Truth Magazine

By Johnie Paul Edwards

In late January 1848 gold was discovered by James Mar-shall as he worked on John Sutter’s sawmill at Coloma, California. The news of gold in California began to spread across the nation and as the word leaked out, a “gold rush” erupted in northern California.

“Gold fever” raged eastward and by 1849 crowds of gold seekers were headed west on the trails, others by sea, making helter-skelter marches for California.

These “forty-niners” turned California into a land of untamed mining camps and boom towns. Boom-town California soon became a land of violence. Gold fever led to claim jumping, ambusing and murder! American miners looked on each other with dislike and distrust.

Now here we are, nearly a century and a half later and things really have not changed very much. (Have you noticed the lines at the supermarket to buy lottery tickets?) Man continues to eagerly pursue that which is to be shunned, to the eternal loss of his own soul.

The Love of Money Is the Root of All Evil

This “gold fever” that has been afflicting mankind for generations is nothing more than the “love of money” (1 Tim. 6:10). The assertion is not concerning money, which, is neither good nor bad in itself, but concerning the love of money. It is really a root-sin, for it leads to care, fear, malice, deceit, oppression, envy, bribery, perjury, and contentiousness. Surely men today need no proof of the fact that men and women will commit any sin or crime for money.

Louisa Clapp produced what historians now consider to be the best accounts of gold-rush life ever writtern. In her “Gold-Rush Chronicler” she described the violence. “In a short space of twenty-four days,” she wrote in July of 1852, “We have had murders, fearful accidents, bloody deaths, a mob, whippings, a hanging, an attempt at suicide and a fatal duel.”

A root of all evil lies in one with the love of money. There is no kind of evil to which a man may not be led through an absorbing greed for money. This passion, this covetousness, is to be “put to death” (Col. 3:5).

They That Will be Rich

Fall Into Temptation and a Snare

Paul said, “But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition” (1 Tim. 6:9). The idea is that some desire to be rich; will to be rich at any cost and in haste (Prov. 28:20). The money-lover, by putting a false value upon money, makes it a snare and an instrument of hurt to himself and others. Jesus spoke of those who “trust in riches” (Mk. 10:24). The love of money often leads one into impiety and crime, and through them to sorrows and perdition. Greed for the wages of unrighteousness urged Balaam on to his destruction (2 Pet. 2:15). Greed for money made Judas a thief, a traitor, and a murderer of the Lord. This desire to be rich is only a snare, set by the devil (1 Tim. 3:7) to entrap us in sin.

Godliness and Contentment Is Great Gain

Paul wrote, “But godliness with contentment is great gain. . . And having food and rainment let us be therewith content” (1 Tim. 6:6,8). The godly man is rich indeed, for he has acquired riches, which, unlike the riches of this world, he can take away with him (compare Lk. 12:31-34). We have good reason to be content. We brought nothing into this world and can carry nothing out! Instead of reaching after worldly riches, procure the true wealth, and become rich in righteousness, godliness, fatih, love, patience, and meekness (1 Tim. 6:11).

Avoid the “fever” that leads to “helter-skelter” marches to the supermarket for lottery tickets by putting your trust in the living God “who giveth us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 15
June 17, 1993

By Circuit Judge Leah M. Lampone

(Introductory Note: Leah Lampone received her law degree from. Marquette University. After serving as a clerk in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney.

When she was 31 years old, in 1979, she was elected and named Circuit Judge. She once said she became a lawyer because she wanted to be something more than just “an Italian mother whos always there to wash clothes, wipe noses and cook meals.” The envy of women who long to be “liberated” from home life, she recently ruled that “a reordering of my priorities is over-due” and stepped down [or up] from her role as a judge to be a full-time wife and mother. Mrs. Lampone at first temporarily left the bench when Patrick was born to her and her husband, Kevin. Now 44 years old, she wrote the following letter resigning her position altogether.

The God who made us male and female said in the long ago concerning the womans role, fulfillment, and happiness:

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Tim. 2:14).

I will therefore that the young women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully (1 Tim. 5:14).

That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed (Tit. 2:4-5).

Submitted by Ron Holbrook, 654 Gray Street, West Columbia, Texas 77486)

With the scheduled day of my return to the bench swiftly approaching, it has become increasingly clear that more important work calls me.

