A Firm Foundation 2

All right, well, welcome, friends. It's good to see you.

Last week, we considered the context for any affirmation of the authority of Scripture.

How our cultural context is one deeply suspicious of any claims to authority.

Come on in, friends. Just in time.

Our cultural context is one deeply suspicious of any claims to authority.

But we also considered how the biblical context answers this cultural concern

by revealing how God exercises his authority as an instrument of holy good.

We explored how worthy Jesus is of our trust.

As one who has authority, one meek and lowly of heart.

One who came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom.

Now, this morning, we want to consider more specifically God's authority as it is invested and involved in the Scriptures, the Christian Scriptures.

Now, the authority of Scripture, the Christian Scriptures, at least in the West, since the Enlightenment,

has come under unprecedented and sustained attack.

And indeed, for many traditional believers, this stress of this onslaught has proved absolutely overwhelming.

And they found themselves, often to their great sorrow and confusion,

bereaved of their once firm and fundamental conviction as to the trustworthiness and authority of the Bible.

John Ruskin, the greatest theet, confided to a friend that he broke out into cold sweat

at the sound of every strike of the geologist's hammer.

For fear that it would uncover something that would rob him of some precious Bible truth.

A loss that Matthew Arnold's poem, Dover Beach, likens to a receding tide.

The sea of faith was once too at the full and round earth shore lay like the fold of a bright girdled furled.

But now I only hear its melancholy, long withdrawing roar,

retreating to the breath of the night wing down the vast edges drear and naked shingles of the world.

Now, for some of you here, the notion of doubt dealing difficulties with the Bible is completely alien.

Whatever could they mean, problems with the Bible?

God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

If history or science or moral intuition seems to disagree with the scriptures,

so much the worse for history or science or moral intuition.

And indeed, perhaps, for some of you, the divine God-breathed character of the Bible

is reinforced every time you open its precious pages

and find in them the Savior you have come to love.

Its spiritual work of comfort and guidance and healing and succor is so deep and wonderful.

You could never doubt that the words of scripture are the very words of God.

But there are others in the Christian fold for whom their experience of the Bible

has raised many a question, some pressing.

Some pages of scripture are, for them, not obvious candidates for God's words.

These doubts, often agonizing, need not reflect infidelity.

They may come out of a context of faith and reflect something of Mary's query.

How can these things be?

And I want to direct my comments this morning chiefly to those among us

for whom these gnawing questions are a reality.

Who feel some difficulty in affirming the Bible in all of its parts as God's word

and as such divinely authoritative in all that it affirms.

And indeed, in all likelihood, largely inhabit a world in which such a conviction

is thought utterly implausible, ludicrous, even maybe morally reprehensible.

So I want to first suggest some lines of reflection,

which to my mind at least constitute strong grounds for maintaining the authority of the Bible,

even in the midst of persisting difficulties.

And our time will only allow me to be suggestive here, not exhaustive.

But I hope fruitfully to seed your own further reflections that they might have in them seminally

all that is needed for a harvest of strong conviction on this vital point.

So hopefully, then today, laying this foundation,

next week we'll take up the remaining sheer and stress on the structure,

the foundation that we've laid.

I will next week offer then some considerations,

which I hope will render any persistent problems a little bit less problematic.

How do we deal with the remaining doubt?

So that'll be next week, Lord willing, if we're there.

So let's begin with a word of prayer.

Father, as we take up this topic,

we especially crave the presence of your Holy Spirit,

both in your Spirit's clarifying work,

forming in us convictions,

and in his comforting work,

addressing our doubts and anxieties,

which can easily gnaw on our souls

and rob us of our joy.

So we ask for his presence,

confidently remembering your assurance

that it would indeed be so.

We commit our time to you.

In Jesus' name.

Amen.

Okay, here we go, team.

So let's consider some grounds

for maintaining the authority of Scripture.

And we're dealing with

a wonderfully rich tapestry of warrant here.

