|
|
|
|
Who Is Messiah? OverviewIs Jesus Called God?God's AgentWhere is the Proof?History and DevelopmentJesus Had To Be A Man |
|
Throughout the Old Testament, there were prophecies and promises of One who was to come. When Jesus of Nazareth came preaching the Gospel, he declared that he was that Messiah. The word Messiah comes from the Hebrew word mashiyach, while the word Christ comes from the Greek word christos. Both words mean the same thing: the anointed one. How ironic that many people who call themselves "Christian" don't know the meaning of the word "Christ." There were other "anointed ones" who were anointed to be priests and kings in the Hebrew Scriptures, but there were prophecies that one specific person, the anointed one, would come. He would be the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), a prophet like unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19), a king from the royal line of David (II Samuel 7:12-16), and the Messiah and Son of God (Psalm 2:2,6,7), who will judge the world in righteousness (Psalm 9:8; 72:2,4; 96:10,13; Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3). Interestingly, the prophecies never involved the idea of God coming down to earth in the form of a man. That idea would have been unthinkable to the Jews. It stems from pagan mythology and philosophy, and was actually not a part of orthodox Christian doctrine for the first two hundred years after Christ. The most sacred prayer for Israel is the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." The Old Testament frequently stressed that God was "one" and there was no other (Deuteronomy 4:35,39; 32:39; Isaiah 44:6,8,24; Isaiah 43:10; 45:5,12,14,18,21,22; 46:9; Malachi 2:10). Jesus himself confirmed this strict monotheism. He quoted the Shema in Mark 12:29 and addressed the Father as "the only true God." John 17: Paul likewise declared that there was one God, the Father; and one lord, Jesus Christ, the man who is the mediator between God and man. I Corinthians 8: The common belief among most Christians is that Jesus is God. But he never claimed to be God, he always said he was the son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 9:35-37; 10:36). If he were God, he could not be the Son of God. To be a "son" means you are the offspring of someone, and by definition you are not the one whose offspring you are. To be the Son of God means you are not God. He stressed that he and God were two separate people who bore witness of him (John 8:17-18). This does not mean that he was "just a man" as some might claim. He is not an ordinary man by any means. He is the unique, only-begotten son of God, conceived supernaturally by God's spirit in the womb of Mary. But he never claimed to be "God the Son" which is quite different from "the Son of God."
There are a number of specifically stated differences between God and His Son, Jesus:
The Scriptures clearly declare that the Father is the only true God. If Jesus is also God then you would have two Gods. This is gotten around by the doctrine of the Trinity. It states that there are three persons in one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They are three co-equal and co-eternal persons, yet they are but one God. Besides being illogical and mathematically impossible, there is simply no Scripture that declares such a thing.
| |
|
Time after time in the Scriptures, Jesus is referred to as the Messiah, the Son of God. There are only a handfull of verses that even seem to call Jesus God, and most of those are questionable on textual and grammatical grounds. Only two verses unquestionably call Jesus God, and we shall see in what sense they do so. The vast amount of Scriptures refer to Jesus as the Son of God, though. One passage of Scripture that seems to say that God became man is highly questionable based on textual evidence. I Timothy 3:16 reads in the KJV, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." It is widely recognized and acknowledged that the word for God, Theos, is not in most Greek manuscripts. It is, in most MSS, either ho (which), or hos (who). According to A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the late Dr. Bruce Metzger, the neuter relative pronoun ho would have most likely arisen as a scribal correction of the masculine pronoun hos, in order for it to agree with musterion, mystery. Dr. Metzger writes: No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports Theos; all ancient versions presuppose hos or ho; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading Theos. The reading Theos may have arisen accidentally, if a scribe mistook hos for the standard abbreviation for Theos which looks similar, but with a line through the O and a line over the top. Or it may have been added deliberately. The note on this verse in the NAB reads: Who: the reference is to Christ, who is himself "the mystery of our devotion." Some predominantly Western manuscripts read "which," harmonizing the gender of the pronoun with that of the Greek word for mystery; many later (eighth/ninth century on), predominantly Byzantine manuscripts read "God," possibly for theological reasons. Other English