Dr. S. Lewis Johnson expounds the Gospel of John description of Christ become flesh according to God's plan.
[AUDIO BEGINS] …section of the word of God, which he have been studying together. We thank Thee for the truths that concern the word of God. And now, Lord, as we consider the word becoming flesh we pray that our understanding may be deepened and that we become more appreciative of all that we have in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Enable us Lord to respond to the revelation found in the word of God in a way that will honor Thee, glorify Thy name. Give, Lord, the blessing that each of us needs. And we pray that out time together may be profitable for the glorification of the name of Christ our Savior. And we ask this in him and for his sake. Amen.
[Message] Tonight we are looking again at the prologue of John’s Gospel and our subject is still the Johannine prologue, “The Silence Broken”. And I thought, I must say, that tonight I would finish this. But I’m positive that I’m not and so we’ll have to conclude next week.
John 1 verse 1 through 18. And I would like to begin by reading verses 14 through 18, although we’ll concentrate our attention upon verse 14. We read here,
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’” For of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
With the fourteenth verse of John chapter 1 we come to one of the great subjects of the Bible, the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Putting it in the theological way we might say that at this point we have the incarnation or the assumption of the human nature by our Lord.
One of the commentators who has written a recent commentary on the Gospel of John has said, “But in one short shattering expression John unveils the great idea at the heart of Christian, that the very word of God took flesh for man’s salvation.” And of course, that short shattering word is the expression that opens verse 14, “And the word became flesh.”
Martin Luther, in speaking about the incarnation said that a person would need a new tongue in order to set forth truly the incarnation of the Lord Jesus. Because take a look at the first verse again in the light of this fourteenth verse. In verse 1 we read, “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God.” Notice that little prepositional phrase, “with God.” “The word was with God.” But now, in verse 14 he is with us. And so the one who existed throughout all eternity in fellowship with the father, “with God,” is now “with us men.” It is a short and shattering expression. And of course, the rest of the New Testament does confirm the fact that this is at the heart of Christianity. It is a very important doctrine naturally. That should be obvious to us because it is the first step in the earthly career of the promised seed.
As Bishop Rile used to say in connection with the incarnation, “As a result of the word becoming flesh, it is not possible for the word of God to die. And it is also possible for him to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and therefore be our great high priest. And it is also possible now for him to leave us an example that we should follow in his steps.” And one could go on and on because the doctrine of the incarnation is truly at the heart of the doctrines of the New Testament.
Now, we have noted in our study of this great prologue of the Gospel of John, that it is arranged in concentric circles so far as its structure is concerned. In the opening verses John spoke of the word in eternity and among men. And then he narrows his interests and in verse 6 through verse 13 he speaks of the word in history and among the Jews. And finally, in the latter part of the prologue, the third part, he narrows his interest even further and here he speaks of the word in history and among believers. You’ll notice as we begin this fourteenth verse that the prologue, I’m not doing that. [Laughter] I have a southern ancient, but not quite that bad.
Now, in this fourteenth verse you will notice that we have here a change in the person of the author. We have here reference now to the first person rather than the third person. You’ve noticed up to this point that that is what we’ve been having. In the beginning, I don’t know how long this is going to have to go on. [Laughter] Every time I look at a period here it sounds that way, so I’m trying to avoid them. [Laughter] You’ll notice in the opening thirteen verses John speaks in the third person. He says, “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” But now in fourteenth we have for the first time the first person. “And the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
So let’s look now at the incarnation. This is capital A in our outline. Verse 14, the incarnation. “If this is dull,” exclaims Dorothy Sayers, “then what in heaven’s name is worthy to be called exciting?” “The word became flesh.” Now, let’s think for a moment about that word became because in the first verse we read, “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God.” In the first verse John uses the imperfect tense of the verb to be, which is suggestive of a continuing existence in past times. “In the beginning the word was, and the word was with God,” and you can put, of course, all of the ages of eternity past in that word “was”. But now in verse 14, and evidently it is written with verse 1 in mind. We read, “And the word became flesh.” So here the term became suggests a coming into being. Phorgenomai, which is the verb that is used here, means literally “to come to be”.
