Heavenly Father, we thank you for this wonderful morning. Thank you for your blessings and your mercies that you have for us every morning. But thank you for this Lord's Day. Thank you that you promised to be with us. Lord, we do pray that you would be with us this morning and to teach us, to instruct us, to nourish, to bless, to edify. to convict us, to encourage us, and restore us as well. Please, Lord God, be with us this morning as we learn about your Son, Jesus Christ, through the Gospel of John. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. So we are continuing with our, you know, it's introduction and issues as well, themes in the Gospel of John. And we've been dealing for some time now with the deity of Christ. We took a break to go through the series on the Lord's Supper, and then last week we looked at an issue that had to do with a sermon from last week. which was the Feast of Dedication, but we're returning now back to the deity of Christ in the Gospel of John, so this theme is all throughout the Gospel, and so we're not going into in-depth or too much detail about every single instance, but just to give us an idea of how John presents Jesus as God, because that is the purpose of this gospel. As he states at the end of the gospel, the purpose is that they would know who Jesus Christ is, and then knowing who he is, that they would believe in him, that they would be saved, or keep trusting, keep believing in him. that is the major, one of John's major purposes is to show who Christ is, to show who he is, and who he is is the Christ, and the Christ is also God. And so that's what we've been looking at. We looked at, for example, titles of shepherd. We saw that in John 10, that Jesus says that he is the good shepherd, and in that he was showing that he was a fulfillment of Ezekiel 34 and other Messianic prophecies of Donald the Shepherd, who was going to be God himself. We also have to look into the idea of bridegroom, that in the Old Testament, God himself is the bridegroom, and his people are the bride. And you see that, the same thing with the relationship between Jesus and the Church. He is the bridegroom, and the people are the bride. And also we look at specific instances where Jesus is called God. We see that in John 1, where in the beginning was the Word, and it was a quick thought, and the Word was God, and He went through that. And then also when Thomas, at the end of the gospel, after Jesus' resurrection, Thomas calls Jesus, my God. So we saw those, but we left off in the I am statements. So I want to review a little bit of that and then go into, because in the last, Gospel of John that we were looking that we saw that we went through we were looking at his I am statements We were gonna look at John 8 58 And we stopped there. We never looked at it We have gone through it already in the sermon series, but I want to go through that a little bit again with you. I So, just again in review, there are seven formal I Am statements found in the Gospel of John. 6, 35, and 48, that's one. Then 8, 12, 10, 7, and 9, 10, 11, 11, 25, 14, 16, and 15, one. Those are his I Am's, formal I Am statements, where he says, I am the bread of life, or I am the good shepherd. I am the light of the world. Then there are also nine informal I am statements found in 426, 620, 824, 28, 58, 13, 19, 18, 5, 6, and 8. And those don't have the formula of I am and then what he is, but he does say it speaking of his divinity. And the significance of the I Am statements is that the I Am statements, or the I Am is the divine name of God. That is how he reveals himself. Secondly, Jesus takes upon himself this name. He is the I Am. And then in that, Jesus is filling in who God is. He's showing us who this I Am is in his person and work. So, I Am is the Divine Name of God. We see this in Exodus 3, 13-15, where it says, God further said to Moses, and then he says this, this is my name forever, and this is my memorial name to all generations. So the word I am, in the Greek Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, again, which is the translation, the Greek translation that Jesus and the apostles would have been familiar with, in that translation, the I am is translated as ego, a me. Okay? And so he's saying, Egoe mi is my name. I am has sent you. Or has sent me to you. So these are the nine informal I am designations. And we will be looking at 858. Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you before Abraham was born, I am. And just really quickly, let me go back to this. The I Am statement is, or his name, the I Am name, is descriptive, it's describing who God is. And it speaks of his self-sufficiency, his self-existence, that is, that he has life in himself. He is not dependent on anything or anyone else for existence, for life. He is life. He is an immediate presence. Speaking of eternality, it speaks of his divine simplicity. God is presently in the eternal present, pure being. He is and always will be. But it also entails all that he is, love, mercy, the source of life, the one who leads and guides, who nourishes and provides, and the one who protects His people. So all this is contained in the I Am name, the divine name, I Am. And again, we're gonna be looking at 858. Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am. So John 858, what is going on here? The religious Jews are claiming to be Abraham's children. And thus they are free, they are not enslaved to anyone, to sin. But Jesus demonstrates that they are indeed not only children of Abraham, or not only not children of Abraham, but they are children of the devil. The religious Jews respond by questioning Jesus' authority and asking rhetorically Jesus if he was greater than Abraham. And so Jesus sets to demonstrate that he is greater because Abraham rejoiced to see his day. And the religious Jews reply, you are not even 50 years old and you've seen Abraham? And this statement, you are not even 50 years old, is simply kind of saying, look, you're young, what do you know? It's a statement of his youth, not that if he was 50 years old, there was a possibility that he could see Abraham. Just saying, look, you're young, what do you know? You saw, have you seen Abraham? And so what does Jesus reply? He says, before Abraham was born, and I put born, the NASB, which I use, says born there because it's implying it, before Abraham was, before he existed, before he was born, and then he says, I am. So here is that statement in the Greek. He said, Himself, Jesus, so Jesus himself said, amen, amen, which we translate as truly, truly. I say to you all, so I say to you, before Abraham came to be, and there's the word, ego, a me. So before Abraham came to be or was born, ego, a me. So ego is a personal pronoun, a singular personal pronoun. I, and then a me is a to be verb. Like am, is, was, were, be, those are all to be verbs. And it's in the first person singular verb, and it's important to note that in Greek, a lot of the verbs contain the pronouns, so like amy already means I am. So you're saying I, even I am, so it's repetitive, but it's for emphasis, and not only emphasis, but then to also to provide that divine name, ego, amy. Now, what is the most plausible rendering of Ego, Amy, and Jesus' reasoning for saying this? So, remember again, Jesus being questioned about his authority and especially his superiority to Abraham. Jesus' response is to say that Abraham rejoiced to see his day. And the Pharisees reasoned within themselves, how do you know that Abraham rejoiced? It's not in scripture, so how would you have seen Abraham rejoice in order I'm sorry, I totally messed that up. So in other words, how would you know that Abraham rejoiced? So the rhetorical and accusing question is asked, you are not yet 50 years old and you've seen Abraham. The implied response by the religious Jews is give me a break, you're just a kid, how could you possibly know that? So that's what's going on. He's trying to prove that he is superior to Abraham by saying before he existed, I am. So again, what does that mean? So we could say, We can take ego and me in a just regular common way and say, before Abraham was born, it is me, but that makes no sense. It makes no sense and how would this answer the question that he's seen Abraham? Furthermore, this would not prove that he is greater than Abraham by just saying, before he was born, it is me. That makes no sense and it proves nothing. Before Abraham was born, I have been. This rendering is a rendering from the Jehovah's Witness translation. They say that it should be translated as I have been. They argue that the tense of the verb, a me, is better translated as I have been, just as it is in 14.9, where Jesus says to Philip, have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know me, Philip. But the problem with this, is that in John 14, we only find the word amy. It's not ego amy, it's just amy. It is not the same context or usage. Our argument is not that Jesus is simply using amy, because had Jesus only used amy, then yes, we could say that this, he could have said, before Abraham was born, I have been. The personal pronoun I is contained in the amy verb, but that is not what we have here. Jesus adds the ego to the amy. for a reason. If we want to find a better comparison of usage, we can look at the seven formal I am statements, which contain both verbs, ego, a me, and the Jehovah's Witnesses do not translate those words as I have been. They will say I am the bread of life, I am the light, so that they translate it the exact same way that we do. So, um, So then that argument fails because, again, it's not the, it's only the amy verb, not the ego amy. And so the best translation would then be, before Abraham was born, I am. So Jesus is saying that he was there when Abraham was told that he would have a son and that through his seed all the nations of the world would be blessed. He was the one that gave Abraham this promise and he saw him rejoice and thus he is greater because he was there, he existed before him. And it's not just speaking of, you