versions render it as follows: ASV The passage is referring either to Jesus or the "mystery of godliness" being revealed, vindicated, seen, etc. But it does not say that God was manifested in the flesh. (Click here for the NET Bible Commentary on this verse.) There are also a few other verses that are questionable. John 1:18 in the NRSV reads, "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known." However the KJV reads, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Most manuscripts support this reading; the substitution of "God" for "Son" is based on a variant reading in Alexandrian manuscripts. In Acts 20:28 it seems to say that God purchased the church with his own blood which would imply that Jesus was God in the flesh. The KJV (in agreement with NASB) reads, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." But the NRSV renders it, "to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son." The Greek phrase "his own" could be understood either way, grammatically. A few passages have ambiguous wording. Romans 9:5 reads in the KJV, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." It is ambiguous in this wording. Should it be read as "Christ, who is God over all" as the NET has it, or as "God who is over all be blessed forever" as the RSV puts it? Even Trinitarian scholars are divided over which is the correct meaning. Another verse is worded the same in most versions but can be understood in more than one way. I John 5:20 reads (in the KJV), "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Does the word "this" refer to Jesus Christ or to "him that is true" which is God? It is the Greek word houtos and is quite flexible. Again, even Trinitarian scholars are divided on this question. Three verses mention God and Jesus together, but some versions word it as if they were identical. II Thessalonians 1:12 in the KJV reads, "That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." But the NAB reads, "...in accord with the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ." Similarly, Titus 2:13 reads in the KJV, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." This could be understood either way, but the NASB renders it, "the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" while the NAB words it, "the glory of the great God and of our savior, Jesus Christ." And also II Peter 1:1 reads in the KJV, "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Again this could go either way, but the NASB reads, "the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" while the ASV reads "the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ." Since these verses can legitimately be read either way, the preferred reading will depend on one's preformed opinions. They do not in and of themselves prove that Jesus is God. The above seven verses are questionable, as mentioned above, and cannot unequivocally be said to call Jesus God. Sometimes the fact that Jesus is called "Lord" is taken to mean that he is God. But the word lord can mean any superior. Sarah called her husband Abraham "lord" according to I Peter 3:6. Especially in the Old Testament it was common to address a superior as "my lord." The Old Testament verse quoted more frequently in the New Testament than any other is Psalm 110:1, in which YHWH addresses someone called "my lord." Psalm 110: This verse is quoted or alluded to in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament verse, and is recognized as referring to the Messiah. It is frequently claimed that the second word "Lord" is the word Adonai, a divine title, and thus is calling the Messiah God. However, it is not the word Adonai, but adoni, which occurs 195 times in the Old Testament and always refers to a human superior, or occasionally an angel. It is never used of God. The Messiah was called David's lord, not his God (Matthew 22:42-45). There are only two verses that refer to Jesus as God for sure, and they must be considered. Heb 1: The word "God" first of all is not used exclusively for YHWH, the Creator. The Hebrew word elohim, is most often translated "God," but is also translated other ways at times, such as "mighty," in Genesis 23:6, 30:8, and Exodus 9:28. It is even used of false gods, in Judges 11:24 and I Samuel 5:7. The Greek word Theos is also not limited to the Creator. II Corinthians 4:4 calls the devil "the god of this world." Elohim is often used to refer to people, especially, "divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power" (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs, pp. 42, 43). When it is used in this way, it is understood that they are in an exalted position as representatives of God. It is used this way of Moses in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, and of the judges in several instances. Elohim is translated "judge" or "judges" in five places, and it is translated "gods" referring to the judges in Exodus 22:28, as well as Psalm 82:6-8 (which Jesus refers to in John 10:34). When used of Moses, it says that he will be as God in Exodus 4:16, but the word "as" is not used in Exodus 7:1. It says, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" and describes