“With the right person elected, they ma-son, all will be well. They look to the schools to educate and instill values in their children; the social service system to feed, clothe and nurture them; the police to stop them from being victimized by out of control violence; and the courts to break the endless cycle of child neglect and crime. Unfortunately, government programs  well-intentioned though they may be  cannot stop the erosion.”

As I write, I gaze upon my newborn son  an answer to our years of prayer, unexpectedly granted late in life. Patrick is napping now, exhausted from his mornings work: viewing the world from his mothers shoulder.

He sleeps secure in the knowledge that upon his waking cry he may reclaim his rightful perch. The burden of his weight on my no-longer youthful back is lightened by the knowledge that this tender nurturing will have a lifelong impact on his perception of himself and the world around him.

My decision to leave the bench was not easily made. I hope I have served well the trust the people of Wisconsin have placed in me. Yet the job I leave has changed dramatically from that which I first undertook.

In each of my judicial assignments over the years, I have seen, heard and felt the unraveling of society palpably as a slap in the face.

Caught in the trap of lifelong welfare dependence, generations of impoverished and dysfunctional mothers – ignorant of the need for nurturance and incapable of adequate parenting – have produced children bereft of hope and vision and without the capacity for empathy for another human being. (I omit fathers here only because in many cases we see today, they have seemingly become superfluous after conception.)

In this environment, brutality and cruelty have become commonplace. Lawlessness has become blatant. Crimes are committed no longer only under cover of night, but in broad daylight without a hint of shame.

As a substitute for the structure, control and education that the family once provided, people now turn to the government. Ancient values of self-reliance and responsibility for, and to, family are seemingly dying.

With the right person elected, they reason, all will be well. They look to the schools to educate and instill values in their children; the social service system to feed, clothe and nurture them; the police to stop them from being victimized by out-of-control violence; and the courts to break the endless cycle of child neglect and crime.

Unfortunately, government programs – well-intentioned though they may be – cannot stop the erosion. We cannot be the nurturing parents that the people who come before us never had.

Faced with this reality, our job (in the court system) has become frustrating, as the Band-Aids we apply do little to halt the rapidly spreading cancer.

With these thoughts in mind, a reordering of my priorities is overdue.

Looking back upon my years as both judge and mother, I have come to realize that the greatest impact I have made in any life is that which Ive made in the lives of my own children.

I have less than another decade to spend with my Daniel (age 11) and my Michael (age 9) before they are off to their lifes adventure.

I wistfully dream of freezing time for a few years and thank the Lord for Patrick, who has his entire childhood yet ahead of us.

While I suppose I could continue as both judge and mother, at age 44, after the stress of a hard day, I doubt I could be all the mother that two young boys and an infant deserve.

Patrick calls, and hence I must close – both this letter and my career in the judiciary.

I leave with alarm at what I have seen daily. I leave with the warning that we as a culture must end the cycle of pro-creation without committing to parenting. We must do what we can to discourage dysfunctional household units, and abdication to the government of the familys role in teaching moral, spiritual and social values. 

Continuation on our current course will render our courts to being little more than process centers for movement through foster homes, treatment centers and penal institutions.

Hopefully, by investing more of my time in my own home, I will look up at the end of my life to see three young men, emotionally vibrant and self-reliant, ready to face their lifes drama.

With that solid foundation, perhaps they will be better equipped to meet the challenge of putting back together the pieces of society we let crumble in our hands. (Reprinted by permission from Reminisce, January/February 1993, pp. 60-61).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 1
July 15, 1993

By Jimmy Tuten

Several years ago I ran across an interesting item concerning an animal that I had never heard of: the ermine. This little creature is small by comparison to others in the weasel family, being only 5-10 inches long in body length with a tail 1-6 inches long. Its habitat is the northern regions of Europe. It has soft, white fur with a black tip on its tail. Its highly prized fur is used generally for women’s coats. However, the value of the fur is such that it is coveted for people of rank. The state robes of judges is trimmed with this precious fur because it is considered symbolic of purity and honor.

This little weasel takes great pride in its fur coat and does everything possible to protect it against anything that would spoil it. It is said that fur hunters take cruel advantage of the ermine’s care to keep its coat clean. To catch this wiry little creature hunters will find its home and daub the en-trance and interior with filth. Then their dogs give chase. Frightened, the ermine heads straight for its refuge. When it finds its quarters covered with uncleanness it refuses to enter because it will not spoil its coat. It had rather face the fierce onslaught of the hounds rather than spoil its purity. It will not allow itself to be contaminated with impurity even though it costs its life.

