The Law of Two Witnesses: Johannine Forensic Exegesis

追加: 2026-06-01

[00:03:38]Mhm.

[00:03:43]All right. Good to see everybody here.

[00:03:46]Had a little rough start. they're getting uh used to a different streaming platform. So, anyone that knows uh it's always a learning process, a learning curve. But hey, I'm glad that we're here and I'm glad that you're here and we're here in Jesus name. And I am aware that there are some questions concerning the law of two witnesses. And I thought I'll just take a little time as I'm getting ready for service tomorrow. And hopefully you're going to church somewhere. uh make sure uh that you take a little time to fellowship with those that are sanctified. But I want to talk about the law of two witnesses. But before we do, I'm going to ask you as always if you would just go ahead, share, rate, subscribe, let somebody know we're here. And we're going to be talking about the law of two witnesses.

[00:04:32]A very interesting apologetic piece that's used to bolster different views that can be a little bit different from what we believe in an apostolic context.

[00:04:41]So before we go, let's start and pray.

[00:04:44]Mighty God of all grace, we thank you that nothing is too hard for you. Thank you that you do all things well and that when you do it, you will complete that which concerneth us. We bless you, we love you, and we trust you despite the circumstances. We pray in Jesus's only saving name. Amen. Well, today I'm going to be talking about the law of two witnesses. And as many of us know, uh you don't have to be talking to people about the oneness of God for very long before this very common objection uh comes up. And I think it's a fair objection. It is a one of the objections that when people bring it up, I am a little bit sympathetic to how they are arriving to their conclusion because I could see how a person who may not be as familiar with how it works uh could come to that conclusion. And for that reason, I'm feeling extra special today. got a PowerPoint together and I want to do a little teaching from it because I want to make sure that these instances are really understood because unlike our modern culture, we have to be very careful not to assume that when we say something or by what we understand that this necessarily translates to what they understood biblically because what you'll find out is not. So tonight, as you see on the screen, we're going to be talking about the law of two witnesses.

[00:06:12]Uh we're going to be looking at some of the Greek witness. Uh the vocabulary.

[00:06:15]God bless you. Um yeah, I can't quite see you. Looking forward. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:06:19]God bless you. God bless you. Uh let's see here. Going forward here. And we're going to look at a systematic refrainment of John 58 in the covenant courtroom of Revelation.

[00:06:31]Now as you see on my screen uh the core claim of the idea is of course uh the metaphysical reading of the law of two witnesses. Now many interpret the witness language in the gospel of John as evidence of a plurality of divine beings or persons within the godhead. Uh but the forensic reality in exhibit B witness language in John is forensic and co and covenantal before it is metaphysical. It establishes Jesus's messianic mission not a plurality of divine beings. First thing we have to understand within its natural context as the uh slides show this is a legal requirement. This is not the the the whole purpose of the law of two witnesses was not to give a metaphysical breakdown of how to make an argument for the godhead. And I think this is something dangerous um when you do it from the one or trinitarian unitarian benitarian I don't knowitarian side we have to read and use scriptures within the context of their usage. So the debate turns on category discipline.

[00:07:45]Testimony can be personal, textual, miraculous, prophetic or divine without collapsing into an onlogical meaning.

[00:07:55]And these are all the ways that when we talk about biblical testimony, what they can mean. Now, it can be personal, but not necessarily because a witness, as we're going to see, could be textual, a witness could be miraculous, or a witness could be prophetic. So, we're going to go on to our next one. So, the legal precedent for this is best understood in the Mosaic uh Mosaic Foundation. And these three verses as you see here, Deuteronomy 19:15, Deuteronomy 17:6, Numbers 35:30, all of these are verses uh that are the Old Testament foundation for how we understand this particular law of two witnesses. It says in Deuteronomy 19:15, "At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established." Deuteronomy 17:6, "At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall uh uh he that is worthy of death be put to death."

[00:08:57]Numbers 35:30. But one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. So the ruling for this is that the legal force is establishment, confirmation, and public validity. The law protects truth from unsupported accusation.

[00:09:16]Its purpose is not to establish a metaphysical framework for personhood.