And any number of strands could be explored.

We might take up the claims

that Scripture makes for itself

in reference to its truthfulness.

So for instance,

Psalm 119, verse 60 says,

Psalms 119:60

the sum of your word is truth.

Notice, considering the whole collectively.

But then,

but then,

David goes on and states,

concerning its individual parts,

and every one of your righteous rules

endures forever.

Or Psalm 12, verse 6,

Psalms 12:6

the words of the Lord are pure words,

like silver refined in a furnace,

purified seven times.

clearly,

clearly,

no dross or ore,

mingled,

making it unreliable.

It's a real potent image, isn't it?

Refined seven times over.

And in fact,

the Hebrew word translated here as pure

gives us another image.

For it was that Hebrew word,

tahor,

tahor,

I'm not good at Hebrew pronunciation.

It was used,

that was the word that was used

to communicate ritual purity,

as was required for the sacrificial lamb,

without spot or blemish.

That's what God's word is like.

Utterly free from any defect,

like that sacrificial spotless lamb.

And any attentive reader of the scriptures

will know that such claims

are just studded throughout the Bible

and could be multiplied effortlessly.

These are just two.

They're so commonplace.

So that would be one strand of argument,

just going through and looking at

what sort of claims the Bible makes for itself.

Some might plausibly object,

well, wait a minute,

isn't that circular?

Yeah, I mean,

we want to know if we can trust the Bible.

So we look at the Bible

and the Bible says,

yes, it's trustworthy.

You know, it's circular.

Well, yes, it is.

But anytime you're arguing

for your final authority,

you will either be circular

or you will be inconsistent.

Because if I'm arguing for my final authority

and say, well, the Bible's authoritative

and I'm,

well, why do you believe that?

If I say, well,

it seems to make sense,

it pragmatically works out,

well, then my ultimate authority

is pragmatism,

not the word.

So you're either going to be circular

when you're arguing

for your final authority

or you're going to be inconsistent.

Makes sense to me.

Well, then reason is your final authority.

So you got to do that.

So there's one line.

What does the Bible say about itself?

But another particularly compelling line of thought

explores the attitude of Jesus himself

toward the scriptures.

And this would make sense

that we would consider that

because as disciples of Jesus,

what it means to be a disciple

is to conform our views

to the ones that Jesus had.

our thoughts,

we want to conform to his mind

in all matters

so we would naturally act.

Well, what was his view

of scripture's authority?

Seeking to adopt that very view

as our own

if we're his disciples.

And we can get at that,

his view,

straightforwardly revealed

in his direct statements.

And there are plenty of them.

So, for example,

on the Sermon on the Mount,

Matthew 5.18,

he says,

truly I say to you,

truly,

again,

a solemn asserberation.

I'm really confident about this.

Truly I say to you,

until heaven and earth

pass away,

not the smallest

letter or stroke

shall pass away

from the law.

And by law,

Jesus is just using

common parlance

of the Hebrew culture

in his day.

Not pointing to just

one single little bit

of scripture,

the law of Moses,

but speaking of the whole thing

as they commonly did,

considering it

in its commanding form.

Indeed,

taking up this very topic

that we are taking up

in its authoritative

commanding form.

All of scripture

commands us

because it comes

with God's authority.

So not a jot

or a tittle.

That is,

not the least part

shall prove to be

less than of

abiding authority.

Or,

as he tersely states,

recorded in John 10.35,

scripture cannot

be broken.

That is,

it can never fail

in its judgments

and statements

and is incapable

of proving false.

Or again,

Matthew 22.29,

is telling.

Regarding the

much married wife

conundrum

expounded by the Sadducees.

Remember that?

Jesus simply says,

oh,

you err,

not knowing

the scriptures.

Remember that?

That is,

had you known

the scriptures,

you wouldn't have

made this mistake.

The assumption

is clear.

Scripture is

an infallible guide

to truth

in these matters.