the relationship between Moses and Aaron. Referring to the judges in Psalm 82, God says, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you will die like men." In the other places it calls the Judges "gods," as with all the instances where elohim is used of exalted humans, it is clear from the context that it is not saying these people are YHWH the Creator. In Hebrews 1:8 and John 20:28 the Greek is O Theos, literally "the God." It is sometimes argued that this marks a distinction between calling others "a god" or "gods" and "The God," the Creator. But Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45, where "O God" (Hebrew elohim, Greek o theos in the LXX) is used of the exalted human king, according to verse 1. This shows that, like elohim, it is not limited to only YHWH the Creator. As further proof, the next verse indicates that that king has a God himself: "Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." This is also quoted in Hebrews. If the king, called "O God" in verse 8, is said to have a God in verse 9, then clearly it is not saying that the king is God the Creator. This usage was understood in Jewish culture, and no one in that culture ever considered it to mean that God Himself would literally come down to earth in the form of a man. After Thomas calls Jesus "my Lord and my God" in John 20:28, we then read: John 20: Again, the usage of the word "God" in this sense was understood. No one, including Thomas, had ever considered the idea that God would come to earth in a physical body. Jesus' resurrection appearances proved, not that he was God, but that he was the Messiah. And John immediately emphasized this in the next few verses. "These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" So when Jesus is called "God" in these two instances, it is in the secondary sense of an exalted representative of God. Jesus referred to this in John 10 when the Pharisees accused him of claiming to be God. But he clarifies his statement to remove any question of whom he claim to be. John 10: Jesus quotes the above-mentioned verse from Psalm 82:6, showing that people could be called gods. He then uses it to establish that it was not blasphemy for him to claim to be the Son of God. If he were indeed YHWH, the Creator, this would have been the perfect opportunity to say so. But he refuted their accusation and reiterated that he was the Son of God. He is clearly an exalted person, and not a "mere" man as many Trinitarians claim that he must be if he is not God. But Biblical Unitarians (those who believe that God is one person rather than a trinity, not to be confused with Unitarian Universalists) believe him to be the only-begotten Son of God, the Messiah, the central focus of all creation and the perfect representation of his Father. One of the most famous prophecies of the Messiah is often used to prove that he is God, but in fact it actually illustrates his exalted position as God's coming King of the Kingdom. This occurs in the oft-quoted Isaiah 9:6. Isaiah 9: First of all, it doesn't say he would be God, it says that this would be the meaning of his name. The name Israel contains El, another name for God, and literally means "God prevails." The name Isaiah includes the divine name Jah and means "Jah has saved." There are many Hebrew names that have God as part of them. This does not make these people God. Secondly, the name "God" applied to the coming Messiah is not meant to imply that he would be God the creator. The phrase "mighty God" combines El with gibbor which means strong or mighty. Like the name Elohim, this phrase can be used of mighty rulers other than God Himself. It refers to human rulers in Ezekiel 32:21, and is translated "The strong among the mighty" in the KJV, "The strong among the mighty ones" in the NASB, and "mighty chiefs" in the NRSV. The Messiah would be a mighty ruler because of God's power, and "the government shall be upon his shoulder." As for calling him "everlasting father," the word for "everlasting" is a variation of the word for "age." The phrase literally means "father of the coming age." It must be remembered that not even in Trinitarian theology is the Messiah ever referred to as "Father." If anything, he is called "God the Son." Even the Roman Catholic Douay version translates this phrase as "the Father of the world to come." To call someone the father of something is a common Hebraic idiom referring to one who started it. Jabal is called "the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle" in Genesis 4:20, and Jubal is called "the father of all such as handle the harp and organ" in the following verse. Abraham is called "the father of all them that believe" in Romans 4:11. The coming Messiah was called the Father of the Coming Age because he would be the one who initiates or inaugurates it. So he is called the mighty ruler and the father of the age to come here. He is called the Son of God in many, many places, and only called God twice for sure, and they are in a representational sense. How does he represent God without being God? The concept of agency is an important concept to understand, and it will be dealt with next.