know, because Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was the first creation of God. So he was like the superior angel. So if that was true, he would have been there. But again, the problem is not just that he's saying, Amy, I have been, but that he's saying, ego, Amy, he's taking the divine name. So not only was he before Abraham, in that time, but he was before creation. He was before anything was ever created. He's from eternity. He is the I am. And that is what Jesus is getting at here. And this is how he is showing that he is superior to Abraham. So again, before Abraham was born, those do not make sense. It is only that last one, before Abraham was born, I am, again, referencing or taking on the divine name upon himself. So Jesus is then, in this, he is filling in who God is in his person and work. Who is this being that is, that exists? He is the source of life. I am the bread of life, 635-48. And I am the resurrection and the life, John 11-25. And I am the way and the truth and the life. And I am the true vine. He is the one who enlightens us, who gives us sight and guides us. Thus, I am the light of the world, John 8, 12. He is the only entry point to eternal life. Thus, I am the door, John 10, 7 through 9. He is the one who gathers his people, takes care of them, nourishes and protects them. Thus, I am the good shepherd, John 10, 11. So in the I am statements, he's really giving us a description of who God is. And because he is the one that's taking it upon himself, he's saying, I am that God who does these things. So that's the I am statements of John. Again, a title of divinity that he's taking it upon himself to prove and that John is giving to us to show that Jesus is not only the Christ, but that the Christ is God himself. And then another title that I want to look at this morning is the title or the theme, we can say, of the son. Because we have in the gospel of John, we have the only begotten son, we have the son of man, the son of God, all these titles of sonship that all point to him being divine. And this morning I want to look at Jesus as the son, but not only as the son, as the only begotten son because, again, it's a key theological theme that drives the Gospel of John. Jesus as a son is mentioned at the outset of John's Gospel in the prologue in verses 1 through 18. Jesus as a son explains his mission as Christ and Savior and his identity as God. So in the prologue, for example, we saw the word Logos and God, Theos, are together. And the word, we saw the word is eternal in verse one, the word is with God. And so John there is creating or showing this distinction between the two subjects. Word, logos, and God, theos. So he's careful to first introduce the word and showing that the word is eternal. It's before time, in the beginning was the word, the word already existed. So he's careful to show that, and one could at that point say, okay, so the word is God, but then he says, and the word was with God, and so now he's bringing in two subjects, the word and God, and then the very next word then brings them together in one perfect unity, while at the same time maintaining that distinction between the word and God, these two subjects. So then the word is identified with God, yet because of the previous clause, remains distinct. Okay, so he's not saying that the Word and God are exactly the same person. He's already established a distinction, but now he's creating a unity as he finishes that first verse. And then in verse 14a, the Word becomes flesh, and 14b through 18, the Word is identified as the Son, Jesus, and God is identified as the Father. 14b, we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. And then verse 18, no one has seen God at any time, the only begotten God, the Word, Jesus, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained him. So John again here reinforces and explains the distinction and unity of Jesus, the Logos, and God, the Father, together in this prologue. Another way to see this here is verse 1a. We see the closeness to God and the word was with God. So we see the distinction. between the word and theos, between these two subjects, but there's a closeness. Jesus as the word identified as God in verse 1b, and the word was God. Then we have in verses 14 through 17, the father and the son identified. Verse 18a, Jesus as a son identified as God, the only begotten God. And then verse 18b, closest to God, the father, who is in the bosom of the father. So this is what's called an inclusio in the Greek. because an inclusio is kind of like a parenthesis or like bookends to mark certain sections off, and in this one, there's an inclusio because, again, this prologue begins with closeness to God, the closeness of the word or Jesus to God, and then Jesus identified as God, and then it's inverse, so then Jesus identified as God again here, if you see. So here, I can't highlight it. So the first in bold, there's the closeness to God, and then Jesus as the word identified as God, and then it's inverse, Jesus as the son identified as God, and then closeness to