[00:09:22]And this is probably one of the biggest um issues I see when this is appealed to because I think it just misses what they would have known for our later christoologgical arguments. So when you look at the word witness uh there's several ways we can understand the word because it comes from the base word martus or uh where we get the word martyr and we see in the first form of it uh we have the noun is a force a witness uh one who testifies when it's in its noun form when it's in the verbal form marterero uh it is to bear witness testify or attest then you have martyia which is also a noun, the force or at the testimony of witness or evidence itself.

[00:10:12]And you have it in a noun form again, witness bearing evidence, proof. Now, lexical control dictates that these terms describe the function of the testimony. Praise the Lord. I see my brother tagging in there. They do not by themselves define the ontology of the one giving the witness. I want you to notice uh when we're dealing with this is not a ontological uh requirement. Now I'm going to go to what I have here. I'm calling it exhibit A which the unauthorized action charge that we're going to see here in John 5 16-1 17. I got my paper Bible here with me because everybody knows I'm a little old school.

[00:10:55]So I'm going to always have that because I want you to see that what I have is coming from the Bible. So St. John 5 and we're going to start with uh verse 16.

[00:11:08]For this reason, the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to kill him because he had done these things on the Sabbath.

[00:11:16]But Jesus answered them, "My father has been working unto now, and I have been working."

[00:11:23]Therefore, the Jews sought all the more to kill him because he didn't not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his father, making himself equal with God. Then Jesus answered and said to them, most assuredly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do. For whatever he does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that he himself does, and he will show him greater works than these that they may marvel. Uh for as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has commanded all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the son does not honor the father who sent him. So the context of this contextually we see looking at the board that the charge is that Jesus heals on the Sabbath. His opponents therefore challenge his authority and interpret his father language as making himself equal to God.

[00:12:45]It's within this they seek to slay him for breaking the Sabbath and claiming unauthorized divine privilege. God bless you um uh counterpoint. God bless you.

[00:12:57]So the defense that we're going to look at is going to be an exodus or better yet a exegetical control. Now Jesus answers by showing that the son's activity is not independent rivalry but the father's own work disclosed through the scent son. The issue at hand is authority not autonomy of the godhead.

[00:13:21]Let me see here. So we're going to go to the next slide and we're going to keep keep it moving. Now as we pick this up I'm going to read a little bit more because I want you to see how this context. Now when we get to verse 30, he says, "I of my uh self can do nothing as I judge and my judgment is righteous because I do not seek my own will but the will of the father who sent me." Now I'm going just put a pin right there.

[00:13:51]Notice he says, "I'm not my own will."

[00:13:54]Now the thing that makes us understand the context is that he's talking about one wheels. Now if this is his natural but this is a divine will or if he's speaking in the divine context uh we got a problem because now we have just introduced multiple wills. So this is already a hint to let us see that Jesus is speaking from the context of his humanity. Uh now verse 31 this is going to be the meat of the first aspect of the law of two witnesses. He says if I bear witness of myself my witness is not true. there is another who bears witness of me and I know that the witness which he witnesses of me is true. Now Jesus says there first part of uh verse 31 if I bear witness concerning myself my testimony is not true. Now now what the Lord is laying the foundation for is what we call moral falsehood. Jesus is not admitting that he is lying or that his words are deceptive, but he is establishing what he would need for there to be legal sufficient or uh when something is legally insufficient or unsupported. Jesus is acknowledging the Torah standard. Unsupported self- testimony is inadmissible in the covenant courtroom. I want you to see this. Unsupported unsupported self- testimony is inadmissible in the covenant courtroom.

[00:15:25]So, we go on a little bit further. Now, there's a taxonomy that we have to see here when looking at the witness of John um uh five that he gives uh because there is a what what I am going to call an evidentiary matrix, a matrix of witnesses. And I'm going to finish reading this paricopia of scripture so you can have this in your hearing starting with verse 32. There is another who bears witness of me and I know that the witness which he witnessed of me is true. You have sent to John and he has borne witness to the truth. So there is a personal witness. Yet I do not receive testimony from man but I say these things that you may be saved. He was the burning and shining lamp. You were willing for a time to rejoice in his life. But I have a greater witness than John's. For the works which the Father has given me to finish the very works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father has sent me. And the Father himself who sent me has testified of me.

[00:16:31]You have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his form, but you do not have his word abiding in you. Oh my.

[00:16:41]Because whom he sent him you do not believe. You search the scriptures for in them you think ye have eternal life.

[00:16:51]And these and these and these are they which testify of me. But you are not willing to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men.

