.

God has exalted him to the highest place.

Bestowed on him the name which is above every name. So the mention of the exalted name of Jesus. Everyone who is in heaven on earth and under the earth.

Bows in the air in tongue confesses Jesus Christ is Lord. All the glory of God the father. Now, the distinction between the father and the son is made very clear.

The fact that this is all, all to the glory of God the father.

Very clear. The doctrines of Trinity in no way, shape or form denies that this is the case.

But if you can read these words and continue to think that Jesus is a creature.

Just an exalted creature. But still on that side of the creator creation divide.

A creature. I don't know what kind of theology you could possibly produce.

It would be consistent with the Bible. Right around this point, a little bit after this point.

Mr. Novus goes into the long discussion of proskuneo and lutruo. And comes up with the idea of relative worship of Jesus.

And there's different kinds of worship. And I think he's exactly, he even raises his own objection.

And it's a perfectly valid objection. If you can look at the worship that Jesus receives here.

In the very language of the worship of Yahweh and Yahweh alone.

And if you can look at Revelation chapter 5. And see that he who sits on the throne and the lamb.

Are the direct objects of the worship of all of creation. But you see, it's different when it's given to the son.

Then you have no earthly way of defining true worship.

Can't do it. You have God. In fact, I thought of this.

It's very interesting. As I was listening to that discussion on Mr. Novus's part. Of this relative worship of Jesus.

And you know, well, it pleases the father. That we praise the son.

Because he's his beloved son. Not really sure what he is. But he's his beloved son. I was thinking.

That's the exact same problem the Muslims have. This is not an argument.

This is not a genetic fallacy argument. But you see, one of the more interesting elements in the

Quran. Is the fact that more than once it is recorded. That Allah commanded all of the angels.

The created beings of God. To worship Adam. To bow down before Adam.

And Iblis, Satan, refuses to do so. That's the essence of the fall. Is that he refuses a command from God.

To bow down before Adam. Because he says, hey, I'm made out of smokeless fire. This guy is just a human. I'm not going to bow down before him.

And a lot of us have gone. Man, it's really weird. That Allah would command.

That these angelic creatures. These jinn. That they would bow down to Adam.

That seems to be a real violation of Tawhid. And in fact, a lot of us have gone.

You know, kissing that black stone. Doesn't look much like monotheism either. You know, I mean, it doesn't look like purity of worship.

And yet, that's exactly what the Unitarians. Like Mr. Novice are stuck with. Well, why do you worship Jesus? Well, it's not because he's worthy of worship and of himself.

It's because God tells you to. It's because God tells you to. It's not because he himself is worthy of worship.

As an object of worship. Because of his own self -worth. Because of his own divine nature. No, he's a creature.

Exalted creature. But a creature nonetheless. But God says, worship him. Therefore, you should. But it's a relative worship.

It's not a true worship. It's like, that's exact parallel to why

Iblis fell in the Quran. It's fascinating. But you'll notice that what we have in verse 9.

Every knee shall bow. You go back to Isaiah 45. You go back to where these words initially came from.

And you find Jehovah speaking. And it's in that very same section where he is differentiating himself from false gods.

It's in the trial of the false gods. And if we look at verses 23 and 24.

I'll just turn to verse 22. Turn to me and be saved all the ends of the earth. For I am

God and there is no other. It's not,

I am God. There is no false gods besides me. There is no God besides me.

In fact, I apologize. Let me back up. Isaiah 45, 21.

Declare and present your case. Let them take counsel together. Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not

I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides me. A righteous God and a Savior. There is none besides me.

Turn to me and be saved all ends of the earth. For I am God and there is no other. This is the very essence of the announcement of absolute monotheism.

There are no other gods to turn to. And it's within that context that he says,

By myself I have sworn from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return.

To me every knee shall bow. Every tongue shall swear allegiance.

So, are you really comfortable in saying,

Well, yeah, yeah, Yahweh says that of himself, But Jesus is his exalted representative.

And so we can transfer all that over to Jesus too. Really? So it reminds me of,

I had made the argument that when in Colossians 2, 9, we are told,

That the fullness of deity, pleromates theatetos, dwells in Jesus Christ in bodily form.

That there is something unique about theatetos that is found there.

The argument that's being made was, Oh, that's the same fullness in Colossians 1, 19. That all people, all

Christians. So, the question I guess I have to ask is, So, all Christians are like Jesus?