And had you clung

to it,

well,

you would have

been right.

Satan in the,

Jesus in the wilderness.

Oh,

that's a good one.

Yeah,

yeah.

That's,

yeah,

I'll get to that

in just a moment.

That's,

I will remember

that one.

So,

summing up

his conviction,

Jesus states

in the course

of his high priestly

prayer,

addressing the Father,

your word

is truth.

John 17,

17.

So these,

some of his

direct statements,

but even if we did

not have these

explicit statements

of Jesus

on the scriptures

authority,

just his whole

manner

is decisively

telling

in its

implicit

presupposition.

Again,

if you're familiar

with the gospels,

you're aware

of this reality.

To settle

any controversy,

Jesus simply

quotes scripture

as decisively

authoritative

to settle the matter

as he does

in Matthew 19,

Matthew 19:4

verse 4,

concerning divorce.

Oh,

here's a question

for you,

Jesus.

Oh,

have you not read?

This is what

the scripture says.

Boom.

End of issue.

As Jesus asserted,

and this is what

Raul just brought up,

Jesus asserted

against Satan

in the temptation,

Matthew 4,

4.

Man shall live

by every word

that proceeds

out of the mouth

of God.

And his practice

testifies

to his confidence

as to every word.

For Jesus

is quite comfortable

hanging his arguments,

letting them

turn entirely

on a single word

of scripture.

Even a single

tense

of a single

word

of scripture.

So,

for example,

we see this

in Matthew 22,

32.

Again,

taking up

with the Sadducees

on the matter

of the resurrection.

Remember that

where he says,

oh,

oh,

oh,

oh,

no,

no,

what do the scriptures

say?

I am

the God

of Abraham,

Isaac,

and Jacob.

In other words,

not I was their God

when they were alive.

I am

currently

their God.

In other words,

they are still

arrived.

God is still

their God

because they

are still alive.

Notice the whole

argument is just

on the tense

of that.

There's more

to the argument

to that,

but that's

a lot of it.

Not only

God is still

their God

because they

are still alive,

but they are

still alive

because God

is their God,

their personal God.

God is so

involved with them

intimately,

he can call them,

I am the God

of Abraham,

Isaac,

and Jacob.

I have a special

relationship,

an intimate

relationship with

them.

Therefore,

because that's

so,

it's impossible

to think that

they could just

die and go.

So that's part

of his argument,

but part of it

is just based

on the tense,

just the tense.

Recall his

remark in the

Sermon on the

Mount,

remember Matthew

5,

18,

authoritative

down to the

last stroke,

or in Hebrew

just jot or a

tittle,

the smallest

little,

he illustrates

his conviction

in reference

to Psalm 110

Psalms 110:1

verse 1

where he

points out,

do you remember

that passage

when he's

dealing with

the Pharisees

and asking,

hey,

think about

who the

Messiah is.

And he

points out

that David

calls the

Messiah

Lord.

The Lord,

God the

Father,

said to

my Lord,

the Messiah,

sit at thy

right hand,

and so forth.

But it all

pivots on

just one

stroke that

makes it a

reference,

David's reference

to my

Lord in

that.

one stroke

would have

been a

little bit

longer,

would have

changed the

reference on

that.

So the

argument depends

on just

slightly

lengthening the

tiniest little

jot.

The argument

depends on a

single stroke of

scripture,

and Jesus

doesn't hesitate

to confidently

assert it.

So this is his

practice.

I'm supposed to be

talking about good

books on these

as I go along.

So one of

these is John

Wenham,

an English

scholar,

and the book

is called

Christ and the

Bible.

It's an old

book,

but I don't

think it's

been improved

upon.

It's fantastic.

I think it was

out in 72,

University Press,

John Wenham's

Christ and the

Bible.

So I think

these in

themselves,

one,

we've looked

at the claims

of scripture

that it makes

for itself,

and the

attitude of

Jesus himself

concerning

scripture,

I think those

constitute good

grounds for

affirming

scripture's

authority.

And these

lines of

argument are

commonly and

justly invoked

and rightly

part of an

argument's

stout weave,

stout weave.

But the

strand that I

want particularly

to take up

and reflect

upon with you,

we might call,

or I'm going

to call it

this,

the Trinitarian

ontology of

scripture.

The Trinitarian

ontology of

scripture.

That is,

I want to

explore the

question,

what are the

implications

for the

character of

scripture,

of the

involvement in

them of the

trinity,

Father,

Son,

and Spirit?

What are the

implications for

the characters

of scripture,

of the

involvement in

them of the

trinity,

Father,

Son,

and Spirit?

And while we

will consider all

three persons of

the trinity,

and we'll kind of

go through them

one at a time,

given, as we

know, the

intimate relations

within the

trinity, a

crisp parsing

out of their

various involvements

is a little

artificial,

because you

say, wow,

is that really

the father?

Is that really

the son?

After all,

any action of

one person of

the trinity

entails the

involvement of

all, what

theologians call

the perichoresis,

or it's a

Greek word kind

of for an

interwoven or

interlocking

dance of

the persons

of the

trinity,

peri,

around,

choresis,

a choreography,

kind of an

interwoven dance

of all the

persons of the

trinity together

in all of

their activities.

So a little

bit of

artificial to

separate them

out.

But anyway,

even if we

can't separate

them out for

our purpose as

to the

involvements in

scripture of

the persons of

the trinity,

what counts is

not the

distinctiveness of

their involvement,

but it's

decisiveness.

That's really

what the

argument is

going to be

based upon.

So let's

go into

that.

What about

the involvement

of the

father?

Let's go

back to the

beginning and

reflect upon

the relationship

between God's

person and

the words that

he speaks.

And scripture

indicates a

very close

relationship

between them.

Think back

of Eden

where God

establishes a

relationship

between himself

and Adam

and Eve

in part

by means

of a

command.

Remember?

Do not

eat from

the tree of

the knowledge

of good and

evil.

And when

they disobeyed

this verbal,

this spoken

command,

they fractured

their relationship

with God

himself.

When his

words are

set aside,

he himself

is set

aside.

This helps

us to see

how God

has invested

himself in

his words.

Indeed, in a

sense, he has

identified himself

with his

words.

whatever

somebody does

with God's

words, they

do to

God

himself.

And this

covenantal, I

think we could

call it a

covenantal pattern,

runs throughout

scripture.

And it is the

fundamental way

his redemptive

relationship with

his people

unfolds and

is expressed.

The reality

and nature

of our

relationship

with God

is determined

by the

reality and

nature of

our relationship

to the

words God

speaks.

Think of

the Ark of

Covenant

containing the

tablets of

his words

to us.

His words

were the

mode by

which he

chose to be

present among

his people.

So God's

actions,

including verbal

actions, are

a kind of

extension of

himself.

To put

trust in

the covenant

words God

spoke to his

people was

to put trust

in God

himself.

So, and

think about

this,

communication

from God

is communion

with God

when met

with a

response of

trust.

Communication

from God

is communion

with God

when met

with a

response of

trust.

How we

might wonder,

did God

speak to

Adam and

Eve in the

garden or

to his

people,

Abraham,

Isaac,

Jacob,

Moses?

Well, we're

not told

how, but

as the

Old Testament

unfolds, one

form of

divine speaking

does emerge

as prominent.

God's speech

through his

appointed

prophets in

words that

they utter in

ordinary human

language.

And the

Bible gives

no worked

out theology

or philosophical

account.

we could

put some

together,

and some

have done

so,

of how

human words

can be

said to

be God's

words.

There's no

clear

philosophical

account for

that in

Scripture.

But it

does hint

as to how

it might

be.

It is

interesting,

and I

think significant,

that when

the Bible

speaks of

God creating

mankind in

his image

and likeness.