We, as Christians, should be just as concerned about our purity. It should be so precious to us that we would protect it at all costs. Having been washed in the blood of the Lamb of God (1 Pet. 1:19) and our robes having become white as snow (Rev. 7;14), we should abstain from “all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22). The Christians in Rome were told to “abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good” (Rom. 12:9). The Christian of the 1990s, like those who have gone before us, must have a devotion unpolluted and unmixed with the world. The failure to keep oneself from fresh defilement will result in a faith that is weakened and a diluted devotion. James tells us to keep ourselves unspotted from the world (Jas. 1:27). We must guard ourselves against the contaminations of the world, its pursuits, ambitions and sinful pleasures. If we want to live with God eternally then our faithfulness should be our first concern. It should be our priority in life. The word “unspotted” means “without spot, blemish or stain.” We cannot allow the world to splash us with its filth and pollution. The world can make us unclean (1 Jn. 5:19). “Friendship with the world is enmity with God” (Jas. 4:4). In light of this, how meaningful are Peter’s words: “but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:15-16). Would you go into a coal mine while you were wearing a white tuxedo? Certainly not! You would give it wide berth. You would not even see how close you could get and stay clean. It requires rare moral courage to resist evil, and to brave the contempt that could result from living a worthy life (“wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them into the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you,” I Pet. 4:4). God will take nothing less than a pure life (Jn. 17:15-16).

Some may ask, “How do I go about keeping myself pure and clean?” The answer is contained in many references that have to do with the Christian’s salvation. However we will look at that of James 1:27 and see the importance of keeping ourselves undefiled with the world. The word “keep” stresses the idea of practice and the word “unspotted” denotes being unstained. This same word was used to describe Christ as a lamb for sacrifice (1 Pet. 1:19). This is obviously the significance of Romans 12:1-2, that is, the offering of ourselves as a “living sacrifice.”

Perhaps purity is not the dearest thing in our lives becuase we have never experienced the joy of the cleansing of the old man of sin (Rom. 6:6). Because all have sinned (Rom. 3:32), all men need the defilements of sin removed. This is done by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:8-9). The blood is applied in baptism (Rom. 6:1-6), and even after walking in “newness of life,” his blood continues to cleanse when we meet the conditions for forgiveness (1 Jn. 1:7-9). Like the ermine of the northern countries we too must purpose to keep ourselves in the love of God (Jude 21). This is the meaning of working out our salvation and the purifying of our-selves (1 Pet. 1:22; Phil. 2:12).

Imagine the effects in this life of not allowing the demoralizing influenceof the world to impact our personal purity (Jas. 1:27)! Look at a couple of them: (1) For us personally, it demonstrates that in view of the second coming of Jesus Christ we are diligent to be found by him spotless and blameless (2 Pet. 3:14). (2) As far as others are concerned, we are trying to effect an influence for good (Matt. 5:16). Negatively speaking, the unspotted life keeps one from becoming a stumbling block (Tit. 2:7-8).

Our society is “adrift without moral rudder” (Cal Thomas, The Tampa Tribune). The primary reason is the failure of individuals within it to develop right values and to resist evil. To change the direction in which things are turning, we, ourselves, must be willing to comform to the will of God. “Keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). The challenge must be recognized and accepted. Only then will our influence and that of the church affect our society for good. “Neither yield ye yourselves as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6:13).
Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 14-15
June 17, 1993

By Mike Willis

Whenever a subject becomes controversial, it is inevitable that some folks will complain when the subject is addressed. Some questions have arisen over the nature of Jesus in recent years. A word or two about such controversies is in order. This article is designed to ~weigh arguments and to point out their consequences as we see them, although some brethren do not embrace the consequences of their argument which are mentioned. My purpose is not to question the motives and intentions of people but to test their arguments. When names are mentioned, some people see “red” and jump to the conclusion that the speaker or writer assigns every one who disagrees with him on any point in any measure to the infernal regions. It is not out of order to warn that someone has departed from the faith (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 6:5,21; 2 John 9-li). Names may also be properly mentioned to identify more precisely certain views and their origins and in order to special the questions, issues, and problems to be addressed. While I find it disagreeable to have to disagree with my brethren in Christ on any occasion, it is imperative that we search the Scriptures, whether these things are so (Acts 17:11). Such study at times involves controversy but we are convinced that it can be conducted on a high plain and that good will result in spite of any pain we suffer in the process of controversy. Open study and controversy are not sectarian but help to stave off a sectarian spirit. Open discussion and debate do not create parties, but prevent parties from forming and growing. Open study and controversy constantly remind us that our loyalty is to the Lord and the truth, not to any man, paper, group, organization, school, or business (I Cor. 4:6).

The Nature of Jesus Controversy

Over the past several years, a controversy has raged over the nature of Jesus, The issue has focused on John Welchs (and a few others) teaching that, in becoming a man, Jesus divested himself of certain attributes of deity. Among those attributes of which he divested himself, brother Welch affirms, is his ability to work miracles by his own inherent power. Brother Welch affirms that Jesus worked miracles just as the apostles did through the Holy Spirit giving him this power.

The assertion has been made that Jesus gave up the “independent use” of his powers. If by this someone means that Jesus could not work a miracle without divine approval from the Father, I ask when did he ever do anything without divine approval from the Father? Jesus did not act outside the Fathers will before coming to earth, much less while appearing as a man. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always acted as one.

The affirmation that Jesus is deity is an affirmation that Jesus has the attributes of deity. To affirm belief in the deity of Christ while denying that he has the attributes of deity is a contradiction. One shows the deity of Christ by showing that he possesses the attributes of deity. The denial that Jesus has the inherent power to work miracles is an assault against his deity, whether or not intentional.

I would like to examine the argument that Jesus gave up his omnipotence by looking at some of the passages used to defend the assertion. When the controversy first erupted, I was studying Johns gospel using Lenskis excellent commentary. As I read, I marked several comments which I think you will find worthwhile and pertinent to this discussion. Whereas I do not endorse every position which Len-ski holds, I think these comments regarding the Lords nature are useful.

Explanation of Passages Used to Defend the Position

1. Acts 10:38. Luke records, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him” (Acts 10:38). This passage is used to prove that Jesus could not work miracles until God anointed him with power by the sending of the Holy Spirit. This passage must be interpreted in harmony with those which affirm Jesus ability to work miracles, such as John 10:18 where Jesus said of his life on earth, “No man taketh it from me, but flay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and /have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” In Matthew 8, a leper came to Jesus and said, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” Jesus responded, “I will; be thou clean” (8:2-3). These passages show that Jesus had the inherent power to work miracles.

A better understanding of Acts 10:38 is to interpret it in the same manner as we interpret the creation account. Father, Son and Holy Spirit worked together in creation. Genesis 1:1-2 relates that God created the heavens and the earth; the activity of the Holy Spirit is also mentioned (cf. Gen. 1:1-2). Nevertheless, the New Testament clearly affirms that Jesus was the active agent of creation On. 1:3; Col. 1:16). In a similar way, all members of the God worked in redemption. If we can understand creation without denying the inherent omnipotence of each member of the Godhead, we should also be able to understand how the three worked together during Jesus earthly ministry without denying the omnipotence of any. The point is to understand that the Godhead works in perfect unity, never one member acting unilaterally or independently from the others.

The unity of the Godhead in the working of miracles is also seen in the working of miracles after Jesus ascended into heaven. Paul wrote, “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all” (I Cor. 12:4-6). In these verses, Paul affirms that the nine different spiritual gifts proceeded from the one Spirit, served the one Lord (Jesus), and were the workings of the one God. If we can understand the unity of the Godhead in the working of miracles through the apostles and prophets, we should also be able to comprehend that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one in all that Jesus did. Jesus statements that he did not act alone in what he did are statements of his unity with the Father and Spirit, not proofs that he lacked omnipotence.

2. Acts 2:22. Luke said, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22). This passage should be understood just like Acts 10:38, to be affirming the unity of the Godhead.