| |
|
Part of the reason westerners don't understand the relationship between God and His Son is because they don't understand the Hebrew concept of agency. In that culture, when an agent represented a principal, the agent was viewed as, and even addressed as, the principal. An agent speaking on behalf of another was looked on as if he were the person whom he represented. This is especially true of the Angel of the Lord representing God. Exodus 23:The Angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar and spoke to her in Genesis 16:7ff, but verse 13 says that "she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me..." Similarly, an angel appeared to Manoah and his wife in Judges 13. Manoah did not know it was an angel at first, according to verse 16. But he realized it was the angel of the LORD in verse 21, yet in the next verse, he said to his wife, "We shall surely die, because we have seen God." God had said that no one could see His face and live (Exodus 33:20). We are told in a number of other places that no one has seen God at any time, because He is invisible (John 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; I John 4:12; I Timothy 1:17; 6:16). Yet Exodus 33:11 says, "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Similar references to speaking to God face to face can be seen in Genesis 32:30; Numbers 12:6-8 and Deuteronomy 34:10. How can this be if no one has seen God? Moses said (in Deuteronomy 5:4) that "The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire," referring to the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. God Himself at that time had said, "Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven" (Exodus 20:22). However they only heard a voice, but "saw no similitude" according to Deuteronomy 4:12. Jesus, in fact said they had "neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form." We are told that what they actually had seen and heard was an angel. Acts 7: In a similar way, Jacob says he saw God "face to face" in Genesis 32:30 after wrestling with "a man" (verse 24). Yet Hosea 12:4 says that "he had power over the angel." So does the Bible contradict itself? Was it God or His angel that spoke and interacted? In Jewish culture, especially in Biblical times, Rabbis had a saying that the personality of the master is invested in the agent. The agent is as his master's person. When the agent speaks, it is looked on as if it is the master speaking. The agent even appropriates the name of the master. We saw that it was an angel through whom God gave the Ten Commandments, yet Exodus 20:1-2 says, "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God..." Similarly, the angel speaks on behalf of God in Genesis 22:10-12; 31:10-13; and Judges 2:1-4. He speaks directly for God, as if He were God, even speaking in the first person ("I am the LORD," etc.). The Scriptures say that it was God who spoke, even though literally God spoke through His angel. This is then in agreement with the verses that say nobody has seen God. (For more on this concept, see "Theophanies and Christophanies?" by John Cordaro.) It is in this sense that it must be understood that Jesus represented God, although Hebrews 1 emphasizes that he was not an angel. As the Son of God, he was the ultimate representation of God, and thus many characteristics of God are attributed to him as well. Many of these are thought to be proof that he is God, but in fact what they prove is that he perfectly represents his Father. He is called the "image of the invisible God" in Colossians 1:15. He is the "brightness of His glory" in Hebrews 1:3. The Greek word for "brightness" literally means "reflected brightness." If He reflects God, he can't be God. The same verse also says he is the "express image of his person." The words "express image" are the Greek word, charakter, a stamped image. The word for "person" is hupostasis, a substructure, or foundation. Jesus is the stamped image of God, and God is the substructure of that stamped image. Thus Jesus is not God Himself, but the ultimate manifestation of God. According to Philippians 2:6, he is "in the form of God" (literally, external appearance) and John 1:18 says that he is the only begotten Son (not the "only begotten God" as some versions render it), who declares, or makes known, the Father. There are a number of things that are said about both God and Jesus, which Trinitarians use to prove that Jesus is God. For example, in Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26 we read of Jesus forgiving the sins of the paralyzed man. The Jews accuse him of blasphemy, saying, "who can forgive sins but God?" Trinitarians will say the Jews were right in saying no one could forgive sins but God, and so this proves that he was God. But a few verses later, Jesus says he is healing the man, "that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins." Jesus can forgive sins, not because he is God, but because he was authorized by God to do so. Jesus said his meat was to do the will of him that sent him, and to finish his work (John 4:34). He did nothing himself, but only what the father taught him (John 8:28). This is why he is called savior and lord, as his Father was called. This is why he is called "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last" just as his Father was. This is why he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9).
Trinitarians sometimes point to John 5:18 as proof that Jesus is God. But first of all, it doesn't say that he claimed to be God. It says he called God his Father, "making himself equal with God." But the word for "equal" is isos which is elsewhere used to refer to having the same characteristics (Matthew 20:12, Luke 20:36), or simply agreeing (Mark 14:56,59). It does not mean that he was identical with God. The context describes in what way they were equal.
All the things Jesus did, he did because the Father enabled and empowered him to do them. He so completely communicated God that John said he was God's Word made flesh. Notice he did not say, God made flesh. But doesn't John 1 say that the Word was God? Yes, but what is meant by "the Word"?
John 1 declares that God's Word was in the beginning. In recent times, the word "word" (in Greek, logos) is interpreted as being a pre-existent person. But there is no basis for this assumption. In Hebrew terminology, God's Word is His mind, His wisdom, His plan of salvation. It is His character, if you will; that which makes Him what He is, just as my word is what makes me what I am. This is what is meant by "The word was God." The wisdom of God is personified in Proverbs 8, and verse 22 says, "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old." But no one considers God's wisdom to be a separate person from God.
Similarly, God's Word was in the beginning with God. It is said to be "with" Him in the Hebrew sense that thoughts held in one's mind are said to be "with" them. ("And these things hast thou hid in thine heart: I know that this is with thee" - Job 10:13.) Therefore the Word (God's mind, wisdom, plan) was in the beginning, and it was with God and it was God. It was understood this way for hundreds of years, and even after the doctrine of the Trinity was developed, verse 3 of John 1 still read, "All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made" in all English Bibles translated from Greek, before the KJV in 1611.
When you come to verse 14 of John 1, for the first time it refers to a person, when the word becomes flesh. At that point God's plan, God's purpose, God's wisdom, is made flesh in the person of God's Son. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Notice it says he is the only begotten of the Father, not "God the Son."
The Gospel of John is often considered by Trinitarians to be the one that most clearly presents Jesus as God. What it does present is Jesus as a unique person who demonstrated God's power. But he was able to do the things he did because God gave him that power. Phrases Jesus used such as "not of myself," "nothing on my own" and "Him that sent me" occur in John far more than any other Gospel. John explicitly declared his purpose for writing his Gospel: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (John 20:31).
The person of Jesus the Messiah is not a pre-existent person. Luke 1:35 tells us that he was conceived in Mary's womb by the power of the holy spirit, and for that reason he is called the Son of God. The words "conceive" and "beget" imply bringing someone into
existence. There was a time when he did not exist. When the Scriptures mention him having glory with the Father beforehand, it is because the whole creation looks forward to him, and he is the reason and purpose for it. He existed in God's foreknowledge therefore. We also existed in God's foreknowledge according to Romans 8:28-30 and Ephesians 1:4. This does not make us God, nor does it mean we literally existed with God in the beginning.
Jesus the Messiah is the most exalted human being, whose coming was foretold by the Prophets. He is the central purpose for all creation, being the manifestation of God's character and will in the form of a human. He perfectly represented his Father, and thus many of His Father's attributes are seen in him. When viewed in light of the Hebrew culture from which the Bible comes, the similarities between the Father and the Son are understood. It is clear that Jesus Christ is the ultimate representation and communication of God.
But there are also distinctions made between them. Trinitarians will respond that there are indeed differences between the Father and the Son, and that is to be expected, because they are two separate persons, within the one God. But the differences stated above aren't just differences between the Father and the Son. They are specifically stated as differences between God (as a whole) and Jesus. In addition, there are many clear, unambiguous references to Jesus as the Son of God, compared with the few verses dealt with above that seem to call him God. The fact that he is not the God, the Creator, is made clear by the fact that he himself is said to have a God (II Corinthians 11:31; Ephesians 1:17; I Peter 1:3; Hebrews 1:9; Revelation 3:12). Can God have a God? And above all, his identity must be considered in light of his eternal purpose, that is, to rule the world on God's behalf, as King on David's throne.
