Archive for October, 2013|Monthly archive page

The Trinity revealed by the Son!

In Apologetics on October 30, 2013 at 9:11 am

The desire of some Greeks to see Jesus puzzles the disciples and leads Jesus in agitation of soul to interpret life and death as sacrifice and to show how by being “lifted up” He will draw all men to Him.

Joh 12:26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me. And where I am, there my servant will also be. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.”

If we let the scripture speak plainly Jesus asks believers to serve him (Jesus) and gives the result of following him. The Father will honor those who follow the Son! How else can this be understood except the Trinitarian view of the Godhead. This statement would be unintelligible from any other point of view. The term Father and Son are not ambiguous or Unnecessary, as they rightly define relationships both Heavenly and temporally. God goes to great length to detail His existance as the eternal nature and three distinctions (persons) in Holy Scripture. The term Trinity is a description of this three oneness and one threeness of infinite existance.

John 12:26

If any man serve me (ean emoi tis diakonēi). Condition of third class again (ean with present active subjunctive of diakoneō, keep on serving with dative emoi).
Let him follow me (emoi akoloutheitō). “Me (associative instrumental case) let him keep on following” (present active imperative of akoloutheō).
Where … there (hopou … ekei). In presence and spiritual companionship here and hereafter. Cf. Joh_14:3; Joh_17:24; Mat_28:20.
Shall honour (timēsei). Future active of timaō, but it may be the kind of honour that Jesus will get (Joh_12:23).
Robertson’s Word pictures

John 12:26

Serve (διακονῇ)
See on Mat_20:26; see on Mar_9:35; see on 1Pe_1:12.
Me (ἐμοὶ)
Notice the emphatic recurrence of the pronoun in this verse.
My Father
Rev., rightly, the Father. “Very much of the exact force of St. John’s record of the Lord’s words appears to depend upon the different conceptions of the two forms under which the fatherhood of God is described. God is spoken of as ‘the Father’ and as ‘my Father.’ Generally it may be said that the former title expresses the original relation of God to being, and specially to humanity, in virtue of man’s creation in the divine image; and the latter more particularly the relation of the Father to the Son incarnate, and so indirectly to man in virtue of the incarnation. The former suggests those thoughts which spring from the consideration of the absolute moral connection of man with God; the latter, those which spring from what is made known to us through revelation of the connection of the incarnate Son with God and with man. ‘The Father’ corresponds, under this aspect, with the group of ideas gathered up in the Lord’s titles, ‘the Son’ ‘the Son of man;’ and ‘my Father’ with those which are gathered up in the title ‘the Son of God,’ ‘the Christ’” (Westcott).
Vencent Word Studies

Joh 12:27 “Now my soul is in turmoil, and what should I say—’Father, save me from this hour’? No! It was for this very reason that I came to this hour.

Jesus is is revealing his destiny and purpose to the disciples. In his statement a very natural expression is used defining his position he calls God his Father and then ascribes an action that only another could preform. This action would be a physical act outside of Jesus done for his benefit by another. “Father save me” is that expression of relationship and distinction that can only be understood from a Trinitarian viewpoint how could a manifestation or divine idea preform any action?

Now my soul is troubled.… John 12:27.
At first this verse seems to differ greatly from the preceding discourse. There he showed more than heroic courage in exhorting his disciples not only to undergo death, but to face it willingly and eagerly whenever needful. But now he shrinks from death and seems to go soft. However, here we do not read anything that does not agree with the believers’ own experience. If scoffers laugh at this, it is no wonder; one cannot understand it except by experience.
Besides, it was necessary for our salvation that the Son of God should have been affected in this way. In his death, we must first consider the work of expiation which appeased the wrath and curse of God; this he certainly could not have done unless our sin had been transferred to him. The death, therefore, to which he was subjected had to be dreadful even to him, because he could not have made satisfaction for us unless he had known God’s dreadful judgment; we know better the enormity of sin because the Heavenly Father exacted such a dire punishment of his only-begotten Son. Therefore, we must realize that death was not a pleasure or a game for Christ, and that he suffered excruciation to the utmost for our sakes.
And it was not absurd that the Son of God should have been thus troubled. In the act of expiation, the secret divinity of the Son was quiescent and did not exercise its power. Christ in fact put on not only our flesh but also our human feeling; and this he did voluntarily. He was afraid not by constraint, but because he willingly subjected himself to fear. It must be firmly held that his fear was real and not fictitious. But he was unlike the rest of mankind in that, as we have said elsewhere, his feelings were tempered by obedience to the righteous God.
Christ’s humanity in feeling has a further value for us. If Christ had not been troubled by the fear of death, which of us would take his example seriously? It is not given to us that we should face death without a troubled mind; so, when we hear that he was not made of iron, we gather our forces and set out to follow him; and the weakness of our flesh which troubles us at death does not hinder us from joining our Leader in battle.
Joseph Haroutunian and Louise Pettibone Smith, Calvin: Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 163–164.

Joh 12:28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again!”

Would a divine idea or manifestation have the authority to call on God the Father as Father and request his glory be revealed? Only a Son is truly worthy and capable of the answer “I have” when it confirms what God have revealed in scripture that the Son glorifies the Father and the Father glorifies the Son! What a rare glimpse of their relationship revealed as chosen by the Son sense he reveals the Father to whom he has chosen.

Joh 12:29 The crowd standing there heard this and said that it was thunder. Others were saying, “An angel has spoken to him.”
Joh 12:30 Jesus replied, “This voice is for your benefit, not for mine.

Jesus as if to confirm his revealing of the Father tells the astonished onlookers this was for their benefit. From this incident we have one more example of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.

Joh 12:31 Now is the time for the judgment of this world to begin. Now will the ruler of this world be thrown out.
Joh 12:32 As for me, if I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself.”