Though we're

not told

exactly what

this means

by being

created in

his image

and likeness.

We have,

remember,

we have

God speaking,

let us

make mankind

in our own

image.

Then,

he fashions

mankind

in his

likeness,

and then

immediately

addresses

them in

speech.

Could not

God's image

and likeness

then include

a capacity

for complex

language

reflecting

God's own

character?

Though I

don't think

that the

image of

God is

exhaustively

this,

it's more

than just

that,

it,

I think,

includes

this.

It is

this capacity

for complex

language.

That's part

of God's

image in

us.

And if

so,

that language

is a

divine gift

from God,

then it

is a

point of

contact,

not a

chasm

between

the human

and the

divine.

God's

mind.

And this

is where I

think a

lot of

people get

this wrong.

Well,

our language

is human

and how

could human

language actually

ever be a

point of

contact with

the divine,

the transcendent?

How could it

be?

Well,

what if

actually our

language capacity

is a gift

of God,

an endowment?

And that's

what it

seems to

be.

Then it

would be a

point of

contact,

not a

chasm

between us.

Our

language can

be made

by God

to speak

truthfully

of Him

because

our

language

has its

origin

in Him

and

in ways

requisite

for

communication

is like

His own.

So,

throughout

Scripture,

we see

Scripture

presented as

God's

Word.

It is

divine

rhetoric.

And not

only that

portion in

which His

very finger,

we are told,

inscribed the

words upon

stone tablets,

but also,

as mentioned,

the prophetic

word, the

words that the

prophets speak

are divine

rhetoric.

As a

test by

the

repeated

refrain

that we

see again

and again,

and the

word of

the Lord

came to

Amos,

and the

word of

the Lord

came to

Jeremiah,

and the

word of

the Lord

came to

again and

again and

again.

And this

is true

whatever

genre

happened to

be the

prophet's

medium.

Sometimes

poetry,

sometimes

song,

narrative,

apocalyptic.

It's all

the word of

the Lord

coming to

the prophet.

prophet.

As

Hebrews 1.1

tells us,

God spoke

in the

prophets

in many

portions

and in

many ways,

but it's

still all

God

speaking

in these

many ways.

Continuing

with the

involvement of

the Father,

in 2 Timothy

3.16,

Paul

describes

the relation

of the

Father to

Scripture

as one

of

literally

breathing

out

the

Scriptures.

Breathing

them

out.

All

Scripture

is

inspired

by God

and is

profitable

for and

on and

on it

goes.

And our

English

rendering

there

inspired

doesn't

really do

a great

job

translating

the

Greek

on this

because

you think

Shakespeare

is

inspired

or that

was an

inspiring

dessert.

But

literally

the word

theonoustos

literally

God

breathed.

So the

word,

the Scripture

is actually

exhaled

by God.

A lot

has been

written on

this.

Excuse me.

B.B.

Warfield

has done

extensive

work on

that.

In a

work called

The

Inspiration

and

Authority

of

Scripture

is

fantastic.

This

Swiss

scholar

Gausen.

And then

notice

all

Scripture

or

every

Scripture

could be

rendered

anyway

but it

doesn't

really

make

much

of a

difference.

All

involves

every

because

it is

all

inspired

not

just

the

bits

that

come

down

in

reported

speech

of the

Father.

The

bits

in

quotes

so to

speak.

Finger

on the

wall

many

many

you

have

been

weighed

in the

balances

and found

wanting

or the

voice

from

heaven

this

is my

beloved

son

in whom

I am

well

pleased.