Read more about the principle of agency in the Scriptures:
| |
|
Trinitarians know that the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible. When this is pointed out, they will sometimes respond that this doesn't prove anything because, "The word 'Bible' isn't in the Bible either!" But in fact the word Bible is from the Greek word biblos meaning 'book' and does in fact appear in the Bible, referring to the written Scriptures. Yet, even if that word weren't used, the idea of written Scriptures is certainly present, and described by other good words, such as "scripture," "writing," and the oft-repeated phrase, "It is written." Compare this to the Trinity. While the word "Trinity" (as well as other Trinitarian language such as "three persons in one God," "triune," "one substance," "eternally begotten," etc.) is absent from Scripture, it is claimed that such language was coined after the Canon of Scripture was completed to describe concepts that are in the Bible. This should send up a red flag for any Bible student. It suggests that God didn't do a good enough job communicating His nature in the Scriptures inspired by Him. If God were indeed "one essence existing in three persons" surely in His infinite wisdom He could have come up with words to describe it in the Scriptures He inspired. But there is nothing that suggests such a concept in the Bible. Why would the full communication of the nature of God be left up to people writing two hundred or more years after the New Testament was completed? Nevertheless, Trinitarians claim that the concept, if not the language, of the Trinity is in the Bible. But when they are asked to show where it appears, they don't point to any Scripture that directly says God is three persons. They can't, because there is no such passage of Scripture. What they point to for proof is the verses that clearly state that the Father is God, then to verses that seem to say Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. The notion is inferred logically from the fact that these three persons are called God. There is only one God, yet three persons are called God, so logically they must be three persons in one God. The problem with this logic is that, first of all, it directly contradicts the clear Scriptures which state that the Father is the one and only true God (John 17:1-3; I Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6). Secondly, there are better ways to understand the few verses which call Jesus and the Holy Spirit "God." We saw in what sense Jesus is called God (in only two verses for sure) above. I deal with how the Bible presents the Holy Spirit as God's operational presence and power, in a separate article. So just the fact that they are all thought to be called God does not in itself prove the Trinity. Furthermore, there is no Scripture anywhere that presents God as more than one person. Quite the contrary, the Bible declares God to be "one" and presents Him as a single personal being, while Jesus Christ is declared to be the "only-begotten Son of God" and not "God the Son." In all of the thousands of references to God in the Bible, not one can be demonstrated to mean a plurality. He is always one. But then the error is compounded by reading it back into the Scriptures. The Trinity was not formulated as a doctrine until much later, so any reference to it in the Bible would be an anachronism. The proof texts that are thought to substantiate the Trinity must be looked at more closely, and without a preconceived Trinitarian mindset. Only a few verses refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit together (Matthew 28:19; I Corinthians 12:3-6; II Corinthians 13:14; I Peter 1:2). But they all just list the three. From other Scriptures we know that the Father is God, the Creator. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not God the Son, and only ever called God in a secondary, representational sense. And the Holy Spirit refers to God's power and presence in action, especially as concentrated in the risen Christ. Nowhere does it say that they are "three persons in one God," co-equal, co-eternal, or of the same substance. The only verse in the Bible that says anything resembling "three persons in one God" is I John 5:7-8. This passage has been one of the most hotly contested passages in the Bible, due to its lack of textual evidence. The majority of scholars consider it to be an interpolation. The KJV reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." But the words in bold, referred to as the Johannine Comma by theologians, are not found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. For this reason most modern versions omit it. For example, the NASB words it as, "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." There are some who maintain the passage's validity, however. (See a discussion of this in a Closer Look article.) But even if it were in the original, the fact is that these verses, as written, do not prove the Trinity any more than John 10:30. The Father, His Word, and His Spirit are all one in purpose and function just as Jesus said he and the Father were. The verse does not say they are "one substance" nor are they called "three persons in one God." One verse that is supposed to imply plurality in God is Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The fact that He says "Let us..." is supposed by some to mean He was speaking to the Son. But there are two other possibilities. It may be an example of the "plural of majesty" as when a king uses the royal "we." Or, God may have been addressing His angels, as Job 38:6-7 describes the angels rejoicing at the time of God's creation. Either way, the next verse (verse 27) strongly suggests that He worked alone when it says, "So God created man in his own image." It would be illogical to claim that the use of "us" in this and only three other verses (Genesis 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8) means that God is plural, when references to God are used with singular verbs and pronouns some twelve thousand times throughout the Bible. God stressed that He created the universe by Himself in Isaiah 44:24. The word elohim is said by some to be a plural word, because it has a plural ending (-im) in Hebrew. If that were the case, though, it should be translated "gods" in every case. Merely having a plural ending does not necessarily mean it is plural in meaning. There are other words in Hebrew that have plural endings but are actually singular in meaning, such as chayyim (life), panim (face), and mayim (water). Elohim is sometimes used to refer to plural people (Psalm 82:6) or plural gods (Judges 11:24; I Samuel 5:7) but is also used of singular people who are obviously not plural (for example, Moses in Exodus 7:1 and the king in Psalm 45:6). The context must determine whether plurality is actually intended. When used of God, Elohim is used with singular verbs and pronouns in the approximately 2300 places where it occurs. In addition, other names for God, such as YHWH (some 7000 occurrences) and Adonai, (some 449 occurrences), as well as the Greek New Testament name, Some have tried to suggest that the Hebrew word for "one," echad, carries with it a plural meaning, and can refer to a "compound unity." They refer to two becoming "one flesh" in Genesis 2:24, but this is another way of saying "one in purpose" (see below). One still means one. They also refer to verses in which "one" is defining a compound element, such as "one people" (Genesis 11:6, 34:16), "one (single) cluster of grapes" (Numbers 13:23), or "one (whole) assembly" (Ezra 2:64). But in all these cases, it is the noun that echad modifies which gives it the compound quality, not the word echad itself. The words "cluster," "people," and "assembly" are words that have a compound meaning. But echad still means "one." It is one cluster, one people, one assembly. One always means one.
Another misunderstanding of the word "one" is the frequently quoted saying of Jesus, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). But we saw from the context that when the Jews accused him of blasphemy, he responded with his clarification that he was the son of God. He could not have been saying that He was God. The word for "one" is the same word used a few chapters later, when Jesus prays that "all may be one."
Jesus could not have meant in John 10:30 that he was "one substance" with the Father, for in his prayer in chapter 17 he prayed that all may be one in the same way, "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee," and he could not pray that all people may be "one substance, co-equal, and co-eternal." In both cases "one" is used in the sense of one in purpose, one heart, the same as when a married couple becomes "one flesh" (Matthew 19:5,6; Mark 10:8). Jesus and his Father are one in heart and purpose, and he prayed that all may be one in the same way.
There are a few other "proof texts" that are commonly used to prove that Jesus is God from the Scriptures. Colossians 2:9 says that in Jesus "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." This verse says that the fullness of God dwells in Christ. It does not say that he is God in a human body. II Corinthians 5:19 says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." There is a big difference between having God in you and being God yourself.
Another "proof text" is John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am." This is used to prove that Jesus existed before he was born. But could he contradict what he has clearly said elsewhere? He said he was not God but the Son of God in John 10:36, and that His Father was the only true God in John 17:3. In his discourse with the Jews here in chapter 8, he had not said, as the Jews thought, that he had seen Abraham (v. 57), but rather that Abraham rejoiced to see his day (v. 56). Jesus was the center of God's plan, and his day was the subject of God's promises to Abraham. The lamb was "crucified before the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8; I Peter 1:20).
When Jesus said "I am" in this context, it is thought to be a quote of God's reference to Himself as I AM in Exodus 3:14. In that verse, when Moses asked what God's name was and whom he should say sent him, God replied, "I AM THAT I AM" and then said, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) renders "I AM THAT I AM" as ego eimi o on and then the second "I AM" as simply o on. God was not just saying "I AM I AM." The phrase "I AM THAT I AM" literally means "I am the being" or "I am the self-existent one." The phrase o on means "The Being" or "The Self-existent One." God told Moses to say that "The Self-existent One" sent him.