The Messinic purpose of the Christ is confrimed and connected to the older Testement time of the serpents when Moses was instructed to make a bronze sepent and fasten it to a pole so that all who looked up might live.

Num 21:5 the people complained against the LORD and Moses. “Why did you bring us out of Egypt to die in the wilderness?” they asked. “There’s no food and water, and we’re tired of this worthless bread.”
Num 21:6 In response, the LORD sent poisonous serpents among the people to bite them. As a result, many people of Israel died.
Num 21:7 Then the people approached Moses and admitted, “We’ve sinned by speaking against the LORD and you. Pray to the LORD, that he’ll remove the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed in behalf of the people.
Num 21:8 Then the LORD instructed Moses, “Make a poisonous serpent out of brass and fasten it to a pole. Anyone who has been bitten and who looks at it will live.”
Num 21:9 So Moses made a bronze serpent and fastened it to a pole. If person who had been bitten by a poisonous serpent looked to the serpent, he lived.


Joh 12:33 He said this to indicate the kind of death he was about to die.
Joh 12:34 Then the crowd answered him, “We have learned from the Law that the Messiah remains forever. So how can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”

Aren’t we asking the same question in regards to the Messiah today? If we deny the externality of the Son of God as the Son we ask the same thing of God. If he is only an eternal idea or simply a manifestation of God in the flesh how is this question answered? A Son was crucified and lifted up, a Son with a will, emotions and personality distinct from the Father yet he shared something we can’t share as creatures our essence or nature. The best questions asked “Who is this Son of Man?” is answered by the Spirit through the Son to the Father. The Father decrees the Son accomplishes and the Spirit applies.

If Jesus is a manifestation or a divine idea how can he claim the Father has knowledge He doesn’t have?

In Apologetics on October 27, 2013 at 4:46 am

Mat 24:30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mat 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.
Mat 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
Mat 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Mat 24:36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Ver. 36.—The apostles had asked (ver. 3), “When shall these things be?” Christ does not now expressly answer this question; he puts forth strongly the uncertainty in the knowledge of these great events, and how this ignorance is disciplinary. Of that day (de die illa, Vulgate) and hour, viz. when Christ shall appear in judgment. The expression plainly implies that a definite day and moment are fixed for this great appearing, but known only to God. Knoweth no man, no, not (οὐδὲ, not even) the angels of heaven. A kind of climax. Man is naturally excluded from the knowledge; but even to the angels it has not been revealed. A further climax is added in St. Mark, and from that Gospel has been introduced by some very good manuscripts into this place, neither the Son (the Revised Version admits the clause). The words have given occasion to some erroneous statements. It is said by Arians and semi-Arians, and modern disputants who have followed in their steps, that the Son cannot be equal to the Father, if he knows not what the Father knows. Alford says boldly, “This matter was hidden from him.” But when we consider such passages as “I and my Father are one;” “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 10:30; 14:11, etc.), we cannot believe that the time of the great consummation was unknown to him. What is meant, then, by this assertion? How is it true? Doubtless it is to be explained (if capable of explanation) by the hypostatic union of two natures in the Person of Christ, whereby the properties of the two natures are interchangeably predicated. From danger of error on this mysterious subject we are preserved by the precise terms of the Athanasian Creed, according to which we affirm that Christ is “equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood … one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person,” etc. If, then, Christ asserts that he is ignorant of anything, it must be that in his human nature he hath willed not to know that which in his Divine nature he was cognizant of. This is a part of that voluntary self-surrender and self-limitation of which the apostle speaks when he says that Christ “emptied himself” (Phil. 2:7). He condescended to assume all the conditions of humanity, even willing to share the imperfection of our knowledge in some particulars. How the two natures thus interworked we know not, and need not conjecture; nor can we always divine why prominence at one time is given to the Divine, at another to the human. It is enough for us to know that, for reasons which seemed good unto him, he imposed restriction on his omniscience in this matter, and, to enhance the mysteriousness and awfulness of the great day, announced to his disciples his ignorance of the precise moment of its occurrence. This is a safer exposition than to say, with some, that Christ knew not the day so as to reveal it to us, that it was no part of his mission from the Father to divulge it to men, and therefore that he could truly say he knew it not. This seems rather an evasion than an explanation of the difficulty. But my Father only. The best manuscripts have “the Father.” “But” is εἰ μὴ, except. So Christ said to his inquiring apostles, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Acts 1:7). These words do not exclude the Son’s participation in the knowledge, though he willed that it should not extend to his human nature. With this and such-like texts in view, how futile, presumptuous, and indeed profane, it is to attempt to settle the exact date and hour when the present age shall end!
H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., St. Matthew, vol. 2, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 441–442.
In Matthew 24 Jesus is proclaiming his future role as Judge, pointing to the Father as the one who alone knows the time of the return and yet they are one? In the anti Trinitarian understanding how can this event make any since other than denying the diety of Christ? Jesus would have to be something other than a son and not a diety! This would in its logical conclusion make the human Jesus a borrowed body, only human with a divine prerogative or something less than God. Jesus gives us a glimpse of the two natures and affirms the Carmen Christi in Phil 2, and the distinctions of the not only the Father and Son, but the two natures and their differences expressed in the humanness of Jesus. His emphsis on the permanance of his words and the whole discourse concerning the second coming evidences his eternal existence by the tone of the language.

Act 1:3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
Act 1:4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me;
Act 1:5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
Act 1:7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.
Act 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Acts reaffirms the Fathers authority as distinct from the Son and Jesus as the Son in his humiliation placing himself under the authority of the Father. This was not forced upon the Son but he willingly accepted the role and provided glory to the Father but received glory for it as well.

%d bloggers like this: