Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: — | Date: January 10, 2021 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

A word of prayer. Our Father, we’re grateful for Your word and we are grateful particularly this morning for its wonderful presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ. We’re grateful for Him; we’re grateful for learning of His glory and of all that He has done for us. We pray that You would give us ears that will hear and hearts that will rejoice as we learn more of Him today. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Alright, you should have a copy of this with you. If you do not have one, raise your hand and we’ll make sure that you get one. You that are home on Zoom, I emailed one. You should be able to have access to it at any rate. If you want to grab it, I think it will be helpful.

Alright, our official topic of study is the book of Colossians, but in Colossians chapter 1 we saw that in verses 15 and following we have this marvelous Christological passage. It’s really one of the most important Christological passages in Paul, and he has a couple of designations for Christ that we saw, like “image” and “in Him the fullness of God dwells.” We tried to look at that as we went through it, and I sort of have taken an aside to that since we are looking then in Colossians 1 at the person of Christ, His lordship, and His glory. Let’s go to the side and let’s look at how that has been defined for us in the church’s creeds.

So we did that one time last time. It’s been a few weeks between Christmas and my vacation and then a snow day. We’re finally back. Just for review quickly, we saw that there was this impulse even in the New Testament itself, but then in the early church, this impulse to throw up a standard of faith. What does this new revelation in Christ teach us? What is this faith that we embrace that defines us as Christians? And we see some hints of that in the New Testament itself, as we saw last time. We saw that in the early church, it developed primarily along the lines of preparing candidates for baptism—teaching them, “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty,” and so on. And that tended to take a particular form in different places, but the essentials were the same. Eventually it ends up with what we have as the Apostles’ Creed.

Well, then at some point it becomes necessary to give further definition. It’s not enough to say, “I believe in Jesus.” Who is Jesus? Now that’s very important. Don’t think that that’s just hair splitting. There’s a strong tendency that remains in evangelical circles today that has a dislike of doctrine, and you’ll even hear it said like, “Why do we have to have all this doctrine? Just give me Jesus.” It just sounds so winning, doesn’t it? It sounds pious and good until you ask, “Who is He? Which Jesus?” That’s a question Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 10. There were those who said they believed in Jesus, but how they defined what He did, it ended up being “another Jesus.” So it’s just necessary to say, this is what we believe about Jesus.

In the earliest centuries of the Christian church, they didn’t have the luxury to sit down together; they’re too busy with persecution and things like that. But finally, by the fourth century, they’re able to sit down and convene and say, “What does the scripture teach about Jesus?” At this time now, Constantine is the emperor. Christianity, so far from being persecuted now, has become the official religion of the empire. And now the emperor himself calls a council at Nicaea in 325 AD, and they sit down and hammer out these issues.

The Council Of Nicaea In 325

The point of contention right then was a man by the name of Arius, and the Arian heresy was that Jesus was a created being, and the catchphrase was, “There was a time when He was not,” which then means He’s not God, at least not in the fullest sense. Arius was able to say that Jesus was God in some sense, but not in the full sense of the Father. And so this became quite a controversy and they had to sit down at Nicaea and hammer this out.

One of the interesting events there—just throw this in as an aside—when the Council was convened, the emperor himself convened the council. He paid the way for all of the representatives to come from around the empire, somewhere around 300 bishops, pastors, some deacons, and meeting together. And they finally convened, and the first words spoken at the council were by the emperor himself. The first word: “Brothers.” And you just can’t imagine the impact that that had. Here we’ve come from being persecuted, and now the emperor comes up and addresses us, not as his subjects, but as our brothers in Christ.

And so anyway, they had the council, they hammered out the creed that we read last time, the 325 Creed of Nicaea, about the person of Christ. Arius was the villain, we’ll put it that way, teaching the heretical view of Christ. Athanasius was the hero, but there are others with him, championing the biblical view of who Christ is. I also mentioned Saint Nicholas, who had his occasion with Arius as well, slapping him around, trying to get some sense into him. It didn’t work. But that then was the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the great contribution that they included in the creed was this word that many of you have heard: homoousios, consubstantial with the Father or coessential with the Father, or He is whatever it is the Father is. Now they didn’t get out into metaphysical discussions as to exactly what God is. They’re simply saying, whatever it is that God is, the Son is that also. And it was just a milestone that has remained with us ever since.

All right, that was 325, the Council at Nicaea. Well, the unrest, although Orthodoxy triumphed at Nicaea, the unrest really continued for many years afterwards. Orthodoxy had won decisively, but many of Constantine’s advisors and his successors were not necessarily convinced. And so there’s some back and forth for a time. And in fact, Athanasius himself, the hero of Nicaea, was exiled and returned and then exiled again. Five times he’s exiled and brought back. It was a time of real unrest.

And during that time, another controversy arose—and we’ll deal with this next time—and that is regarding the Holy Spirit. If the Son is coessential, consubstantial with the Father, what now about the Spirit? And there were those who opposed the Holy Spirit on that level. We’ll deal with that next time.

The Council At Constantinople In 381

But finally, then, we have a second council that was convened, and that is at Constantinople in 381. And they hammered out a creed as well. It is basically a reaffirmation and a restatement of the Nicene Creed of 325, but it’s also an expansion on it with regard to both the Son and the Spirit. And so the Nicene Creed—just a little historical trivia here for you—the Nicene Creed that we have today that’s quoted in so many churches is actually the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. But who wants to say “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed”? And so we have the Nicene Creed, but just know that the Nicene Creed of 325 was updated in 381 at Constantinople, and that’s the Nicene Creed that we have today.

Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, boy that’s a mouthful, expands on the Holy Spirit and it gives itself also in bulk to affirm the full deity of Christ and to define that for us. Let’s look at that creed then; you have it on your page. And I want to spend a good bit of time—I think it’s worth honing down our understanding of the person of Christ and using the Creed to help us with that. So let’s spend some time with this.

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” You can hear the Apostles’ Creed in this, can’t you? “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. He rose again on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.”

Now notice we have so far two “I believe” statements. “I believe in the one God, the Father Almighty.” And then we have, “I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,” and then a full paragraph of that. And now we take up the Holy Spirit.

“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”

And now another “I believe.” “I believe in one holy catholic apostolic church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” I probably won’t get this far today, but just so I should note it in passing, the word “catholic” there is small “c.” It just means universal. So when we recite the Apostles’ Creed here, we just changed that. It’s “one universal church” because the word “Catholic” has other connotations that are confusing. But that’s what the word means. And then finally, instead of “I believe,” it’s “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

All right, so it begins, the creed begins with an affirmation of the transcendence, the otherness of God; He’s the maker of heaven and earth. There’s everything and then there’s God. There’s God and everything else, and everything else is something He made. The transcendence of God. That was not a point of dispute at all, and so it’s not expanded on. We don’t have a full paragraph. It’s enough to say that we all agree.

Well, then we have this next section where it reaffirms, essentially repeats the Nicene Creed of 325. And I want to take some time and pick at some of the stuff here and try to open it up. “One Lord Jesus Christ.” I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. Now, we haven’t talked about a man named Nestorius yet, but his teachings left the implication that with the two natures of Jesus, His divine nature and His human nature, his teachings left the impression that we have, in fact, two persons. And that was not allowed. That had all kinds of terrible consequences with regard to our salvation and the Trinity itself. But so it says we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ—not two persons, one.

The Significance Of The Word Begotten

And then we come to this word, “begotten.” “The only begotten Son of God.” And then a little later, “begotten, not made.” Now, if this were a seminary classroom, I’d take about 20 minutes here. But I think I’ll just do it in like a minute or two. But I do want to point out the significance of the word begotten. Look at your Bibles; look at John 1:14. “The Word was made flesh.” The Word was introduced in verse 1. The Word who is God. The Word who is with God. The Word who is God. He was in the beginning with God. Now we get to verse 14. The Word, who is eternal, to have been identified with God. “The Word was made flesh.” So there’s the incarnation. Now we have the two natures of Christ. “He dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the”—and here we have different translations. If you have the NIV, it’s “the glory of the one and only son who came from the father.” If you have the ESV, it’s “the only son from the father.” The New American Standard and the King James Version give us “the only begotten of the father.”

Now, the short version of all of this is that this Greek term here that’s used in John, monogenes, for all of the history of the church, it was understood to mean “only begotten.” About 1953, I think it was, a New Testament scholar at Southern Seminary, where I teach, wrote a paper questioning the meaning of that word. It doesn’t mean—monogenes does not mean only begotten, he said. It means one of a kind, unique. And his paper was so influential that it just carried the world. And even in lexicons now, Greek lexicons, you’ll find his definition given. It means “one of a kind,” not “only begotten.” And so in our newer translations, like the NIV and the ESV, you don’t see the word begotten anymore. You see “one of a kind” or “one and only.” Sometimes they’ll insert the word son. But “one and only” is what they say what the term means.

There have been a few people who have questioned that in the last 70 years. But now, just recently, a few years ago, another scholar has dug up all of Dale Moody’s evidence, did his own research, looking through it all, and he’s come to the conclusion that 19 centuries of the church was right. It means begotten. And in fact, now his work has been so persuasive—and I’m convinced it’s right—that some of the members of the Translation Committee, the ESV, have said, “We got it wrong, we were misled. Lee Irons is right, we’ve got to go back to ‘begotten,'” and in the further editions of the ESV, they’re going to come back to that, I expect. I don’t like to pick at translations. The translators on the committees know their Greek so much better than I do, and I acknowledge all of that, but this is one that they got wrong. And we need to understand, I think, it’s worth knowing that the word begotten still should be there.

Now look at, for instance, at verse 18 of John 1. John 1:18, this is the end of the prologue then. The ESV that I use: “No one has ever seen God. The only God who is at the Father’s side, He has made Him known.” Now there are actually two issues here. One is the understanding of that Greek word monogenes; it means “one of a kind,” translated here “only.” And then instead of “son,” there’s a textual variant that says “God.” So the monogenes God or the monogenes Son, which is it? And this ESV has taken monogenes to mean “only,” one of a kind, and it’s taken the reading of “God.” So we have, “No one has ever seen God, the only God, who’s at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” The NIV, which some of you have, takes a similar tact, but notice how it translates it: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God”—so they’ve inserted the word Son, left out the word begotten, stayed with the definition of one of a kind, but then to clarify, they put in “son,” and then going with the reading “God,” “who is himself God,” they smooth it out that way.

But again then, the New American Standard and the King James preserve the term begotten, and so we have, “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son who’s in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” What’s important here? What can you see in verse 18 that’s important? I think the ESV translators—and this I think is what got them the most once this was pointed out, that they’d made a mistake—”No one has seen God. The only God who’s at the Father’s side has made him known.” What’s wrong with that? You see a theological problem there? Yeah? Yeah, it sounds like the “only God” is outside of God and Father, something else. And you’ve got big problems with that. But if you say “the only begotten Son” or “the only begotten God,” well then we’re distinguishing between the persons of the Godhead. And so it’s been persuaded now that the term needs to be preserved: begotten.

Now, all of that—I said I’d take two minutes, that was probably five. But I do think it’s important for you to know that the way that King James had it, “begotten” is right and we need to preserve that. Now, let’s move on from that. Once you say the Son is begotten, you still have to ask, what does that mean? Does that mean that the Son had a beginning? We thought that God the Son is eternal. And so, look at some more expressions in the Creed. “The only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.” You see what they’re trying to do there? They’re trying to connect together two very important affirmations about Jesus, or about the Son. The Son is begotten of the Father, and yet He’s eternal and so begotten before all ages. So He’s begotten of the Father and it’s always been that way. It never started. These are the problems you have if you’re talking about eternality of God.

And then there’s another expression of the creed. Notice it says “begotten, not made.” Now that is an important distinction. And in the background there, you need to hear Arius. “There was a time when He was not. He’s the first created being.” And so they’re wanting to emphasize, no, God the Son was not made. He was begotten. Now why is that important? Because to be begotten, to beget means to bring into existence by reproduction. To create means to make out of something else. And so what they’re affirming is the sameness of nature, and that’s preserved in the idea of begottenness that the Bible uses. So He’s “begotten, not made,” and that’s why they come up with this next one, “consubstantial with the Father.” He’s of the same nature, begotten of Him, not made, but of the same nature as God.

The Doctrine Of Eternal Generation

Now, this is what theologians call the doctrine of eternal generation. It’s one of those oxymorons that you have in theology, but it’s necessary to put those together. If it’s begotten, how can it be eternal? If it’s eternal, how can it be begotten? And yet you’re left with that; that’s part of the mystery of the Trinity, that God the Son is from the Father and it’s always been that way. And the scriptures use the term begotten, so let’s just call it eternal generation. And that’s important because, one, it emphasizes the relationship of the Son to the Father. He’s from the Father. There’s a relational kind of dependence. And yet, number two, they have a shared nature: begotten, not made. So eternal generation. What’s the definition of eternal generation? The Son is from the Father and it’s always been that way. That’s the definition. And that’s what we’re left with in the scriptures. There was never a time when there was not God. And that is to say, there was never a time when there was not Father and Son. The Son is from the Father and it’s always been that way. So there’s personal distinction between these two persons and yet there’s essential unity.

Now the scriptures have a broader base, and we’ll see that in a second, for this doctrine of eternal generation, but that’s the language that’s used here of eternal generation. Any question before I move on? Is it clear at least what we’re trying to say? Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah. And the creed will affirm that He’s begotten of the Virgin Mary as to His humanity, begotten of the Father as to His deity. And that’s eternal.

Yeah, Clark. “I always think about how Father and Son are separate persons, but there’s a oneness because their wills are in perfect unison. They have their own will, but they’re in perfect unison together. The will of Jesus is to do the will…” Yeah, well actually now that comes into another discussion that we’ll see next time, I think. Does Jesus and His—does the Son in His incarnate state—does Jesus have two wills or one? The answer is He has two. He has a human will and a divine will. But the Son, spoken of as Himself, has one will with the Father. It’s a shared will entirely. Well, we’ll get into that more as we go along.

Alright, so begotten then is the primary metaphor that’s used in the scriptures. But there are others. Even the terms Father and Son have that idea of derivation and yet it’s eternal. There’s something, there’s other… You’re still in John 1, so look at verse 1: “In the beginning was the Word.” Reams and reams of discussion around that in theological literature. But very simply, why is He called the Word? The answer is because He is the revelation of God, the one who reveals God. He is God speaking. In all that Jesus is and says and does, He is revealing God, so He is God’s Word. But notice, you never have the Father spoken of as the Word of the Son. There’s always the same direction, this idea of derivation. Now, the Word is God, verse 1, and yet the Word is the expression of God.

There’s more. Colossians 1, where we started with all of this: the Son is the image of God. You never see it the other direction, that God the Father is the image of the Son. There’s always this same direction of derivation. Another one—and why don’t we look at this one—Hebrews chapter one. Someone read for us verses one to three.

“Long ago and many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets. But in these last days, he has spoken to us by his son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.”

That’s what I want. Verse 3: “He is the radiance”—read that again.

“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature.”

Notice you have the same direction. The Son is the radiance of the Father, the radiance of God, and He is the exact imprint of His nature. It’s the same direction, an idea of derivation, relational dependence, and yet the whole point of the verse is to show the deity of the Son.

And there is one verse in the New Testament that I think is just fascinating. Look at it with me: John 5:26. I want to give you a second for all of you to get there because this one is just mind-bending. You have to see it. John 5:26. All right, someone read that for us.

[Participant reads John 5:26]

OK, what is “life in himself”? Self-sufficiency? Self-existence? You and I don’t have that. We don’t have life in himself. We’re dependent. We’re dependent on oxygen. We’re dependent on food. We’re dependent on all kinds of things to live. God is not like that. He is an independent existence. He lives a se, the doctrine of aseity: from himself. Self-existence. So the Father has self-existence, and then the Son has self-existence, life in himself. Both the Father and the Son have life in themselves. And yet the statement of the verse is: “the Father has given the Son to have life in himself.” Now how do you give self-existence? And the simple answer is, I don’t know. And no one does. But this is the mystery of what we’re dealing with with these relations of the persons of the Trinity. That there’s this sense of derivation, relational dependence, and yet equality and sameness of nature.

And so you see this in many different dimensions in the New Testament, where it’s reflective of this one-directional relation and yet perfect equality. So there’s an ordered relationship—it’s always the same direction—and there’s an equality of being. In fact, in all of those passages—John 1, the Word, who’s the expression of God, is himself God. Colossians 1, the Son is the image of God, reflecting God in that sense, and yet the Son is equal with God, and in Him the fullness of God dwells. And same in Hebrews chapter 1: He’s the radiance of the Father’s glory, and He is that glory himself.