3. John 5:30-31. The context of this passage is. Jesus healing the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda. Not only did Jesus miraculously heal the man, he also knew his history (5:6, an evidence of his omniscience). The Jews charged Jesus with sin because he told the man to take up his bed and walk on the Sabbath day, which they considered to be a violation of the Sabbath law. Jesus responded by saying, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (5:17). The Jews correctly understood this to be an affirmation of Jesus being equal with God (5:18). Jesus argued, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth…” (5:19). Notice these affirmations by Jesus: (a) He sees what the Father does; (b) He does what the Father does; (c) The Father shows the Son all that he does. In v. 21, the Son affirms his ability to raise the dead saying, “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” The reference to Jesus will (“whom he will”) shows the inherent power of Christ. He asserted himself to be the judge of mankind (5:22). In verse 23, he stated that men should honor the Son just as they honor the Father, a bold assertion of his equality with the Father and his omnipotence. Whatever Jesus meant in vv. 30-31 must not be interpreted to conflict with these bold statements.

In vv. 30-31 Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because 1 seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which bath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” This passage has been interpreted by brother Welch and several others to mean that Jesus could not work miracles without God giving him the power. This is not what Jesus was affirming. What he was saying was this: Nothing he was doing emanated from his own will and initiative. He did not act outside of the divine will, like a David Koresh; rather, he did the Fathers will in all things. Lenski correctly explains this idea on John 5:19 saying, “The very relation of the Son to the Father makes it simply impossible (ou dunatay that Jesus should do (poiein, now or ever) anything of himself, aph heautou, so that the thing would emanate from him alone and be done by him alone, separate and apart from the Fathers will  even as the Jews charged that Jesus was breaking Gods Sabbath law” (379). On vv. 30-31, he refers us to the comment on 5:19 (400) and adds, “Not a single word that Jesus utters in stating a judgment, whether it be on men, believers or unbelievers, or on matters or subjects of any kind, or on his own person and work, ever deviates from, or clashes with, the word of his Father” (401). The Godhead is perfectly united in all of its work.

Since this verse and several which follow are identical in nature, I need to add this note to mention the similarity of the words spoken by Jesus with reference to himself with those spoken about the Holy Spirit. If the words that “Jesus did not speak of himself” prove that he has given up his omnipotence, they must mean the same thing when spoken of the work of the Holy Spirit. In John 16:13, Jesus said, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.” Lenski observed, “As regards the source the Spirit will be exactly like Jesus, 12:49; 14:10; compare 7:16; 8:28; 14:24. Not from himself is, of course, an impossibility for the Spirit as it is for Jesus. It merely wards off a human notion that anything coming from the Spirit could be an invention of his own. A spirit who would speak from himself could not be the Spirit of truth but would be the spirit of falsehood, like him who spoke to Eve through the serpent, 8:44” (1091). If a person can under-stand that “he shall not speak of himself” is not a denial of the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit, but an affirmation of the unity of the Godhood on what is being revealed, he should be able to see that the same is true when spoken of Christ. There is perfect unity in all the actions and operations of the Godhead.

4. John 6:38. Jesus said, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” The context of this passage is the feeding of the 5000 from five loaves and two fish and the subsequent miracle of walking on the water and miraculous transporting of the boat. All of these miracles were performed by Jesus as evidence that he is the Son of God. This passage is affirming the same idea as was mentioned in John 5:30-31. Jesus did not act without divine authority and on his own initiative, as a Joseph Smith did. Lenski again comments, “Only then is unbelief in Jesus justified when it is able to prove that Jesus is doing only his own will and not the Fathers will” (467). Quite the contrary, Jesus is affirming that the miracles which he performed and the words which he spoke were not the words of a man speaking without divine authority; he was affirming that he was doing the Fathers will. He was boldly affirming the perfect harmony between the Father and himself and thus the unity of the Godhead.

5. John 7:16-18, 28. This passage records Jesus visit to Jerusalem at the feast of the Tabernacles. The Jews were ready to put Jesus to death, but Jesus as omnipotent God was in total control of the situation. He said that his death would not occur at that hour because his time was not yet come (7:6,30). Jesus controls the world and its operations (Col. 1:16). He did not relinquish that control, to leave the world without a sustainer, when he became a man.

In these passages, Jesus said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him” On. 7:16-18). In v. 28, he added, “Ye both know me, and ye know whence 1 am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.” Like the preceding two passages, this passage is not affirming that Jesus has de-rived authority and power, but affirming that he is only teaching that which is the will of the Father. Lenski explains, “The wonderful feature about the doctrine Jesus taught is that it is not his own at all, in the sense that he, like some human philosopher, had himself invented, had produced from his own human brain” (542). In teaching as in everything else, the Godhead is perfectly united, and Jesus proves himself to be God in the flesh.