Now, you can see then that his verse bears on the doctrine of the Trinity. In the beginning the word was, but the word became flesh. And the interpretation, incidentally, is not easy. I think we can say these things about this became. It does not mean that there existed as a result of the incarnation, a kind of transubstantiation. The word did not cease to be God when the word became flesh. Incidentally, this word flesh is an attempt on the part of John to express the idea of humanity. And I’ll say one more word about it in just a moment. But when we read, “And the word became flesh,” we are saying that the word took human nature. But it does not mean that because it says, “the word became flesh,” it does not mean that he ceased to be God when he took to himself a human nature, an additional nature. “When the wife of Lot,” one of the commentators points out, “becomes a pillar of salt she ceases to be the wife of Lot. But when Lot becomes the father of Moab and Ammon he remains Lot.” The term become may indicate a total change or it may indicate only a partial change. And here it is evidentially a partial kind of change. It does not mean that he ceased to be God. It does not mean alteration. In other words, the Trinity is still composed of three person, although the middle person is now no longer simply God the Son. But we rather have, God the Seven who is also God man so that now from this time on the second person of the Trinity is the God man. When the Lord Jesus took this human nature to himself it was a betrayal for eternity. It was not for a time and so our Lord is forever the God man. We read in the New Testament later on there is on mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. So the Lord Jesus took to himself, being the eternal second person, the son. He took to himself an additional nature and it was just like a wedding because it was forever. That’s the way weddings ought to be. They should be forever under the circumstance of this life here. In other words, divorce is something that one cannot even think about according to Scripture.
So here the Son of God took to himself a human nature and from this time on he is the God man. I think you can see something of the condescension of the Son of God in this, that he would take to himself an additional nature knowing that this was for all of the ages of eternity. So we have here then still a Trinity of three persons, but the middle person is now no longer simply God the son, but the God man.
Another thing that it does mean then is that there is a modification that exists in the Trinity as a result of the incarnation. The word of God does not have a new existence because as we’ve said he’s just as much Son of God before as after. But he does have a new form of existence. And so now the one person, the second person, has two natures and is the God man. One person, two natures, we cannot divide the person nor should we confound the natures.
Let me illustrate this with a passage from one of the outstanding theologians. In my mind it’s one of the finest illustrations of what it means to be one person with two natures. Professor Shedd has said, “A man may have two forms of consciousness, yet with only one self-consciousness. He can feel cold with his body while he prays to God with his mind. These two forms of conscious experience are wholly diverse and distinct. He does not pray with his body. He does not feel cold with his mind. Yet this doubleness and distinctness in the consciousness does not destroy the unity of his self-consciousness.” I’m sure you see that, that it is the same person who may feel cold with his body but also pray with his mind. So in our Lord there is one person, though he has two natures and therefore has two forms of consciousness, only one form of self-consciousness however. Shedd goes on to say, “So also Jesus Christ as theoanthropic person,” that term is a theological term in case you did not catch that. It means a God man kind of person. Theos meaning God. Anthropos meaning man. So a theoanthropric person, if you want to convince your friends that you know a little theology speak of our Lord Jesus as the theoanthropic second person of the Trinity.
Also, Jesus Christ as a theoanthropic person was constituted of a divine nature and human nature. The divine nature had its own form of experience, like mind in an ordinary person. And the human nature had its own form of experience, like the body in a common man. The experiences of the divine nature were as diverse from those of the human nature, as those of the human mind are from those of the human body. Yet, there was but one person who was the subject ego of both of those experiences. At the very time when Jesus Christ was conscious of weariness and thirst by the well of Samaria, he was also conscious that he was the eternal and only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. This is proved by his words to the Samaritan woman, “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up unto everlasting life. I that speak unto thee am the Messiah.” So the person who spoke these words out of his divine personality is also at that well weary because of the tiredness of his body.