We

might

call the

quotation

mark

bits

not

just

that

but

because

it's

all

expired

from

God

everything

it is

all

invested

with

God's

authority

and

this

conviction

Jesus

reflects

when

citing

bits

of

scripture

that are

actually

not

in

quotation

marks

even

though

it's

not

reported

speech

of

God

Jesus

says

well

just

quoting

any

bit

of

scripture

as

God

says

so

for

example

in

Matthew

19

when

he's

taking

up

the

question

of

divorce

he

says

well

God

says

and

then

he

quotes

a little

bit

that's

actually

Moses

speaking

but

in

Jesus

mind

it's

scripture

even

though

Moses

is

saying

it

so

God

says

it

God

says

it

man

shall

leave

and

cleave

and

the

two

shall

become

one

flesh

as

God

says

it's

actually

Moses

but

God

says

it's

it's

expired

by

God

this

relation

of the

father

to

scripture

is

true

not

simply

of the

Old

Testament

prophetic

voice

but

also

of the

New

Testament

apostolic

voice

for

they

also

spoke

under

the

same

divine

inspiration

thus

their

words

too

were

and

are

the

words

of

the

father

as

the

apostle

told

the

Thessalonians

this is

1st

Thessalonians

2

13

we

thank

God

that

when

you

receive

from

us

the

words

of

God's

message

you

accepted

it

not

as

the

words

of

men

in

other

words

not

merely

as

the

words

of

men

but

for

what

it

really

is

the

very

words

of

God

that

is

the

apostolic

speech

as

recorded

in

the

scriptures

are

not

merely

the

words

of

men

but

the

very

words

of

God

1st

Thess

2

13

so

that

on

the

involvement

of

the

father

it's

very

intimate

involvement

what

what

about

the

involvement

of

the

spirit

in

the

scriptures

2

Peter

1

21

reminds

us

of

the

remark

of

2

Timothy

3

16

about

all

scripture

being

inspired

but

here

2

Peter

1

21

focuses

on

the

relation

of

the

spirit

to

scripture

so

2

Timothy

talks

about

God

expired

but

in

the

2

Peter

passage

we

will

look

at

it's

the

spirit

effecting

effecting

it

Peter

writes

for

no

prophecy

of

scripture

he's

talking

about

scriptural

prophecy

no

prophecy

of

scripture

was

ever

made

by

an

act

of

the

human

will

but

men

moved

by the

Holy

Spirit

spoke

from

God

so

notice

the

Holy

Spirit

as

the

agent

the

instigator

and

every

once in

a while

you'll

encounter

some

regarding

either

implicitly

or maybe

even

explicitly

that

the

explicit

words

of

Jesus

somehow

in their

mind

possess

greater

authority

than the

rest of

scripture

you

know

all

that's

all

very

well

and

good

but

that's

Paul

or

that's

the

Old

Testament

but

what

does

Jesus

say

about

this

matter

I don't

know if

you've

ever

encountered

that

objection

as if

somehow

kind of

the

red

print

stuff

takes

on

greater

authority

you know

it's

from

the

horse's

mouth

and

somehow

makes

the

requirement

for

greater

clout

you know

give me

something

dominical

something

that

Jesus

said

but

But this distinction that we often hear is completely scuttled by an appreciation that Jesus' words are divine precisely because they are spirit-inspired.

Jesus' prophethood was a spiritual gift, a gift of the spirit.

It was the spirit's anointing that made his words God's.

As he said in the synagogue at the opening of his ministry, remember Jesus cites Isaiah 61.1.

The spirit of the Lord is upon me and appointed me to preach.

This is Luke 4.18.

So Jesus' speech is God's speech because it is the Holy Spirit's speech.

Because he was the spirit-anointed son.

And John 3.34 makes this point.

For he whom God has sent, speaking of Jesus, utters the words of God for, okay, it's giving an explanation, for, or reason.

For he gives him the spirit without measure.

Do you see that?

Because of the involvement of the Holy Spirit, Jesus' words are divine words.

Therefore, despite Jesus' uniqueness, his words are no more divine than those of the New Testament apostles or Old Testament prophets,

whose words were also uttered under the Spirit's mediation and agency.

Just as Jesus asserted in what we just crafted it.