[00:17:05]But I know you that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in my father's name and you do not receive me.

[00:17:14]If another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe who you receive honor from another? And do not seek the honor that comes from the from the only God. Do not think that I shall accuse you to the father. There is one who accuses you. Now this is interesting. How is this one accusing him? Who or better yet, who is it? It's Moses now. Wait a minute. Moses has been dead for how many thousand years at that point? Like this is Lord, are are you are you talking about you pulled his spirit from the grave or something?

[00:17:50]What's going on here? Moses in whom you trust. How can they trust in Moses and they've never met Moses? Unless he's referring to the testimony of Moses which is in the scriptures.

[00:18:04]My Lord from Mississippi. For if you believed Moses, now there's no way imaginable he could be talking about uh the literal witness that's coming from Moses in a courtroom. He's not saying Nick's on stand. He was there with the children of Israel in uh the instance number one and he's going to be No, that was not what hap what was happening. And I think what we have to realize is that they had figures of speech just like we do. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me. Ah, for he wrote about me.

[00:18:39]But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe my word. Do you see how the Lord is connecting those instances of witness? So from this matrix or this evidentiary matrix we have the witness of John the Baptist in John 5:33-35 which that kind of witness can be categorized under a human or prophetic witness. We have the evidential function of that witness that it publicly identifies the sent one. So, one of the things I always say is never that a witness can't be a person, but when you're dealing with the law of two witnesses is not necessarily describing a person. Now, the ontological caution there is that wait a minute, that's not a divine person. Now, we have the second category of witness here, which is the works in St. John 5:36. Now, you don't need me to tell you that works on a person, but we'll go ahead and go through the process. The kind of witness that was there is the miraculous evidential. This is a type of witness that God gives to confirm truth. And the evidential function of this witness is to authenticate the father sent Jesus.

[00:19:52]Not a person at all. That that that's all that the miraculous point another first witness that we have that is not a person. So we already have one precedent that when you talk about a witness, you're not necessarily talking about a distinct divine person. Uh the father, now this is interesting. Now St. John 5:37, Jesus does mention the father as a witness. And the kind of witness is a divine source and it confirms Jesus through the mission as we have just read the one God, the source. We have in St. John 5:39 as we read another witness which is written covenant testimony which is the scriptures. This is how they were able to see the other witnesses and the other things. And while the Lord said you do not have his word abiding in you, why could he say that? Because they had the scriptures.

[00:20:49]They memorized it, but they really did not believe it. because if they did, they through the heart and the eyes of faith would be able to discern who Jesus was. This is interesting because one of the common push backs that I get when explaining this aspect, you'll have individuals saying, well, uh, the they they they didn't understand the voice at the baptism. Well, that's being isogetic because at verse 37, Jesus said, "You have neither heard his voice or seen his image." Now, at the baptism, the Lord spoke from heaven. Now, they if present would not be able or better yet, they would be able to rebut the uh claim of Jesus. So, that lets us know that they weren't at the baptism. So, how is that a fair witness if they weren't there?

[00:21:44]Well, the answer is very s simple. They have the witness within the text and it is in the text that it bears witness as promised fulfillment, not a divine person. Do you see what's happening here? That what's happening in the text is that it's trying its best to show us the uh types of proof that are used. And remember earlier I established that the law of two witnesses wasn't about persons. It was about evidence. I think the better equivalent maybe in our modern legal sense probably isn't word witness because when we hear witness we think of a of a person. But we probably should think of uh evidence. It seems that within this context that when they said evidence or that when they said witness, it could be a uh uh it could be a person or it could be uh something that showed to prove. I believe at certain points within the children of Israel's uh pilgrimage journeys when they would make certain covenants uh like when uh Joshua they crossed over the river and they put the stones at the bottom uh it was there to serve as a witness uh all these things altars were forms of witness but they weren't persons well how could it be a witness because it testifies as evidence that will be distinct from whoever is making the claim that the claim is true. Now the last uh witness that we have is Moses in uh chapter 545-47 which that witness is the Torah witness uh which that witness is the accuser and it exposed as a function Israel's unbelief. Let me see if I can uh increase the size of that chat because um it's it's a little bit small on my side. Let me see. I'mma I'm gonna f to get f fancier and uh so I can see because I want to make sure I'm interacting. I'm about to think I'm uh uh let's see and I think we got some good chats, man. This is good. Uh brother uh uh Counterpoint said, "Praise the Lord. Great subject." Yeah. Yeah.