The first mentioned consciousness of fatigue and thirst came through the human nature in his person. The second mentioned consciousness of omnipotence and supremacy came through the divine nature in his person. If he had not had a human nature he could not have had the former consciousness of fatigue, thirst. And if he had not a divine nature then he could not have had the latter. Because he had both natures in one person he could have both. So when we read here then, “the word became flesh,” we mean simply that the one person now possesses two natures, a divine and a human, and forever.
One of the greatest of the church councils was the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th Century. And at the Council of Chalcedon in 5th Century some decisions were made concerning the Trinity and also concerning the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. And I want to read the statement to you because I think it’s very important and it certainly sets the tone of the thought of evangelical believers down through the centuries since.
There is in modern theology today quite a bit of discussion of Chalcedon. And there are some who think that Chalcedon can be improved. Well, perhaps it could be. The only thing that were, as most evangelicals is, that those that want to improve the statement at Chalcedon are the liberals of Christianity rather than the conservatives. And so naturally the conservatives are a little suspicious of their desires to improve Chalcedon. This is what that council said, “We then following the holy fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The same, perfect in God head and also perfect in manhood, to be acknowledged in two natures inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into to persons But one in the same son and only begotten God the word, the Lord Jesus Christ. as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us.”
So when we read then, “and the word became flesh.” we do not mean that the we was no longer God. We mean simply that he took to himself an additional nature, a human nature, so that now the one person has one form of self-consciousness, but two forms of consciousness; one from his human nature and one from his divine.
Well, let’s look on at the other texts or the other words of this text. And the word became flesh. Isn’t it interesting that it does not say, “And the word became man.” But “the word became flesh.” This is a strong, someone has said an almost crude way of referring to his human nature. But I think the reason for this statement being flesh instead of man is to stress the fact of his human nature. The word became flesh. I do not think that his immutability is compromised by this because, again, it is the taking of an additional nature. But his divine personality remains his divine and eternal person.
“The word became flesh,” and then we read, “and dwelt among us.” The Greek word here is a word that really means something like “pitched his tent, tabernacled among us”. Does that mean that this was temporary? Does it mean to suggest that when we have here the statement, “The word became flesh and tabernacled among us,” that we are to think of our Lord taking human nature to himself for a time while he was here. Well now, we’ve all ready said looking at other passages in the Bible, that our Lord is referred to as a man after he has ascended to heaven. Such as Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy chapter 2 verse 5, which we have all ready quoted.
Some of the better ancient commentators, for example, Origen and Chrysostom considered this statement to be parallel with the preceding. In other words, when we read, “and the word became flesh,” and we say, “That’s the incarnation.” And then read, “and tabernacled among us,” that statement is to be understood as the same as the former. So to tabernacle among us is the word becoming flesh. So they considered it parallel to the preceding in thought being just another statement of the incarnation.
Johannine usage favors this because the word tabernacle is a Johannine word. And this word is a word that does refer to a tabernacling that goes on and on and on. I would like for you turn with me to last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation. And let’s read a few verses. I’ll begin at the first verse while you’re finding Revelation chapter 21. John is writing about the new heavens and the new earth. And he says,
“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.”
Now, notice particularly this third verse, “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell among them, (that’s very interesting, He shall dwell among them), and they shall be His people. God Himself shall be among them.'” Now, you can see from this that the word tabernacle here is a word that in its context refers to the eternal tabernacling of God among men. So the idea of a tabernacle or the pitching of a tent suggestive of a temporary kind of residence has long passed from the meaning of this word, and it does refer to an eternal tabernacling.
So we read then, “And the word became flesh and the word tabernacled among us.” And when our Lord Jesus left he still is to be regarded as the incarnate son possessed of human nature. Now, I do think that here in the context it is a reference to the time that he spent here in his body. But we she not think that because he is not here he no longer is a man. He still is the God man.