The fullness of deity dwells in every believer in Jesus Christ? Given that Paul then makes

Jesus the standard of all wisdom and knowledge. That all of human predication is to be dependent upon its relationship to him.

Because all the fullness of deity dwells in him. Does that mean we are the standard of all human predication as well? Really?

And here, oh, he's the exalted representative of Yahweh. And that's why every knee bows to him.

Well, what's this name? Some people say it's, well, it says right there, the exalted name of Jesus.

But the name that has just been brought out, is being brought out.

Every knee shall bow of those in heaven and earth and under the earth. And every tongue shall confess, Kurios, Jesus Christos.

You know, it's funny, Mr. Novis is deeply influenced by the Jehovah's Witnesses and the

New World Translation quotes from the Aid to Bible Understanding books and stuff like that. I am interested.

Wouldn't it be real obvious? Because some people don't know much about the New World Translation.

They don't know about the fact that the New World Translation, 237 times in its New Testament, inserts the name Jehovah. That's not the proper pronunciation.

But be that as it may, inserts the name Jehovah, 237 times.

And almost every one of those times, I think it is every one of those times, but I'll say almost because I haven't checked it in a long time.

It's been a while. Almost every single one of those times, it is a replacement of the term Kurios in Greek.

And many times that's appropriate because Kurios is how the New Testament represents places where the divine name appeared in texts that are being cited in the

Greek. And yes, here we have Kurios Iesus Christos. Every tongue will confess that.

Kurios Iesus Christos. I wonder why the New World Translation doesn't follow its own rules here.

Now, years and years ago, we put out a track called Hiding the Divine Name that documented that the

New World Translation hid in its own, what are called J documents, Hebrew translations of the New Testament, hid many places where those

Hebrew translations of the New Testament did identify Jesus as Jehovah. Since they don't, then they hid those things. But if the

New World Translation was consistent with itself, what would it render, verse 11 of Philippians chapter 2 as?

And every tongue will confess that Yahweh, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the

Father. Jehovah! But they don't. It's a different kind of lordship, evidently, somehow.

Even though we just quoted from Jehovah himself saying, to me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess.

And we're using Kurios, it's still a lesser thing.

We're still just talking about a creature. Really? In order that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow.

A creature? Non -eternal? It was right around this point in time as well, that that tremendous text in Hebrews chapter 1 came up.

And this will be part of our discussion. So far, I've only been discussing texts that will not be a part of the discussion.

But I just wanted to make a comment about this. It was applied to Philippians 2.

So that came right afterwards, one of the two. And in this tremendous text, at the beginning of Hebrews 1.

Again, it was funny. Hebrews 1 .3 was dealt with separate from Hebrews 1 .10

-12 and things like that. Again, it is the united testimony of Scripture.

Not the fractured testimony of Scripture that leads us to believe in the

Trinity. If you want to cut the New Testament into pieces, so you no longer hear the themes, then you go right ahead.

I'm not going to follow you. Because one thing I've learned over the years is that the beauty of divine revelation is found in its consistency across the entirety of divine revelation.

And Hebrews 1 as a whole. You can go, well, I think it's possible we can understand this over this way.

And it's possible this over here. You cannot give me a consistent interpretation of Hebrews chapter 1.

So, these words. Speaking of the Son, He is the apogasma, the radiance.

Of the glory. And the karaktertes hupostasos, hupostasis.

Remember back when I debated Greg Stafford? And Greg Stafford pounded away on, see it's, he's a copy.

He's a copy. He's a copy. And this book likewise pounds away. Copy, copy, copy.

Karakter. And I listen and I go,

Lord, why have you withheld your spirit? Because it's only by the spirit that you can see the glory of the

Christ. And I'll, I'm giving away something that I'll be saying

Friday. It's the only time I have in this, in these discussions. But the radiance of His glory.

Has God ever been without His glory? Has God ever been unglorious?

Has the Father ever not been the Father? Has the Father ever not had His wisdom? Can any creature, no matter how exalted

He is, be called the radiance of the glory of God? What are you saying about, can

God make other gods? Because when it says, and the ESV puts it, the exact imprint of His nature.

The exact representation, karakter, character. Karakter is really just a transliteration of this word from the

Greek. And yes, it's like that, having that signet ring. And when you put it into the clay, it leaves an exact representation.