[00:23:50]And one brother said, "I appreciate your work in this level of presentation. The slides are really helping. God bless you." And you brought up a good point.

[00:23:58]Maybe verse 38 is Jesus implying the father's witness would be able to be sensed by them if they believed and thus had the word abiding in them. I think that could be contemporaneous with the context and whatever I get would say the form of the witness the Lord is giving them what is clear is that he expected them to be able to comprehend it. So what you will notice with the witnesses that all of the witnesses are verifiable that none of them exist in a state that they can't verify because what good is a witness if it can't be verified. We'll go a little bit further.

[00:24:37]So this is going to be interesting because in John five usually you hear this weaponized and most people never deal with the context. And this is a simple question you can ask someone when they are trying very sincerely to use this as an example to show witnesses which inevitably uh uh mo yeah Moses wrote of me now uh how could this be cuz we know Moses talked about the Lord will raise up a prophet like unto me. That's Moses witnessing. Now Moses isn't present but he left a witness. Sometimes um when uh you know ministers uh pass they'll leave their works on a particular you know CD or something they'll say this is a witness I've left in the earth now the CD isn't cognizant but we understand that even in our modern sense there can be flexibility with the term now I look at this next part I think it's one of the more interesting parts uh when you deal with the law of two witnesses in uh John 18:17-20 now I'm going to pick this up because this is the second one uh that you'll see a lot of uh people use which as I said earlier I'm very sympathetic to people seeing this as a type of evidence. I mean I could see why but like most things when you start digging into them what you will notice uh is that um it doesn't hold much water. I hate to say it that way. So we're going to go to verse 17 through 20.

[00:26:12]Uh, all right.

[00:26:18]Uh, let's see here. Okay, let's start with verse 13. I think that'll be good.

[00:26:22]The Pharisees therefore said to him, "You bear witness of yourself." What in the world? They always up to something.

[00:26:29]You bear witness of yourself, your witness is not true. Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true." Oh my. Now wait a minute. He said, "Even if I did, my witness would be right." Doesn't Jesus understand the law of two witnesses? For I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. You judge according to the flesh.

[00:26:58]That that that ought to sit right there.

[00:27:01]I judge no one. And yet if I do judge, my judgment is true. For I am not alone.

[00:27:08]But I am with the father who sent me.

[00:27:11]Now wait a minute. That's interesting.

[00:27:13]It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. Now brother Hurst, maybe they got us here.

[00:27:20]Now he he just quoted the law of two witnesses and he said his father's with them. Now this is the part maybe they got us a good old wondous folks in a headlock. But let's let's keep reading because the scripture tells us we can error not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. Verse 18. I am one who bears witness of myself and the father who sent me bears witness of me. Now let's look at verse 19 and see what their response is going to be because it's very logical if they were understanding it like our poly personal friends. They said to him, "Where is your father?" Now, if he was talking about another person as a witness, wouldn't that be logical question to uh to ask? I mean, I'm not trying to get sympathy for the Pharisees, but that a logical question to ask if he's talking about another person. What's wrong with that? They're just asking for the verification. They understood legally now he's appealing to that law, which that would fall under one of the things that would appease it. But you know neither me nor my father. Well, he's straightforward. If you had known me, you would have known my father also.

[00:28:35]Ain't that something? These words Jesus spake in the treasury as he taught in the temple. And no one laid hands on him to his hour had not yet come. Now notice when they asked for the witness of the father, he said, "If you would have knew me, you would have knew my father." Now wait a minute. If he's not appealing to another form of evidence and he's appealing to a person or some way of existing, how are they to know the father by knowing him? Well, Jesus said, "It's the father that dwelleth in me and do of the works." Now, the defense that Jesus appeals to is the legal defense.