But what is lying back of the use of the term tabernacle? What is meant when it says the word “tabernacled” among us? Well, this surely must be an illusion to the tabernacle of the Old Testament. So let’s take our Bibles and turn back to Exodus chapter 25. Because here we have the historic statements concerning the construction of the tabernacle, and we’ll note it’s purpose. Why did God give Israel a tabernacle and give them a worship in connection with the tabernacle sacrifices is to offered in the tabernacle.
Well, in Exodus 25 we read in the eighth verses, “And let them construct a sanctuary for me that I may dwell among them.” The tabernacle was a visible building, or tent, and in that tabernacle God would take up his typical abode. And in that since he would dwell with them. It would be figure of God’s association of himself with Israel. Notice the twenty-second verse, “And there I will meet with you and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the arc of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel.” In other words, God constructed the tabernacle to be a giant object lessened for the nation Israel. It would be in the tabernacle that he would meet with them. And once a year the great high priest, remember, would go in and offer the blood on the mercy seat. And God would be satisfied by that, the convent would be renewed for another year.
And so the tabernacle became symbolical of the presence of God in the midst of his convental people. Now, John must be alluding to this when he says, “And the word became flesh and tabernacled among us.” What was the tabernacle? Well, in the first place the tabernacle was the place where God dwelt. And I think it is fair to say that in our Lord’s ministry he was the person in who God dwelt. And he in the midst of people was God’s true tabernacle.
What else was characteristic of the tabernacle? Well, the tabernacle was where on sacrifice was made. It was in the tabernacle that the sacrifice was made. The animals were slain at the brazen alter, which was in the court. And then the blood was taken into the holiest of all. Now, the Lord Jesus is the true tabernacle and it is he who would be the sacrifice by which God may have communion and fellowship with his people. So he is the placer where God dwells. He is also the person in whom the sacrifice, or by whom, the sacrifice is made. We read in Hebrews chapter 9 and verse 24 through verse 28 of our Lord offering once for all the sacrifice that puts away sin. What else was characteristic of the tabernacle?
Well, it was the place where the children of Israel though sacrifice worshiped God. So the tabernacle was the place where God dwelt. The tabernacle was the place where sacrifice was made. The tabernacle was the place where worship was offered. All of these things are characteristic of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the person in whom God dwells and through whom we may dwell with God. He is the person who makes the sacrifice by which we sinners are made acceptable to God. And he is also the person through whom we worship God. No worship is acceptable to God except that which comes through our Lord Jesus Christ, the true tabernacle.
In Hebrews chapter 13 and verse 15 the author says, “Through Him, then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. God does not accept the worship of anyone who comes in any other way than through our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, that is extremely important. It means that there can be no true acceptable worship by any person who has not come to be united to our Lord Jesus Christ through faith in him and the salvation that follows. It means that a person who address God as God, but does not do it through our Lord Jesus Christ, I do not refer of course, to the mere reaping of words. That person’s prayers are not acceptable to God in heaven because in the attempt to come up some other way our Lord says that person is a thief and a robber. It is rebellion against God to seek to approach him in any other way than through our Lord Jesus Christ.
So then we read, “And the word became flesh and tabernacled among us.” What a beautiful statement that is. And this tabernacle now is stretched out on into eternity, contrary to the christphonies of the Old Testament in which our Lord was here for a short time and then left. This tabernacle is a tabernacling that continues throughout all the ages of eternity.
Now, John goes on to say, “And dwelt among us and we beheld His glory.” This word is a word that is used about twenty-two times in the New Testament. It’s a word that is never used of seeing with spiritual vision. So when it says here, “The word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory,” it does not mean that we in a mystical, spiritual kind of way saw his glory. The reference is to the seeing of our Lord personally. It is a reference to the seeing of the historical person as he really was in the body that was prepared for him. “We beheld his glory. We saw him.” You can see here that the historical character of the incarnation is stressed. Our Lord Jesus was not a divine being who mystically appeared on the scene and the divine power came upon him, as some of the earlier Docetics taught. And then as he left this human scene the divine power left and left him simply a weak man who was placed in a grave and ultimately his body decayed in corrupted in the land of Palestine. No, this is a real incarnation in which the second person takes to himself human nature and is a true man possessed of genuine humanity, just as you and I have, apart from sin.