And you see, the mind that refuses to see the brightness of the glory of Jesus Christ goes,

Ah, it's just a copy. It's just like you put a beautiful Monet on one of those color copiers.

And it may look pretty good, but it's not a Monet when it comes out. It's just a copy. The other thing

I'd like to emphasize is, well, see, this says hypostasis. And that means nature. And so you must have two gods.

Because you're saying that, this is clearly, and they won't allow the use of the terms as defined in the 4th century and the arguments that were going on between the

East and the West and Latin and Greek and so on and so forth. They won't say, oh, see, right there, hypostasis. And so if that means nature, then that's the same thing as being, even though that's not what they were saying later on.

That same thing as being. And so Jesus is a copy of the being of God. And so the being of God is one person.

And he's just a copy of that. Well, that's the case. And they really believe their own argumentation.

Then they have a creature who is an exact representation of God. God can make other gods.

Oh, but wait a minute. His nature would be eternal, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that be actually definitional?

Definitional of the hypostasis? Would be eternity and omnipresence and omnipotence and omniscience.

And Jesus isn't any of those things. So how could he be a character of those things? Well, it's not a real character.

Oh, so we're going to change the meaning of the word. I see, I see. The reality is no creature could ever be described as the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, upholding the universe by the word of his power.

Don't look at me and seriously expect me to believe that this is a creature being described, especially at the end of the chapter.

The very words about the unchanging Yahweh are applied to him.

Not going to happen. What motivates people to do this?

I don't know. I don't know this man. It seems he's very, very hurt by the fact that Orthodox Christianity says you have to believe these things.

Like we're being mean or unloving or unkind or something, I guess. But what a tremendous, tremendous text.

And a tremendous teaching of the scriptures. So normally during Thanksgiving week,

I try to do some special study that reminds us of how much we have to be thankful for.

And we can talk about all the many blessings we've had in our lives over this past year.

And I hope you do think about those things because have you thought about how many times your life has been spared over the past 12 months?

That you didn't even know about. You didn't even, because it didn't happen. So you didn't see it. Man, I think about that every time

I go for a ride on my bike. Every time I go through an intersection, you know, it was like a year ago.

We were on our way to church one Sunday morning going across Indian School Road, coming up on 19th Avenue. There was almost no traffic, unfortunately.

And we've got a green light, but we're still a good ways away. We're, I don't know, 150 yards away from the intersection.

And we're still at full speed because it's green. There's, and you can see the little, now they've got a little countdown things. And I think it just started to flash.

We had like 15 seconds. Not even slowing down. Shouldn't be slowing down. And here goes a truck, whoosh, right through the intersection right in front of us.

We've got a green light. Full speed, never slowed down. If I'd been 15 seconds, less than that.

Five, six seconds earlier. Broadside me, but I wouldn't have even survived it.

How many of those, you know, we see them once in a while. How many times has

God been merciful to us over this past year? All those things are wonderful things to think about. All the blessings that have been poured into our lives.

But as believers, those are never the true foundation of our joy and our thanksgiving.

Fundamentally, fundamentally the ground of our joy and thanksgiving is to be found in the words we have looked at today.

He made himself nothing. For whom?

For you and I and every person that bows the knee in faith and repentance toward Jesus Christ.

That is the reason for thanksgiving. Our society doesn't understand it.

Our society views it as a time to pig out and, you know, get a few days off.

But the real reason for thanksgiving is found in the contemplation of the condescension of the son of God taking on human flesh and giving himself as the perfect sacrifice, not a mere creature who could not redeem all of God's elect, but the perfect sacrifice, the

God -man, the Logos who became flesh, the one who eternally existed in the form of God taking on the form of a servant, the

Monogenes Theos, John 1 .18, the unique God who has exegeted the

Father. He has made him known and what he's revealed to us of him is that he is merciful and gracious and kind.

And that is the reason for thanksgiving. Thanks for listening to Dividing Line today.

I had really thought about trying to sneak another one in this week, but I just, with two sermons on Sunday and the encounter on Friday, gotta have our priorities.

I hope this was useful to you. I hope it increases your thanksgiving at this time of year. We will,

Lord willing, be back again a week from today here on The Dividing Line. Thanks for listening. 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 -973 -4602, or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.