[00:29:14]Now, it's interesting because the prosecution, they're going to say, "Where is the father?" Now, they want to locate a physical second witness to dismiss the claim. But Jesus turns the legal standard back on them. He answers revelationally, not geographically or metaphysically. To know him is to know the father. Now, as we parse John 8, the uh witness claim, the testimony of two men, uh now let let's analyze it. Now uh the first part uh that we're going to look at is uh two men a maria. Now it's a noun feminine singular noun and it connects the evidence of the witness. Uh as we go to part two uh we're going to see that this duo anthropos no that's two men duo anthropon anthropon uh the legal standard invoked directly from the Torah. Now that's what they have to have. uh ho muruan uh which is an articular present active part of simple Jesus as the testifying subject and also mart perry emoy uh the present active indicative third singular uh plus preposition the father testifies concerning Jesus. So the analytical conclusion that we should have here uh the appeal to two witnesses is a forensic analogy establishing evidential validity under their law. It doesn't define God as literally two men. And I see we got some more uh in the chat here. And I see brother Hurst bottom says, "See according to the flesh." Now uh correlate that with um with the spirit who saw in the with those who saw in the spirit believe that's understanding what you saying. And I see one brother says, "hm, but doesn't Jesus answer at least imply that he doesn't care if they view him and the father like two men?" I wouldn't say that. Uh, I think that, um, now to be honest, I don't think they would have called it if you would have gave him a a a red blinking arrow that said, "Here's I'm the Messiah."

[00:31:28]I I would say that Jesus's answer he is simply trying to show him because they are challenged the whole premise at least starting in chapter 5 they are challenging his authority claims and he is uh verifying his authority claim by using a method that they all uh would have understood which was the law of two witnesses I would say uh because if the Lord was using the father as a distinct witness or you know understand them as two persons. The issue we would have there is that Jesus would have to present if it's a person that's doing it, you got to present that person. I think um in the woman caught in adultery and I know there are some manuscripts that don't have that incense, but let's say you know we're going to say we accept it. Uh oh yeah, brother her said that's a misspelling. See in the spirit that's exactly right. Um when the woman called in adultery, uh they asked for the other gentleman that was there because it takes two to tango. I think and some other commentators believe that that could be a an appeal to the law of two witnesses. Like what's the evidence just having uh them by themselves? Uh you got to have some proof. You got to have something and they didn't have any.

[00:32:43]Uh so I I think this is the same thing.

[00:32:46]So I think he's showing them that, you know, I got what I what I'm supposed to have. Now the father's witness is seen in the fact that Jesus that the mighty God uh witnessed of him in the scriptures uh before he was ever incarnated as a man. The Bible talks about the spirit of Christ uh moving in them the Holy Ghost which we know is just simply an ancient neareastern ancient form of uh communicating the activity of God. It was working in the the prophets and such. Uh so that was the father's witness left in the world.

[00:33:22]Now the interpretive bridge I think John 14 controls John 5:8. John 5:36 the works bear witness of Jesus. In John 14:10 the father dwelling in Jesus does the works. Now notice this revelation is a type of inddwelling uh revelation. And I think my thing went out here. Let's see. Praise the Lord.

[00:33:46]Well, let's see. Not sure if it went out there. Let me uh I'm not sure if you guys can still see it. Like it blinked out a little bit on my side.

[00:34:02]All right. Perfect time for it to do that. Huh.

[00:34:07]Okay. Not sure if you guys can still see it, but um uh let let me see if can if you guys can still see it, just drop it in the chat.

[00:34:17]I want to make sure I'm still being helpful somewhat. Uh still there. Okay, it's just not showing on Okay, great. It just wasn't showing on my screen. So, the inddwelling revelation, he that has seen me has seen the father. And I think this answers uh the question perfectly. Now the core thesis text the logic of the gospel of John is inddwelling revelation not merely external cooperation the father's testimony is revealed through the son's words and works not beside them now where the trinitarian inference overreaches is what I'm going to call the ontological assumption textual data is the first place John uses witness terminology for John the Baptist, works the father, scripture and Moses. Now this is going to be the bridge that many of them are going to seek because some of them not all they are so focused on trying to prove uh multi-persons that they will go way past the bridge of what makes sense to go for the golden goose or the golden egg of of uh multi-persons. But we want to make sure we're using the forensic attestation.

[00:35:37]Now the invalid leap is well it must be ontological and so therefore the father and the son are two persons. As you can see there I'm being real creative. I got a little thing there and says invalid leap because the information does not verify that. Uh now the valid exesus the text proves corroborated testimony concerning Jesus's mission. And when we're coming to a conclusion, we cannot build a conclusion based upon evidence that's not present. Now, the cross-examination testing the ontological rule. When John 5:39 says Jesus, scripture testifies of Jesus, does that make scripture a divine person? No. I believe this Bible gives witness of the divine person. But the Bible as I have it, praise the Lord, is not the witness within itself and alone.