God, and so it kind of creates this nice bookend showing that Christ and God are distinct, God the father, the son, there's that relationship, they're distinct, but they are identified as God, both of them. and there's a closeness between them both. And again, that closeness is that relationship between father and son. And that's where we begin to see this theme of the son begin to develop in the Gospel of John. So Jesus then is eternally, so as the only begotten Son, Jesus is eternally begotten Son of the Father, and this speaks of the eternal generation of the Son. This is a theological term, the eternal generation of the Son. And we see this in John, we see, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. No one has seen God at any time, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained him. John 3.16, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting or eternal life. And then in John 3.18, he who believes in him is not judged, He who does not believe has been judged already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. So, what does it mean that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, or what does eternal generation of the Son speak of? Basically, this definition here, the Father, from all eternity, thus without a starting point, so from all eternity, begets the Son. from all eternity communicates to the sun this one simple and undivided essence to the sun. And that is difficult for us to understand because when we think of begetting, there's, you know, there was the sun who doesn't always exist. Right, and then the father, through procreation, begets the son, and the son comes into the world and, you know, in one sense, communicates to his son, you know, DNA, or I mean, you know, just certain characteristics in that. But that is analogous to the begetting of the father and the son in eternity, but the difference is, of course, we're talking about an infinite being, and so this begetting does not have a beginning, it's an eternal begetting, From the early church, the father has always been seen as the source of the Godhead or the fount of the Godhead. And from the father, the son is being eternally begun. The father is eternally communicating to the son his divine essence, and then from both the father and the son, the Holy Spirit is flowing from both, and they're aspirating from both the father and the son. But these verses do speak of his being begotten of the father. We saw in John 5.26, for just as a father has life in himself, even so he gave to the son also to have life in himself. Now, when we went through that in our sermon series, I argued that To have life in oneself is a divine attribute, and it is what we call an incommunicable attribute. It's an attribute that God cannot communicate or give to us to have, right? We are finite creatures. We cannot have that. We cannot be creatures who have life in ourselves. We are dependent on God. And so I argue that this, from God to a human person, God could not have communicated that to Jesus if he was just a mere man. If he was just a mere man or even an angel, God could not communicate this divine attribute to his son if he was only a man or an angel. And so this, when Jesus says here that the father has given to the son to have life in himself, that's showing this eternal generation, this eternal begetting of the father and the son, that the father is begetting the son from all eternity. It is a divine attribute that the son has eternally, but it's given to him from the father. And we see that manifested in the son, in his humanity, we see it manifested, but it's a property of the divine son, that the father has given him to have life in himself from all eternity. And again, it may be hard to understand, but that is what scripture teaches, that is what the, The church has believed, our creeds and confessions teach that the son is eternally begotten of the father. And thus, that shows his divinity, his deity, that he is God himself. That being the son, being begotten does not lessen him, does not make him a lesser being, but makes him equal with God. Because in this, in John 5, he says that in the context of saying that he is equal with God. And he shows that by saying, by making this statement. So being the son and begotten makes him equal with God, not a lesser being. Any questions? Did that make sense? I know it's hard to understand, but did it, yeah, it is, and that's the beauty of our God, that there's just, you know, when we think we got a little bit, it's just, there's so much more, and it's like, wow, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And we would be prideful. We would be. Yeah. So, yeah. Okay, so let's see. Now, what I wanna do now is give a little bit of... a defense on only begotten from the word monogenes, because, so monogenes is what's used in verse, John 114, 118, 316, anytime that you see only begotten in the NASB up to the 95 texts, the 2000 text takes it away. But like the ESV, NIV, they don't have only begotten, the New King James, the King James, And