Unifying the Persons of God (02/27/2005)

The Early Church, Arius, and the Meaning of “Person”

We mentioned towards the end of the message last Sunday that the early church fathers, if you look at the 1st century, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century, they all are in agreement they did have some word differences over words.

And yet they were able to, towards the end of the 3rd century, to resolve even that problem. They all stood in opposition to Arius, who brought us the Arian heresy, which is very similar to Mormon and Jehovah's Witness doctrine today, teaching that Jesus was a created being and that he was not God or that he is a God, which means there are multiple gods and all the different heresies that can come forth from that.

They all stood against that heresy and they began to formulate the conception of how God exists and they did it usually as they argued against heretics. And so it was the heretics that caused them to put it into words and to formulate the creeds of the early church, might not have had those if they hadn't had the opposition.

And so one thing that we were going to look at towards the end of the last message before we really get into the passage I want to cover today was that we were going to talk about their conception of the word person.

Because if you remember the way that, if you want to put it in a nutshell, how they pretty much conceived of God was they said that he is three distinct persons, but one God. Are one God subsisting as three distinct persons?

They would say one substance and three personas, or they would say one essence existing in three personas. And the Latin word for persona was similar to the Greek word, but the Latin word persona, can you remember what it actually means?

I mentioned it last time, kind of interesting, a mask. And it was a word that was used in the acting world. The Greeks conceived of it first and it was brought over into the Roman Empire and into the Latin and it carried the word persona in the Latin.

But the persona was actually the part that was being played or the role that was being played by the human actor. The human himself was not called the persona. It was the part that he played and that is the root meaning of the word.

And even if you go to Webster's and look up the word person in English today, you'll find that's the root meaning of our word person, it's just we don't use it that way anymore. When we use the word person, we think of distinct individuals.

We think of different genetic code, don't we? We think of specific, different, and separate individuals and that's what we call a person. And I believe that brings some of the confusion of the Trinitarian doctrine to the modern church is that we just simply don't mean the same thing by person anymore.

So when we say that God is one God but he exists in three persons, part of our mind thinks, well that means it's like there's three gods. There's God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, I mean God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and we almost visualize that as three gods and that is not how God exists.

In fact, that was part of the heresy that our fathers fought against was the fact that there were multiple gods. So I think that that word creates a problem for us just simply because the usage of the word has changed.

I think that as we look at the scriptural teachings of how God exists, it does present a mystery to us because it's difficult for us to think in terms of a being who is pure spirit. We can't even define spirit.

So how can we conceive of it? God has given us some terms to use. We have the word spirit and it's used throughout the Bible, but it means breath. So what does that tell us? It tells us that the Father has never been seen, no man has seen him at any time, and it tells us that we must worship him in spirit because he is a what?

He's a spirit being. And nowhere does it give us a broad depth of definition and understanding of what a spirit even is other than a breath. So there lies a great part of the difficulty is that we are thinking of God as three persons and we think of persons like ourselves, and yet he is a spirit person who is omnipresent.

He's everywhere at once, at least with regard to the physical universe. Everywhere where that universe is, God is. Everywhere where the parts of it are, he is there. And so when you think of the way the scripture words it, 1 Timothy 3 .16 might be my favorite verse because it is so simple and so pure.

It just says Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. He was God, so who was he? He was God. That's who he is. And how many gods are there? One God. So Jesus is the true God of the universe who was manifest.

That is a mode of existence, or a mode I should say to be more specific, a mode of appearance, how it strikes the eye, how our senses can pick it up, and that is one mode of a God as far as how our senses and our understanding picks him up.

Now when Jesus appeared, did the Father cease to exist and you had only Jesus? So that all of God, now Colossians says Jesus was all of the Godhead in a body. So does that mean that all of God was in his body in the sense that there was God nowhere else?

So that if Jesus were in Mahia, he couldn't be here, God couldn't be here today. Is that what it means? That's not what it means, is it? What does it mean when it says he was all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily?