6. John 8:28. Jesus said, “When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” Like the preceding passages, this passage affirms the unity of Jesus and the Father, not an inequality of the two. Notice the bold affirmations of this text: (a) The Son of man knew that he would be lifted up in crucifixion (an evidence of his omniscience); (b) He affirmed that he was the same “I am” as was mentioned in 8:24 (“ye know that I am he”); (c) He affirmed that he was taught of the Father.

This passage must not be separated from its context which affirms: (a) To know Jesus is to know the Father also (8:19); (b) His knowledge of his divine origin (8:23; brother Welch has written that in becoming a man Jesus also left behind his omniscience and that as he approached death he was uncertain about the existence of God, what lay beyond this earthly realm and such like things. This passage shows Jesus awareness of who he is.); (c) His assertion that he was the “I am” (8:24); (d) He had heard the Father speak (8:26). What Jesus was saying in his statement that “I do nothing of myself” is that he is not acting outside the will of the Father. While proving himself to be a person in the Godhead, Jesus teaches the perfect unity and harmony of the Godhead.

7. John 12:49-50. The context of this passage is the final week of Jesus life. He had entered Jerusalem on Sunday. He was aware of his hour having come (12:23). (Notice Jesus omniscience and total control [note his omnipotence] of the circumstances surrounding his death. The circumstances of his death were not happenstance; God the Son controlled the hour of his death.) Jesus quoted a passage regarding Jewish unbelief in spite of his miracles (12:40-41) and John adds that it was written by Isaiah “when he saw the Lords glory” (12:41). The passage is a quotation from Isaiah 6 when Isaiah saw the throne of God. John identified Jesus as the God whom he saw, a clear affirmation of Jesus deity. In v. 48, he affirmed that his words would judge men in the last day, a strong statement from a mere man!

In vv. 49-50, Jesus said, “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” Like the previous passages, this passage is not denying Jesus inherent power, but denying that he is acting outside the divine will of his Father. The passage affirms Jesus deity: (a) He knows what the Father speaks; (b) He speaks what the Father speaks. Unlike the apostles and prophets whose words were the words of God only when they were speaking under inspiration, every word that Jesus spoke was the word of God, because he was God. In speaking, teaching, and commanding, the Godhead was perfectly united.

8. John 14:10. Let us not neglect the context of this passage. Jesus had assembled with the Twelve on the night of his betrayal. He instructed them to believe in him just as they believed in the Father (14:1). He announced that he was going away to prepare heaven for them (14:2). He affirmed that to see him was to see the Father (14:9). Then he added, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (Jn. 14:10). This passage plainly affirms that (a) Jesus is in the Father and (b) the Father is in Jesus. Again, he emphasized that his teachings were not the product of mere human reasoning and philosophy; his words were the divine will of God. Rather than denying Jesus inherent power, these words are affirming a total unity with the will of God. Lenski comments:

The very utterances (rhemata not logoi) by which Jesus ex-presses his thought (hence leg(i) he utters (hence talc) not “from himself,” as being devised like the utterances of men by their own minds. This negation implies the affirmation: My utterances are derived from the Father; they are really his. This is clear evidence of the oneness of Jesus with the Father. Every time Jesus opens his mouth (lalo, rhemata/ to say something (lego) it is the Father who speaks through his mouth. Not that Jesus is a phonograph or an automaton. Then he and the Father would be anything but one, he would be nothing. This oneness and identity of even the very utterance evidences a oneness of the two persons concerned. For Jesus is not like the prophets who must say, “Thus saith the Lord,” showing that God uses them only as instruments and messengers. Quite the opposite. When Jesus opens his lips, he, indeed, speaks (lald and (ego), every word and utterance is truly his; but what he says and the words he employs, every word and utterance, are the Fathers own thought and speech. The two speak as one because they are one, Jesus in the Father, the Father in Jesus (985).

It is evident that these passages which some brethren quote in claiming that Jesus utterly divested himself of the powers and prerogatives of deity actually affirm that Jesus is fully divine and the Godhead works in perfect harmony.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 2
July 15, 1993