the NASB 1977 and 85 have only begun. But there's been a shift. There's been a shift from translating monogamies only begun to monogamies meaning unique or one of a kind. So at the end of the 19th century, this began to happen. This transition was called into question by Bible scholars. The word monogamies meant, or they argued that it meant unique or one of a kind. They argued that monogamies comes from the two words mono, meaning one, and then genus, which means kind or type, descent, nation, or people. Thus the New Translations translate monogamies as such, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us and saw his glory, glory as of the only son, or I think the NIV says the one and only son from the Father, full of grace and truth. No one has seen God at any time. The only God, or the one and only God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, or His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. And this, to emphasize, not so much the sonship, but the uniqueness of him. Now, this is true, right? Jesus is the only son, and he is unique. But monogamies not only teaches this, but it gives us the reason why. Because he's begotten from the father. And I think that that's why I have, I mean, some people don't make a big deal about it, but it's just one of my pet peeves. I think that this is a very important term to keep. because it does show that the eternal generation of the sun, and I think that there's good biblical and historical evidence to support this translation only be gotten. But in 1883, B.F. Westcott, in his... commentaries on the epistles of John. At the end, he had a three-page discurses on this word monogamies, and there he argued that it should be translated as only or unique son. And he basically had two main points that this word, the monogamies being translated as only began with Jerome, a late fourth and fifth century theologian. He translated, and he was a Latin father, so he translated monogamies in the Latin, unigenitus, which means only begotten, as a way to combat Arianism. So that was the historical argument that he began, that it began with Jerome in the fourth and fifth century. late 4th, early 5th century. In 1938, Francis Marion Worden writes a dissertation for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, arguing and expanding on Westcott's thesis. In 1946, the RSV committee prints a New Testament translating monogamies as only son, so that's the first printing of that word or printing of a Bible that had the word monogamies translated as only son. In 1952, the RSV committee prints the whole Bible and includes this new translation of monogamies. In 1953, Dale Moody, Southern Baptist theologian, defends Warden's theses and then since then, so many conservative, even scholars, a lot of the commentaries that I have on John, all of them will argue that it used to be only begotten, but now we know that it's actually not only begotten, it's unique, or one of a kind. So a lot of them, like the ESV and a lot of other translations, will do away with the only begotten translation. So a lot of them have gone, and even the NASB, the 2020 edition of the text. I was going to buy one, and then I looked, I was like, hold on, hold on, let me look at John 14 and 18, and it said, they took away, only be gone. So I was like, no. So I just, yeah, I just, yes. It conveys only because it's still mono meaning one and And then, so they argue that the genese part comes from the word genos, I would argue that it's from the word genau, which means to beget. So it comes from, so it's, both still have the mono meaning one, so that's why it's only begotten son, and then, but, The other translation, although, like I said, it's true, Jesus is the only son, the emphasis is just on that he's unique or one of a kind, but only begotten really tells you why he's unique and one of a kind, is that he's begotten from the father. Because, I mean, I guess even the Jehovah's Witnesses might even argue that he is the unique son and that he is the first created being. Yes. He is the firstborn. That's correct. They do not believe in the Trinity. So they deny that the Father or that Jesus is divine. He is a lesser being. He is the first creation of God. Arius has a famous saying that there was a time when the Son was not. And a lot of that Nicene debate and all that was because of that, because of Arius. And, but yeah, no, and then Jehovah's Witnesses are Aryans in that sense, though they might not even know who he is, but they are teaching his view on Christ. So they don't believe that, so they believe they're Unitarian in that they believe that God is One, that he's one person, he's the almighty God, and Jesus is the firstborn, he's the first created being, he's this kind of superior angel to all the other angels, and so that's how they view him, but Jesus ultimately was created. So problems with this view of Westcott and then everyone else is that the word monogenes was translated as unigenitus, only begun before Jerome. So Justin, actually this is... Okay, so I