If it doesn't mean that all of God was contained in him in the sense that he couldn't be anywhere else, what did it mean? Well it meant all of God was contained in him and could still be everywhere else.

That's what it meant. And that is the point of heresy. The modalists believe that if God appeared as Jesus, then he could not be anywhere else. That was God. If he appeared as the Holy Spirit, then he can no longer be Jesus or the Father.

And that is a form of heresy because the Bible teaches very clearly that while Jesus was being baptized, a voice of the Father came from heaven and spoke and said, this is my son whom I'm well pleased and the Holy Spirit appearing in the form of as a dove landed on Jesus.

All three happening at the same time. So that dispels the heresy of modalism. So I think when we think of the word person, it's difficult for us because the way we use the word person today. If we think of Jesus as a manifestation of God and the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of the same God and the Father as a necessary manifestation because of the relationship and distinction between the Holy Spirit and Jesus from him.

The only way that the human mind could have conceived of God is as God revealed himself as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We could not have conceived of God in any other form or I don't believe he would have presented himself that way, although he exists that way.

But the difficulty of God putting himself into human language, only God could have done it. And we strive after it. And I'll use an illustration, I believe this, that when we, if Jesus were here physically as he was during his ministry and he stood there and we looked at him, he would in fact be all of the fullness of the Godhead, but we would not see all of God because the limitation is with us, not with him.

So with all that in mind now, let's move into some scripture that really deals with this in such depth and breadth because it deals with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all in one passage and gives it to us in biblical language, which is far more important than whatever language the Fathers may have come up with, although their language is beautiful and it's wonderful to contemplate how they word things, but you can see them struggle as you see me struggle here as I try to preach messages on it.

But the scripture seems to be at ease. It doesn't struggle. The apostles that the Lord used by inspiration to pen the words about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is no struggle within those words.

The only struggle is with us, but I believe as we immerse ourselves more into the passages that deal with this, I believe we can have more and more light as we grow in maturity on this subject. So let's go to John chapter 14 and verse 1, and we won't get real far through the passage because we're going to take it slow because we want to stop and look at some important individual words as we go.

Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, believe also in me, Jesus said. The word also seems to be a tiny little insignificant word in this passage, but it's not insignificant. It is the word kahi in the Greek language, and the reason we have to take a look at this word is because it can have two functions, and in grammar, one function is called the copulative function, which means it can bring together two separate ideas.

Also, it has a cumulative usage, which means it's as if it just gives more force to the same idea, and depending on which way it's used makes a big difference in our understanding of the sentence that it's used in.

Sometimes, in fact, always, the only way you can tell the difference is by the context of the verse and the passage. There are many things like that in grammar. Even words carry different meanings. Why do you think God wrote the Bible in this manner, and why do you think God invented language in this manner, where it had words that have different meanings, and even this word like kahi can have different usages in the grammar?

Don't you think it has to do with what Brother Otis was teaching in Sunday school today? He that hath an ear, let him hear. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a lost, what do you call a grammar person?

A grammarian? A grammitarian? I don't remember, but an English professor who's lost, to just take the structure of the sentences or paragraphs in the Bible and understand them. He can't do it, because the words have different meanings, even the words like kahi have different usages in the grammar.

So only the Holy Spirit can teach us the Word of God. Now, it is good to look at what our fathers have thought different passages meant, as we go back and find commentaries, hopefully you can find conservative scholars who believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

Those are the only ones you should read, but those who believe that the Bible is the very Word of God, it's wonderful to go back as far as you can go and read, even we found some as far back as Tertullian, as we've studied in this study, 150 AD.

Go back as far as you can and see what God's people have felt that certain passages meant. That's wonderful, because the Holy Spirit reveals things to them as well, and to us, and it helps us guard against having what the Bible calls a private interpretation.

Who can tell me what that is, and why is it bad, what is a private interpretation? As it talks about, I believe, in 1 Peter, and with regard particularly, though, to doctrine. Yeah, and the New Testament talks about avoid private interpretation, it's where you would totally disregard 2 ,000 years of God's people studying doctrine.