“And we beheld His glory.” We saw him. Later on, John in his epistle will talk about handling him and touching him. That’s what he’s referring to here. We beheld his glory. Christianity is a historical religion. If you could, you cannot, but if you could show that Christianity was not historical then you wouldn’t have any Christianity. If you could prove, you cannot of course, if you could prove that Jesus Christ did not live as a man then we would not have any Christianity. That’s the reason that Christian are always interested in everything historical concerning our Lord, because it is a historical faith.
If you could prove that our Lord was a person who parted his hair on the left side of his head, and had short hair instead of long, and did not have a beard after all, and as a matter of fact his hair was reddish color, that would be of interest to us because we are interested in the historical Jesus. Of course, none of these things can be proved. But if you could they would be of interest to us.
“We beheld His glory.” That would “beheld” is a word that speaks of careful observation, too. It’s not simply, “we glanced”, but “we beheld”. It’s careful observation that usually involves interpretation. “We beheld His glory. We give him a great deal of observation.” Can you not imagine the apostles? I imagine that he was the constant subject of their conversation when he was not present. Everything about him was intensely interesting to them. They pondered him. They taught about him they no doubt dreamed about him. He was more apart of their lives than the Cowboys are to some unspiritual people today. [Laughter]
“We beheld his glory.” Now, then it is his glory that he speaks about. No doubt, if John were to expound what he meant by this he would say, “Well, didn’t you read my Gospel? I was expounding what I beheld. It is His glory.” He would tell us about the glory of his lowliness and his humility. Well, that surely is one of the greatnesses of the glory of Christ. He would tell us about the glory of his miracles. In the second chapter when he performs his miracle he adds this beginning of his signs, “Jesus did in Canaan of Galilee and manifested His glory.” So he would tell us about the glory of his omnipotent. But most of all he would tell us about the glory of the cross.
If you will look at the term “glory” and the term “to glorify” throughout the Gospel of John, you will notice how often it is connected with the sufferings of the cross. Let me read you a few passages. You can look at them yourself. John chapter 12 verse 23 and 24. We read, “And Jesus answered them saying, ‘The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified.'” Then notice the next verse. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit.” It’s clear that when he says the hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified that he’s thinking about his death. In verse 27 he says, “Now, my soul has become troubled. And what shall I say? Father save me from this hour? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Thy name.” So again, he thinks about his death.
Chapter 13, verse 31, “When therefore he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now, is the Son of man glorified and God is glorified in him,” and the rest of the Upper Room discourse makes it very plain that he’s thinking about his leaving of them in his death upon the cross. In chapter 17 don’t verse 1 we read, “These things Jesus spoke, and lifting up His eyes to heaven he said, ‘Father, the hour has come. Glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee.” And so here, glorify again connected with the sufferings of the cross. In the final analysis our Lord Jesus was most fully glorified when he suffered on the cross because all of the beauties of his attributes were manifested when he suffered on the cross.
Now, John further defines this. He says, “And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father.” Many have stumbled over this term begotten thinking that perhaps it suggests that the Lord Jesus had a beginning. But this word means no more than “only” or “unique”. It is the word that is used of Isaac, for example, in Hebrews chapter 11 and verse 17, as Abraham’s only son. But we know from the Old Testament that Abraham had other sons. But Isaac was the unique son. He was the son who was born by the promise. And in that since there was no other son of Abraham’s that was like Isaac. So he was truly Abraham’s only begotten son, unique son. That’s what this word means; only in the since of unique.
Incidentally, for you Greek scholars, this word is derived not from the word that means to begat, which is geneto with two [Greek indistinct], but from genomai, which means to become with one new. So this is the only become son, that is the unique son. That’s what he means.