would... rephrase this a little bit, it was translated as the Genetus before Jerome, but also the only begotten definition of it is also seen in the Greek before Jerome. So Justin Martyr is a Greek father, and so he writes, I have, this is him, I have already proved that he was the only begotten, or monogenes, of the father of all things, being begotten, in a particular manner, word and power by him, and having afterwards become man through the virgin." So this is Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trifle. Now this, I can't highlight. So where he says, I have already proved that he was the only begotten. of the father of all things being begotten in a particular manner word powered by him. So from where it says being begotten, that whole phrase after that is an appositional phrase. And an appositional phrase, so an apposition could be a word or a phrase that's describing something about the subject or it's giving us clarity or more information about the subject. So if I say Janet went to the store, I'm just speaking of Janet, my wife. People who don't know me might not know that she's my wife. But if I say Janet, my wife, went to the store, that phrase, my wife, that's an apposition. It's giving more clarity or more information about the subject, Janet. If I say Charles, an award-winning author, an award-winning author is an apposition, giving us more information or clarity about who Charles is. And then something that actually Daniel brought up to my attention last week, which as I was studying that, Hebrews 13, I was studying that and I saw that, okay, this whole phrase is an appositional phrase. So when I was doing this, I thought about that verse. So Hebrews 13.20 says, now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep through the blood of eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord. So now the God of peace is telling us a subject, it's the God of peace. who brought up from the dead, and everything after that is an appositional phrase. It's telling us who this God is. He's the one who brought up from the dead Jesus, our shepherd, our Lord. So that's what that is. And so the importance of that, or the reason why I'm explaining that, the reason why I'm explaining that is because Justin Martyr is explaining what he means by only begotten, because if he just uses the word monogamous, then somebody can already, oh, he's just saying only or unique. But he's explaining what he means, that Jesus is the monogamous of the Father. He says, being begotten, and there he uses a clear word, gegenemenos, in a particular manner, word empowered by him, So he's explaining that this monogamies means that he was begotten from the father before all things, or of all things. So he's explaining himself and he's clearly saying that monogamies means that he is begotten from the father. And then Tertullian, a Latin father, he, in the book of Genesis, He's in the late 2nd and early 3rd century, so this is before, almost 100 years before, or yeah, 100 or more years before Jerome. In commenting on John 1, 14, and 18, he says this, thus, does he make him equal to him? For by proceeding from himself, he become, he became his first begotten son. Because begotten before all things and his only begotten, and there's the word unigenitus, also begotten alone, or because alone begotten of God in a way peculiar to himself from the womb of his own heart. So, because alone begotten of God, again, is explaining what he means by unigenitus, that he's begotten of the Father, and so he's using monogenes unigenitus as being begotten from God. He uses the word solus ex deus genitus, that means, solus means alone, like how we get sola, solus alone, ex from deus, God, genitus, begotten. So alone from God, begotten. So this idea of Jesus being begotten of the Father before all things, not in time, not a temporal beginning, but an eternal beginning, and the idea of monogamies, meaning that goes all the way back to the early church. And it continued through the church until late 19th century. Now, I'm not saying that the people like, that everybody who doesn't translate that doesn't believe in the eternal generation, but they don't think that monogamies teaches that, which here we're showing that from the early church fathers, they did see whether it was the Greek fathers or the Latin fathers, they both agreed that this word did mean begetting, only begotten of God of the father. So translating monogamies as unigenitus, to get only begotten, would have done little to nothing to combat Arianism. So this is one of the problems, again, with those who wanna do away with this. Because they'll say that translating as unigenitus, only begotten, was to combat Arianism, but this would have done nothing to combat Arianism. The issue was not whether the son was begotten or not, but whether the son's begetting was temporal or eternal. because Aryans believe that there was a time when the son was not. He was begotten temporally as an act of creation. The Orthodox believe that his begetting was an eternal act wherein