You'd say it's all wrong, I've figured out what this really means. Now, do you think it's possible for that to happen? Well, I would say you'd have to say it's possible, especially in areas that deal with the future, such as the book of Revelation, certain passages of Daniel that deal with the end times, because God uses experience as a teacher in many ways to help us understand Scripture that we've had for years.

So it is possible that there might be doctrinal issues that the fathers all the way up through scholars like J. Vernon McGee, popular writers, and MacArthur, different people, it is possible that any of them might be wrong on a certain issue.

It is even possible that they all might be wrong. But, the likelihood of us finding something in these clear passages of Scripture that most doctrines have, and we have come up with the one true meaning and all of them were wrong, the possibility of that is very small.

And it should be guarded against, and I believe that only the Holy Spirit can bear witness to the truth. And I think the church is called the pillar of the truth, is it not? So therefore the body itself, if it is a studying church, will be able to bear witness to any doctrinal issue that some one individual in the church, whether it be the pastor or a teacher or anyone in the church, would bring forth as a new insight.

The church body should study that, and so forth. Most cults, in fact all cults, are brought forth by a person who has a private interpretation of very familiar passages. Or sometimes they will use obscure passages and create a whole religion out of it.

So that is a point where we have to be very careful. So I find great comfort in being able to go back to the early church fathers for the first four centuries. Even the first two centuries before Constantine came into existence, because so many people today try to say the Trinity came from Constantine.

It did not. I mean you have heard me read and quote from Tertullian and two or three other church fathers that existed a hundred years before Constantine was even born. And they all word it very similarly.

That God is one God who subsists as three distinct personas. And I'm going to use that word rather than person because even in our modern language, persona is a different word in our dictionary. And I think it fits 1 Timothy 3 .16 better.

But there was great unity in the understanding and the verbalizing of how God exists even by the fourth century, even before that. So now as we look at this interesting word, back to this word also, kahi.

Let me tell you, I've already told you it has two purposes. One copulative, one cumulative. Let me tell you the different meaning. I'll tell you different words it's actually been translated into in the New Testament.

It's been translated into the word also as it is here in John 14 .1. It's translated into the word even, e-v-e-n, even. The word indeed, the word moreover, the word so, like s-o, so. The word then and the word therefore.

Now, I want to give you just a couple of examples in the New Testament of how this word is used. You don't need to look these up unless you want to because I'm going to go through a couple of them pretty quickly.

But in Matthew 5 .40, it says, As if any man will sue thee at law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Now, would you think that that word also there is used in a copulative sense or a cumulative sense?

Copulative would mean you have two different things that are brought together by the word. Well, I think it's copulative sense because here we have a coat and we have a second thing called a cloak. And both of them are also spoken of in this verse.

You see how it's used? That's how we use the word also in English, isn't it? It always means that in English when you use the word also. It's copulative. Okay, let me give you another one, Matthew 3 .10.

And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. If you study that passage, Matthew 3 .10, if you look at the verses above it, there is not another entity that can be put together with this idea of the ax being laid at the root.

So you don't have two things you can bring together. So it's not used in the copulative sense. It's used in the cumulative sense. It adds force to the sentence. And so therefore, it could have been and has been translated with the word moreover rather than the word also in other verses.

So you could read Matthew 3 .10 this way. And now moreover, the ax is laid unto the root of the trees. You see? You see how that Greek word can have different meanings in English? It's not always just the one thing that also means to us.

You have to use several English words to carry the different meanings that the word kahi can mean in the Greek. Now, I want to go down and show you. I'll tell you several of the words I've mentioned. Moreover, the word indeed, the word very.

Let me give you a verse where it's translated into the English word very. John, well, I don't think, let's see. Where did I put that? Matthew 10 .30. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. That's the word kahi, the word very.

So you couldn't say the also hairs of your head, could you? It doesn't make sense in English. So it doesn't always mean what also means in English is my point. Now, let me show you a couple of verses I do want you to turn to.