There are more passages. Yes, Pastor Boyd? Yeah, He did. That was at least part of it. In fact, some today I think have made the same problem. And so he has this strong sense of subordination, which in the New Testament is not subordination, but it’s relational distinctions. So let me give you a bigger picture. We have the doctrine of the Trinity that all of Christianity affirms, which is that there’s one God, one God only, and three persons who are God. Now how do you say that without having polytheism, three different gods? How do you say that these three are distinct persons and yet the one God? And the answer the New Testament gives us is: it’s the relationships. There’s the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Son from the Father—there’s paternity and filiation. And the Spirit is from the Father and the Son. There’s procession or a spiration from the Father and the Son. So that’s the distinctions between them. And in that sense, then, they share the same nature and they’re eternal, and yet they are distinct persons. And nothing in that suggests subordination of authority, subordination of glory, or anything like that. Co-equal, and yet in relationships, they are different.

Pastor Gregg. “And has put everything under his feet that he’s going to judge, that he’s the king of kings and the Lord of lords. But notice how they almost come full circle back to the son honoring the father in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 28. I’ll just read some excerpts there: ‘Then the end will come when he, that is Jesus, hands over the kingdom to God the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. When He has done this, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him so that God may be all in all.'”

Yeah, and that’s an important verse, first in terms of His incarnate state, but that’s a discussion we’ve got to get to. When it comes to the external works of God—what we’ve been talking about is God in Himself as He is in Himself—but when it comes to the external works of God, why is it the Son who was sent? Could it just as easily have been the Father who was sent? Oh, because it follows this order of procession, of begottenness, relationship of origin. So in the end, then he returns the kingdom back to the Father so that the Father may be all in all. Reflects this order of relations that we have.

Well, there are other passages. Let me just list them for you quickly. We’ve got to run, but just so you have them if you want them. Matthew 11 verse 27: “All things have been handed over to me by my father.” But then notice the next statement: “No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son.” He has perfect knowledge of the Father thoroughly in all that He is, and yet the Father has given to the Son to have what He has. Another one, John 3:35: “The Father has given all things into the Son’s hand.” And then a fascinating one, John 17 verses 11 and 12: the Father gives the Son His name. So the Son shares in the name of God. He is whatever it is to be God. And yet it was the Father who gave it to Him. Eternal generation. The Son is from the Father, and it’s always been that way.

Now again, I want you to make sure you hear this, and I’m glad Pastor Boyd brought it up: nothing in this speaks of superiority, gradations of authority, or anything like that. It is simply an order of subsistence. There’s paternity, there’s generation, and there’s procession by the Spirit that we’ll see next time. All right, that was a long aside, but that’s important for us now to look at the next part of the creed, and notice all of the “from” expressions in the creed. “God from God”—what does that mean? That means begotten. And all these other verses we’ve looked at: “God from God, light from light”—well, that’s Hebrews 1:3. “True God from true God”—that’s eternal generation. All of that “from” stuff in the creed is an attempt to reflect the language of the New Testament.

All right, and then we come to that climactic statement in the creed: “consubstantial with the Father,” of the same being, of the same essence, coessential with the Father. And there are a couple of places where Jesus himself says that. And I’ll just note it for you quickly if you want to write them down. John 16 and verse 15, Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine.” Imagine that. What a statement. All that belongs to the Father is mine. Whatever He has, I have. If He has self-existence, I have self-existence. If He has highest glory, I have highest glory. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That’s John 16:15. And then John 17, verse 10, here in praying to the Father, Jesus says, “All that you have is mine.” Perfect sharing in all that it is to be God. All right, and then finally we have the statement in the creed, “through him all things were made.” Again, identifying the Son with God by pointing to the works that He does. Creation is a work of God, and here it affirms that God the Son is the one who created.

Historical Events In The Earthly Life Of Christ

All right, next then in the Creed we have some affirmations of the outstanding historical events in the earthly life of Christ. “For us men in our salvation, he came down from heaven.” Remember that phrase, “came down from heaven”? The idea there is not spatial. But part of the argument at Nicaea was to say, the Son is the one who saved us. Only God can save us. We can’t work our way up. Only God can come down and get us. And so the affirmation is the Son came down to save us, to make us His, an affirmation of deity.

