Search across the entire library, lesson transcripts, Bible verses, and more.

Press / or Ctrl+K to open search anytime.

Select content types to search:

📜 Library Paragraphs from theological writings 🎧 Lessons Course transcript segments with timestamps 📖 Bible Bible verses (KJV) 📺 YouTube Videos Video titles, descriptions, and transcript moments 📝 Blog Posts Articles and blog content

Jumpstarter 8 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

All Questions

Question 8

Bercot argues the Father “could not have become incarnate” and that if the Father (as ultimate source) had died “that would have been the end of the Trinity”; how does that way of reasoning shape what “God” is like (especially the Father’s invisibility and “unapproachable light”), and how does it change your instincts about who was seen in Old Testament appearances of God?

Another way to ask: Bercot says the Father could not become incarnate and that if the Father died it would end the Trinity. How does that shape your picture of what the Father is like, and how might it change who you think people saw in Old Testament appearances of God?

Direct Answer According to Bercot, the Father is the invisible, ultimate source (“unbegotten,” “Origen of the Trinity”) who cannot be incarnate or visible; this pushes us to see the Son/Logos as the one who is seen and who “explains” the Father, though the transcript doesn’t fully work out Old Testament appearances.

Support from Transcript:

He states: “the Father could not have become incarnate, nor can he ever make himself visible to human eyes,” and says denying this would deny the Father’s “unique personhood.”
He reasons: if the Father “as the source of the Trinity had become man and died, that would have been the end of the Trinity…impossible.”
He cites John 1:18: “No man has seen God at any time” (meaning the Father), and “the only begotten God…has explained Him.”
He connects this to 1 Timothy 6:15-16 about the one “dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see,” and argues this refers to the Father, not Jesus.
He also quotes Colossians 1:15: Jesus is “the image of the invisible God,” supporting the pattern: Father invisible; Son makes Him known.

Discussion Follow-ups When you read an Old Testament “appearance of God,” do you instinctively picture the Father? How might John 1:18 and the “Logos explains Him” idea redirect that instinct?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10