Turn to John 5 .21 and John 6 .57. And the reason I want to use these two verses is because they literally deal with the same subject that we're talking about. When Jesus says, you believe in God, believe also in me.

Which use of that word would be best? Which English word would select the Greek meaning the best? Well, I'm not sure also does. Because also points out two different things that are brought together. Now, John 5 .21 says this.

For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, Jesus says, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. The phrase even so comes from the word kahi, the same word. And that's, you see, you can see that that's a cumulative effect.

It adds force to the concept. It does not necessarily mean that the Father and Son are two different essences because they are not. John 6 .57, as the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

The word so and the word even come from one word in the Greek and that's this word kahi. And so Jesus said, just like God has life in himself, I give life from myself. So it's not a word that creates a distinction in this usage.

It's a word that says, just like that, I'm the same. So it really shows likeness. And the word also in English can do that, but we just, we don't use it that way very often. So I think we could look at John 14 .1 and it would be very clear if it read this way.

Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, even so believe in me. Jesus says, even so believe in me, or just like you believe in God, believe in me. Now look at verse 2, John 14 .2. In my Father's house are many mansions.

If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. My Father's house is one word. The word mansion is another word. The word place is another word. Jesus is saying that in my Father's house, this is a word which means residence, but it comes from the idea of the abode, the abode of God, the place where God dwells.

We speak of that as the third heaven in the Bible. This is what the word house means. In my Father's abode, the place where the Father resides, Jesus says there are many mansions. The word mansion is the Greek word mone, which means a staying, a staying, a place where you can stay.

And he says, I will go and prepare a place for you. The word place is topos. You've heard of topographical map. The English word comes from this Greek word. It is a spot or a location. So Jesus says, in the dwelling of God, there are many stayings, many places where things can be.

And it speaks of things that are real in the sense that we would understand them, such as you and me, for example. And he says, I'm going to go there and create a spot for you. A location, a specific location in this abode of God for you to exist.

Now, it would be very difficult for someone to argue the case that if Jesus is just a prophet or a good man like Buddha, that he would have the wherewithal to go to the very abode of God and have the authority to make a spot for you.

So people who bring Jesus Christ down to the level of Buddha or Mohammed or Confucius are confused. They are confused about what Jesus says about himself. Verse 3, he says, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again.

So we know the second coming is going to happen. And I will receive you unto myself, that where I am, there you may be also. This shows very clearly that one of the reasons that God chose to exist in the form of Jesus Christ, the God-man, is so that a spirit being who is omnipresent could be in a place, one place at a time.

Jesus can do that. Now, you and I will be doing that for all eternity. You and I will not be omnipresent, I hate to tell you. As glorified as you get, you will not be everywhere at once. And so therefore, God, in order to dwell with you, has to become God with us.

Emmanuel, that's who Jesus is. All of the fullness of the Godhead in a body in order to be in a place. Because we, because of the nature of the way God has created us, have to be in a place. Now, the Arians were wrong because they said Jesus was created.

And the word created means something coming out of nothing, at least that type of the word create. Something coming from nothing. That's what you and I are. God created us. He spoke the worlds into existence and he spoke you into existence.

He literally created Adam, the first man, out of dirt. The minerals of the earth. But it was laying there, it's hard to picture that. We were talking about the other day, you know, how can you picture like it was Adam laying there, lifeless, until God breathed the breath of life into him.

But Jesus is different than that. Jesus was never nothing. Did you hear me? He was never nothing. Therefore, he was never brought out of nothingness and created. He has always existed. He proceeded forth and came out of God is true.

He was begotten of the one true God. Before anything was made, the Bible teaches. But that is not the same as being created out of nothing. Because the truth is, Jesus was never created. He has always been.

And the Bible shows that he is actually the creative arm of the Godhead. Why is that? Because when we think of creation, what do we think of? Physical things that have to be in a place. In space and time.

And Jesus is equipped to do that. He is the manifestation of God, or the persona of God, which deals in those physical realms. The Father does not. So, Jesus says, If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again.