As David said, through the Holy Spirit or by the Holy Spirit.

He talks about that again and again and again.

So, what this does, it keeps the words in red.

If you have a red print Bible, keeps the words from red from superseding those in black.

There is no difference in terms of their authority.

Because of inspiration and the involvement of the Spirit.

And just as the Holy Spirit conceived, anointed, and mediated the words Jesus spoke.

So, the Holy Spirit carried on this work in Jesus' absence in the words of the apostles.

And this was Jesus' own promise to them.

He writes,

These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.

But, the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,

he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

It's John 14, 25 and 26.

Or again, I have, Jesus speaking,

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot hear them now.

But, when he, the Spirit of truth comes,

he will guide you into all the truth.

For he will not speak on his own initiative,

but whatever he hears, hears me,

he will speak.

He shall take what is mine and disclose it to you.

John 16, 12 through 15.

So, as with the Word of God made flesh,

Jesus,

so with the Word of God made words,

the Scripture,

both are the work of the Holy Spirit.

So, the great work of the Holy Spirit,

the incarnation,

this is the Word of God made flesh,

and also,

in Scripturation,

the Word of God made words.

So, both the work of the Holy Spirit.

When he conceived,

when the Spirit conceived Jesus in Mary's womb,

she was, by the Spirit,

the Word-bearer,

logotakos,

the theologians say.

Her human body

introduced God's eternal Word

into the human world.

And likewise,

the prophets and the apostles

are word-bearers.

Logotakoi.

Word-bearers, just like Mary.

Okay?

And introduce God's eternal Word

into human words.

So,

we're saying the Spirit-conceived Son

is analogous,

at this point,

to the Spirit-conceived speech acts.

And incidentally,

just as Jesus

bore the marks

of his human bearer,

he's probably,

hey, you look just like Mary.

Oh, that did Joseph to you?

Well, not Joseph, sorry.

Just like Mary.

You look just like Mary.

Okay?

So, God's words

bear marks

of their human authors.

The apostles' personality,

diction,

idiom.

You can kind of tell the difference

between Peter, Paul,

and even the author of Hebrews.

So,

bear the marks.

Jesus in the Bible,

no less human for being divine.

You know,

you've got the hypostatic union,

no less divine for being human.

And you've got the verbal union,

the words of God

in the words of people,

no less divine for being human.

Analogous in that respect.

So, that on the spirit.

Well, let's finally consider

what is the involvement

of the Son,

God the Son,

Jesus,

in the scriptures.

First,

it's worth pausing

to notice that

with the incarnation

of the Son,

we have God's logos

introduced into

speaking humanity.

That means

the divine logos,

the second person

of the Trinity,

and wordly humanity

can and do

co-inhere.

They can come together.

None of this,

well, that's too transcendent

and our human language

is too imminent,

so the transcendent

can never connect

with the imminent.

No!

The incarnation does that.

That's exactly

what it does.

As an aside,

this means,

for one,

the troublesome

Kantian distinction,

you know,

for those of you

that do a philosophy

between the noumenal

and the phenomenal,

those two realms,

boy,

these two can't come together.

You know,

there's ever going to be

an inseparable bridge.

We can never,

you know,

from the phenomenon,

have any sort of

noumenal sense.

That dissolves

forever

with the annunciation

that God

has actually

come down

into the phenomenal.

That's a huge,

huge thing.

Since Jesus

is the incarnate

Son of God,

His words

are the words

of God,

the words of God

and also the words

from God,

surely without qualification.

That is,

Jesus' words

are the words

the Father gave to Him.

John 8, 28.

I do nothing,

Jesus says,

I do nothing on my own

but speak just

what the Father

has taught me.

John 12, 49.

I do not speak

on my own

but the Father

who has sent me

commanded me

to say

all that I have spoken.

John 17, 8.

I gave them

the words

you gave to me,

speaking to the Father.

the Father.

This implies