the son is begotten from the essence of the father from eternity, thus making him the son, or making the son his eternal offspring. So then I argue that only begotten should be translated as, or that monoghanese should be translated as only begotten or offspring, that monoghanese comes from mono, meaning one, and ganao, which means to beget, bear, or bring forth. And next week, we will finish this part. I wanna talk about the specific use of the Son of God, and then Son of Man to prove his deity, and then get into some issues. I wanna get into some issues that are coming up in the Gospel of John, but then also do another Sunday School, kind of putting it all together and showing the Trinity in the Gospel of John. But yeah, we'll continue this tomorrow since we are out of time, but is there any questions before we conclude? Any questions about the monogamies, only begotten, eternal generation, anything? Hopefully it made sense. If not, it's being recorded, so yes. It doesn't matter, because the from often would come from the Greek preposition ek, which means from, like exit, exit from, out of, so it's from or out of, and then usually the ek would be then paired with a genitive verb, which means of, so yeah, it would be from or of the father, so it makes no difference. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yes, and that's exactly, yeah, so the point of eternal generation is that the father is from eternity communicating his divine essence to the father, to the son. So there's unity, so there's unity in the essence, distinction in the persons. Okay, so that's how we want to say it, that there's unity in the essence, but distinction in the persons. And so the essence makes them the one, and one thing that, I'll get to your question real quickly, but we don't want to say that the Father has one third divinity, the Son another third, and the Holy Spirit another third. No, all of them share fully the divine essence. So Jesus is all God, and the Father is all God, and the Holy Spirit is all God. It's because they share equally the fullness of the divine essence. So within this divine essence, as we said several weeks ago, there's three subsistences or three persons that are distinguished from one another, but they're not separate entities, they're not three different gods. They're three distinctions, subsistences, persons within the one undivided, simple, divine essence of God. Sorry, there's a lot of the... with one person with three professions? Well, actually we can't say that, and I'll tell you why. That's actually called modalism. Modalism believes, some might say they believe in the Trinity, but what they will say is that God is one person, but that has three different modes. So he's the father, and then he, so it's kind of like, I think people use, he puts on the hat of the father, hey, I'm the father, but then he takes it off, puts on the, or no, a mask, actually. He'll put on the mask of the father, then he takes that mask off, puts on the mask of the son, then the mask of the Holy Spirit, but it's just one person. And there was confusion because one of the Greek words that was used was prosopon, which means mask. And it was used in like Greek plays when people would put on masks. And so that caused some confusion. I can't remember if it was the East or the West. Some didn't want to use it because it was too much modalistic. But anyways, but yeah, we can't say that he's one person in three professions or three modes, because then that's modalism. We do want to say there are three persons, three distinct persons, one divine essence. So we can say three persons and one being, being, one being, three persons. So. Well, yeah, because there's only one person, yeah. And one thing that they'll say, I remember dealing with some years ago, they'll say, you know how you can be a father and a son at the same time? Right? And it's true, but in order for me to be a father, I actually have to have a son. Otherwise, I'm not a father. Or if, in order for me to be a son, I actually have to have a father. I can't just, so that analogy breaks down. But yeah, there's three distinct persons or subsistences that subsist within the divine, the one divine essence. Yes. Joshua, sorry. I think it's great. I think it's a good explanation. I don't have it with me, but yeah, maybe next week I will put it up. But yeah, it's a good explanation. of the relationship between God and the Father because it talks about him being begotten and from all ages and so that and then also the, what's that one? There's another creed, I can't think of it right now, but yeah, some of those ancient creeds, really, that's what they were fighting. They were fighting Aryans, they were trying to solidify, okay, what do we believe the Bible is teaching? And so that's what they were fighting in the early church, and those creeds really express what the Orthodox believe, and by Orthodox, I mean those that are the true believers, the true faith. So yeah, I love the Nicene Creed, yeah. Anything else? Okay, well then let's close.