So we see him coming and going in space and time. You won't see the Father doing that. Now, where I am, you will be also. There is a place involved. If you want to be with God, be with Jesus. Isn't that wonderful?

Is he not glorified through this? And even the Father is glorified in this. Verse 4 says, And whether I go, you know, and the way you know. Now, isn't it interesting that Jesus said that? Because look at Thomas' response in verse 5.

Thomas said to him, Lord, we know not. Jesus said, He said, you know where I'm going. And you know the way that this works. Thomas said, no we don't. Why do you think Jesus set this up this way? Why do you think he first said, you do know these things?

Was Jesus confused and didn't understand that Thomas didn't know? No. It's a method of teaching. That's very good. That's exactly what it is. But also, it is the method of letting Thomas know that if you had been listening to me with ears that hear, you would have known this by now.

Thomas said to him, Lord, we know not whether thou goest. And how can we know the way? And look at Jesus' answer. Jesus said unto him, I am the way. And the truth. And the light. Notice that the word the is in front of each of those words.

It doesn't say a, which means there might be other forms of this or other places you could get this. The. If Jesus is the truth, then what is Confucius? What is the Dalai Lama? If Jesus is the truth, what are they?

They're false. What is the Buddha? What about Muhammad? The great founder of the fastest growing religion in the world, Islam. Who would like to either convert you or destroy you. Who is he? If Jesus is the truth.

And the way. And the life. And Jesus says, no man comes unto the Father but by me. Why is that? Because Confucius and the Dalai Lama and Buddha and Muhammad and all the others are men. And men did not proceed forth and come out from God.

And no man has seen God at any time. But Jesus proceeded forth from God and therefore knows God and has seen God and has been with God and has been to the abode of God and has come to reveal that to us.

Therefore he is the only way to that. So you cannot put him in a group of prophets like everyone wants to. Brother Otis and I have coffee down at the Flying Red Horse. Have you been there yet? Don't miss it.

And we have a waiter there who's from Australia and has opened up to us a little because we're there and he sees our Bible and hears us talking. And he is into all kinds of mysticism. And he can't discern the difference between that and the truth.

And it's really sad to hear him talk about that stuff. He would put Jesus, now he believes in Jesus, the Christ, but he would put him in along with Confucius, the Buddha and the others. He hasn't seen the difference.

If you had known me, Thomas, you should have known my father also. And from henceforth you know him and have seen him. Now we're talking about how God exists today and we're talking specifically about who Jesus is.

That's who we've been talking about the whole study. Jesus is presenting himself to Thomas. And Thomas is saying, you need to show us the Father. We need to know the Father and the way. And Jesus says, well you're looking at it.

You're looking at the way. I am the way. You're looking at the truth about God. I am the truth about God. The only truth about God. The truth. There's not another. And you're looking at the only life that exists.

There are not four lives, six lives, or a part of life you can grab here and there and the other. There's only one life and it's God. And he said, I am that life, Jesus said. So who is Jesus? He is the essence of that life.

The same essence the Father is. This is what the early church fathers knew. They had a little bit of a difficulty articulating it. But they knew it. If you had known me, you should have known my Father also.

And because you have known me, henceforth you do know him. And you have seen him because you've seen me. It's interesting. There's a difference between the word know and the word see here. The word know means to perceive with the intellect.

The word see here is the Greek word horao, which means to stare at, to discern clearly, to experience, to behold and perceive. So Jesus says, because you have been with me in my presence, you have both perceived God with your mind, but you have also seen God with the eye.

And you have, further than that, seen God with the eye of understanding and discernment, and you have perceived him because I have been in your presence. Philip said to him, Lord, okay, I hear what you're saying.

But if you would just show us the Father, then I'll be satisfied and stop talking. Now what do you think you would have said if you had been Jesus when he comes back and says that after the remarkable remarks you just made?

I think the modern usage of the word duh would fit here. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and I won't ask this anymore. Then I'll be satisfied. Man. Now remember, these are men who walked with him every day.