“By the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man.” That is the means by which Jesus has two natures, divine and human. It is by means of the virgin birth. “For our sakes, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” That’s the atoning death of Christ—not just crucified under Pontius Pilate, but for our sake, crucified. “Suffered death and was buried, rose again the third day in accordance with the scriptures.” It’s important for them to say that God had announced all of this about Him ahead of time. “And then he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.” Ascended into heaven, that’s Acts chapter one. Seated at the right hand of the Father, that’s Psalm 110. Jesus in His session, His mediatorial glory at the right hand of the Father. And then “he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.” So Christ then as God come to establish God’s eternal kingdom.

This then is Orthodox Christology; this is what Roman Catholics affirm, Eastern Orthodox affirm, all Protestants affirm, we affirm. This is what’s been given down to us and it was such a momentous moment in history and so well-defined that it has stuck with us and the creed is still valuable in that sense today. All right, this was a lot. This is about as deep as we’ve ever gone. This is about as deep as the Bible goes, I think. But it’s, I think, important for us to appreciate, one, just the mystery of the Trinity, and also by that, to come to a new appreciation of the glory of the Son.

All right, any questions? I hope that was clear. I really hope. All right, David? I’m sorry? Oh yeah, oh yeah. Now, there’ll be a liberal wing that doesn’t, just like there’s a liberal wing in the Protestant Church now that has gone sour, but officially, yes.

Pastor Boyd. “Maybe you want to just say a word about 1 John describing the spirit that is the Spirit of God. Is that which confesses this truth about Christ? And how do you then, or how do we then, properly understand the problem with Rome if it in fact confesses the same Christ?”

Well, because they define Him further in a different way when it comes to His work. And that’s the issue that Paul takes up in 1 Corinthians 10. It’s because of how we’re saved—how they say we are saved—that they preach a different Jesus. And it’s the same with Rome. We’re one with them on the Trinity. But when it comes to how God saves us, we are miles apart.

Yes, Eric. “Yes, sir. I’ve noticed also in the Apostles’ Creed that Pontius Pilate is mentioned, that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, which is certainly a historical fact. But why is he mentioned? Wouldn’t it have been adequate to say he was crucified, or quite unjustly?”

Yeah, I think it’s just to anchor it to the history. That’s all I can think. Let’s be precise with our history.

Yes, Clark. “Is it safe, or it might be a whole other discussion, but is it safe to say the Holy Spirit tends to point to Christ?”

We’ll deal with that next time, with the Holy Spirit. Yeah. All right, let’s close with a word of prayer. Pastor Boyd, would you pray for us, please?

“Father, we come today to give You thanks for Your Word that helps us understand who You really are and what Your relationship with Your Son is and what the relationship between the Son and You is with the Holy Spirit. These things, Father, are to some measure difficult for us to grasp because You are infinite and our minds are very, very finite. But you have given us revelation enough to know what we need to know. And we praise you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the Great One God. We ask you to bless the upcoming service. And we pray, Father, that in all things, we might glorify your name. In Jesus’ name, we pray.”

Yeah. I thought it was perfect for your title. Okay. Slight. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. No, they would let me go. I mean, the fact that I’m licensed again, they said I could restrict it to seven years. And I turned it down to only five. So I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school. And my next day, I was in high school for the first time. So I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high school, and I had to go back to high I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. I sit down. . Yeah. Right, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning and welcome to everyone to our very first in-person service of the new year. We did have a Zoom meeting online last week and we trust most of you were able to join that in that unexpected weather event. But today we are here in person for those here in Franconia, and we offer a very sincere and cordial welcome to all who are joining us online. We have not forgotten you. We welcome you as a part of our gathering.

I do want to go through several announcements before we have a word of prayer and then begin. First, just a reminder that we did not miss the service last week, but we missed the offering. And so if you would be so kind as to—we encourage you to make up what was missed last week as you can, either today or sometime soon in the near future, that would help us to stay on track in this new year with reference to our finances and our budget. Deacons will, are reminded about the two o’clock Zoom call this afternoon for your monthly meeting—or three o’clock rather, three o’clock, sorry—and then we’ll have the normal evening service at six tonight. I do want to read an announcement from the deacons with reference to a special function at which they’re opening up to those outside the diaconate.