[00:36:35]Let me see here. I think I got another make sure I'm responding. If if I'm not hitting it as fast, please forgive me because sometimes I could do a little better at uh being pastor there. But when John in uh John 5:36 says, "The works bear witness. Are the works a divine person?" No, the works aren't a divine person.

[00:36:56]Does mtoal mean to be a person or does it mean to testify? Huh? I would say it means to testify. And can only people testify?

[00:37:09]Not in this context. If John 8 cites your law, is Jesus making a legal argument or defining God's anatomy? You see how we can many times overreach and make the people in scripture have a conversation about something that was nowhere near uh their mind's thought.

[00:37:33]The point is not to dodge distinction because as a one Pentecostal I believe in distinction. The point is to define the kind of distinction the text actually gives.

[00:37:46]Now one is exogetical synthesis.

[00:37:48]distinction without division. Uh on this example of it, we saw this uh when we talk about the mission uh the mission sins uh and we have is sent. Now on this side we have the father. He is the one sending for the mission and the son is the one that is sent. We're speaking of the son. We're speaking of him in this human reality. This sending took place in time. Now, agency gives the works, performs the works. Now, do you see how we're looking at this in in an incarnational standpoint? Uh, in the incarnation, the father dwells in Christ. But in the incarnation, from the son's vantage point is the temple, body, or manifestation. My Lord from Zion. In Revelation, we have the father, the invisible divine source. And we have Jesus, the visible image or revelation.

[00:38:43]He is, as one writer says, he is the visible of the invisible. And when it comes to testimony, we have him bearing witness from divine authority uh as the father that we have here uh bears witness in history as Messiah. This is real distinction in the economy of salvation. Using brother Chris, one of brother Chris's words, economy, not as a necessary proof of multiple divine centers within God or multiple subsystem realities depending on what model of the trinity you subscribe. But this is probably my favorite slide. I just be honest with you cuz I said this would be good just for good oldfashioned one that's teaching showing that we do believe both uh there is real distinction but how it is manifested is differently now the covenant courtroom and I'm going to give an academic summary here to the best of my ability lexicon and law Greek witness terminology mtorial and mtoriia belongs to the semantic field of legal validation and covenantal verification The apologetic context in John 5:8.

[00:39:53]Jesus appeals to this jury, excuse me, juridicial juridicial framework to answer the charge that his testimony lacks public validity under Torah law.

[00:40:07]The category error because John identifies human beings, inanimate works, and scripture as witnesses. The category of witness cannot be reduced to divine personhood or I would just say personhood in general. The true function, the father's testimony does not function as an isolated metaphysical proof of a second divine person, but as a divine authentication of the son's messianic mission. So this is my closing thesis. Two witnesses, one revelation, one God. Now, the law of two witnesses was never designed to divide God into divine compartments. It was designed to establish truth in the covenant courtroom because remember, and I have to be honest, I appeal more to a little bit of a covenantal framework. Now, I still believe in a little bit of dispensation, but I think the overarching framework should be more of a covenant standpoint that you know you have different covenants, but I ain't going to get off topic. John's thunder, if you know Jesus, you know the father.

[00:41:18]If you see Jesus, you have seen the father. And I think that's so important.

[00:41:24]I think it's absolutely necessary to maintain uh because this is an easy topic to get confused and I may do some more teaching on this but hopefully this has been a blessing. If you know someone who has given you questions or a hard time on this particular question on the surface it looks very convincing but when you dig the only thing you find is one God. So again hey please share rate subscribe let somebody know that we are talking about theology and we're talking about Jesus. Uh but before we do, we are going to pray and ask God to give us a witness in our spirit that we're going to continue to grow in his word. Mighty God, we thank you for all that you have and all that you have done for us in the past. We look forward to your blessing.

[00:42:08]We look forward to your strength. Help us to witness to the lost to reach those who do not know you that they may be saved. Give all listening today who have not repented of their sins a mind to turn from wickedness and to save themselves from this untored generation, a mind to be baptized in the name of Jesus and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues. Jesus, we thank you because your promise is that it is a promise to them that are far off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. We bless you and we give you all of the praise in Jesus's only saving name. Amen. Well, you that know what I say all the time, it's the whole gospel.