Now, who can explain an eternal son or an only begotten or unique son of the Father? Augustine said, speaking about the defectiveness of analogies from human parentage, “Show me and explain to me and eternal father and I will show you and explain to you an eternal son.” And that effectively shuts all inquiries. What about an eternal son? Well, explain to me an eternal father and I will explain to you an eternal son. I like that.
Now, his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father. One of the commentators has said that our Lord has four types of glories. He has the essential glory that belongs to him because he’s the second person of the Trinity. This is the glory of his divine attributes. He possesses the same attributes that the father possesses. He has omnipotence in his person. He has omniscience, omnipresence, self-existence; all of the attributes that make up deity are the possession of our Lord’s. They belong to his essence for his essence is the essence of God. So he has essential glory. He also has moral glory, the glory of his human perfections. No one ever manifested the perfections of human nature more beautifully than our Lord Jesus Christ. All of the perfections that we occasionally see in individuals in isolated cases. In isolated attributes we see preeminently and perfectly in our Lord Jesus Christ. He has moral glory. Very few men have any kind of moral glory. Our Lord Jesus had moral glory in addition to essential glory. He also had official glory because he was the prophet who tells us truth about God that you can rely on. He was the priest who offers the sacrifice that makes it possible for us to have eternal salvation. And he’s the king who shall come and rule and reign here upon the earth. So he has official glory, the glory of prophet, priest, and king. And then he has acquired glory. That’s the glory that he has because of what he accomplishes in the fulfillment of the mission that the father gave him. In John 17, the passage to which we referred he says, “Father, glorify Thou me (or glorify Thou the Son) that the Son may glorify Thee.” And then he goes on to say, “I have glorified Thee on the earth having accomplished the work which Thou gravest me to do.” And then in the fifth verse he speaks about the restoration of the glory to him that he had with the Father before the world was.
In Philippians a passage that we shall study rather in detail before very long, at the conclusion of his suffering work it is said, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him and give Him a name that is above every name.” That is an acquired glory because of the successful completion of the work that God gave him to do. And he concludes the verse, I’m hastening through this verse. There is more in the verse than this, “Full of grace and truth.” Now I’m inclined to think this refers to the glory, although there are different ways in which you could understand. But the essence of the meaning is the same. It is the glory of perfect redemption, fullness of grace, full of grace, and full of truth. The glory of the perfect revelation of God.
In a moment we will read, “No man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” That’s full of truth; full of grace in his saving work, full of truth in his work of revelation.
Well, our time is up. Let me conclude by saying this. There is personal appropriation involved in that word, “we beheld”. That’s the word of contemplation, which involves enjoyment, admiration. It’s the word that is used in Acts 1:11 when the angels speaking at the ascension of our Lord Jesus say to the disciples, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come in just the same way as you have watched him go into heaven.” So it is the word of contemplation involving appropriation. We have beheld him and we have seen him to be what he is.
May I ask you a personal question? Have you beheld our Lord as he is revealed in Scripture? And has there been the contemplation of examination and also the appropriation of him as your own personal Savior in whom you have fellowship with God? The fundamental foundation implied in the tent of meeting in the Old Testament, the fundamental foundation is the fact of fellowship with God. That’s why, incidentally, the tabernacle was called the tent of meeting, because it was the place where Israel was to meet with God. Have you met with God in the person of our Lord Jesus, the true tabernacle?
“Veiled in flesh,” at Christmas time we sing, “The God head seed, Hail the incarnate deity. Pleased as man with men to appear, Jesus our Emmanuel here”. God with us. God with God throughout the ages of eternity passed. God with us for the ages that are to come. What a tremendous revelation the apostle has given us. Let’s bow in closing prayer.
[Prayer] Father, we praise Thee and thank Thee for these wonderful words that the apostle has given us. As we contemplate, Lord, the greatness of this prologue we are impressed anew with the fact that they could only have come to use by divine inspiration. Lord we pray that we may be responsive…
[AUDIO ENDED ABRUPTLY]