So where does that leave us? But we really have an advantage because we have the Holy Spirit, which we will connect. Verse 9, so Jesus says unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?

Now, known me, Jesus says. Who is the me? Who is me? Well, it is Jesus, the man, but it is also Jesus, the God-man. So therefore, it is also God. Have you been so long with me, and yet you have not known God, Philip?

He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. And how sayest thou then, show us the Father? You see, I believe there is an inherent heresy that can be found if we get too much into talking about the distinction of the persons, and we don't understand the word person, because there are those, and I've even read in the book, theology books about the Trinity, that say that Jesus is not the Father, he is the Eternal Son.

Well, that sounds good, doesn't it? You have the Father, you have the Son, you have the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not either one of them.

And they'll bring forth and lean on the distinctions very heavily. I do think that Constantine put an emphasis on the distinctions that might not have been there before his time. The distinctions were there, but he emphasized that part.

Why? Because he did hate Jews, and he knew if Jews thought there were three gods, they wouldn't become Christians. He didn't want them to be Christians. At least that's what some historians believe about Constantine.

So, yet this passage defies a statement such as Jesus is not the Father. Now, if what they mean by that is that there is a distinct manifestation called the Son of God, who is distinct from the manifestation of God as the Father, yes, that's true.

But if they mean that Jesus is not all of God, then it's false. Because Jesus is all of the fullness of the Godhead in a body. And so, therefore, Jesus could rightfully and truthfully say, if you have looked at me, you have seen more than just the eternal Son.

You see my point? You've seen more than just the Holy Spirit. You've seen the Father also. Now, that doesn't fit a lot of the word formulas that you'll find in some of the books written about the Trinity, but this is what Jesus says.

If you've seen me, you have seen the Father. And how sayest then, show us the Father? How can I show you the Father any more than you looking at me, he says. So the truth is, the Father dwelt there, it's just that we had the weakness of not being able to see all of God.

Because all of God cannot be contained in one body, not even the body of Jesus. He's everywhere at once. And yet, all of the fullness of God is there. We're just not able to see that, because we can't see everywhere at once, can we?

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Now Jesus begins to teach how it works, the best he can with our language, through our minds. Don't you believe, Philip? He says, Philip, now look, if you've seen me, if you've looked at me, you have seen the Father.

He says, don't you believe, Philip, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? And the words that I speak unto you, I speak not by myself, not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Isn't it interesting that it says works, not words? You would think it would say he does, he says the words. He doeth the works. Now Jesus begins to teach his apostles how it is that he can be God and still be the Son of God at the same time.

He says it works this way. We are the same essence. We are the same substance. We are the same stuff. The difference between me and you, Philip, is that I can be in many places at once, and you can't be, but I am the same stuff as the Father.

And since you can't be in the third heaven, God's abode right now, you're here with me, then the Father must present himself as three distinct personas, but none of them is less than God. Now this last verse shows so clearly, he says the words that I speak unto you are not of myself.

So whose words are they? They're the Father's words. So Jesus, the God-man, when he talks, it's God, it's the Father talking. He then goes and he says, but the Father that dwells in me, the works that you see done with these hands are the Father's works.

This word work in the Greek is the word ergon. We've talked about it before in other passages. Erg comes from it. What do ergs measure? Brother Bill, isn't it work? Okay, in physics? And so God, the Father, is the energy behind the work that moves physical objects around in a physical universe that's time and space.

So that's why Jesus exists in the manifestation that he does. He is physical. So in order for the Father to move these things and create work such as miracles, such as things you see all around you every day, when Jesus came and showed forth the works of the Father, he did it with physical hands and a physical body.

And so that's why Jesus said the works that you see me do are really the works of the Father. The energy, the force, the power really comes from the Father. And it's work through me. I am the physical person of God that does the work that you can see.

And verse 11 sums this up. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me. And if you can't believe that, then just do this. Just believe me for the very works of the saints. He said, look, if you have trouble believing this idea that I am all of the fullness of God and that the Father is in me and I am in him, then just look at the works I do with my hands and tell me that a man could do these.