However, Jesus did not claim this title. "I am" in John is not ego eimi o on, but just ego eimi. It is a common phrase which simply means "I am he" or "I am the one." The blind man used the same phrase when he said "I am he" in John 9:9. Jesus used it twice before in the same chapter in which he said, "Before Abraham was, I am."
Jesus wasn't saying he was "the Great I AM" or the "Self-existent One" as God is. He was simply saying "I am he," which he defined in v.25 as "I am who I have been saying I am all along." He'd been saying all along that he was the Son of God, not God in the flesh. And verse 28 says as plain as can be, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He." The Son of Man is a title for the Messiah that originated in Daniel, and was a title that Jesus often used of himself. He uses it here, adding "I am he" (ego eimi). He also used the phrase "I (that speak to you) am he" in John 4:26, when he identifies himself as the Messiah to come. Son of Man and Son of God are Messianic titles, as well as "Messiah" itself, all of which refer to the One who was to come and declare God's will, judge the world, and rule on God's behalf, as well as offer himself as the ultimate sacrifice. This is who and what Jesus claimed to be.
Because this was all part of God's plan, it is said that Jesus "came from God" (John 8:42). It also says he "came down from heaven" (John 6:38,41,42,51,58). Does that mean he existed as the Eternal Son before he came to earth? To "come down from heaven" is a Hebrew idiomatic expression that means something or someone came from God. In John 6:49-50 he said that the manna in the wilderness was bread which "came down from heaven." Did that make the manna God? Did the bread pre-exist in heaven? Jesus came from God and was part of God's eternal plan. That's why he is said to have had glory with the Father before (John 17:5).
Another "proof" is in Philippians.
I mentioned above that verse 6 does not say that he was God, but that he was in the form of God. The word for "form" is the Greek word morphe, meaning the external appearance. The word for "robbery" is
harpagmos, meaning something to be seized. He did not think being equal (isos, same as in John 5:18, above) with God was something to be seized or grasped at. The Trinitarian slant on this is that Jesus, being God, chose to empty himself of his divinity and humbled himself as a servant. This is not stated in this verse, however, but is read into it. He was the visible representation of his Father, not his Father in human form. If he had been God, how could we "let this mind be in [us] which was also in Christ Jesus"?
Colossians 1 is a section that has several "proof texts" in it.
This section is misunderstood largely because of the poorly translated prepositions, as well as the failure to understand the exalted position of Christ. I mentioned before how "the image of the invisible God" refers to his being the perfect representation of God. He is also the firstborn of every creature in the new creation, which will be completed when he returns. Then verse 16 refers to creation. The first word "by" (in the beginning of the verse) is actually en or "in." The second word "by" (near the end of the verse) is dia meaning "through" or "for the sake of" and the word "for" is eis, which can be translated "unto" or "for." The verse literally says, "In him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth...all things were created through or for the sake of him, and for him."
The next verse continues with the prepositions. "Before" is pro and can refer to rank or importance as well as time. The word "by" in this verse is again en. He is before all things in rank and importance, and it is in him that all things consist. All these things describe the most highly exalted person in all of creation except for God himself, and that is exactly what Jesus Christ is.
There are other verses that are sometimes used to try to prove that Jesus is God, and that God consists of three persons. This is intended to be only a starting point. I exhort the reader to examine what Trinitarians say about them, and also examine what Unitarians say about them, and determine what the Bible says. All of the "proof texts" are reading the later doctrine of the Trinity back into the Scriptures. The fact is that it did not even exist as a doctrine until hundreds of years after the Canon of Scripture was closed.
| |
|
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and not God the Son. His belief about God reflected the central tenet of Jewish faith, that God is One. Mark 12: Jesus quoted the Shema in this passage. When he did, the scribe readily agreed with him. Was Jesus a Trinitarian or did he affirm the Jewish unitarian monotheistic creed? Jesus and the scribe both agreed that YHWH was the One True God and there was no other. The scribes, and indeed all Jews from Old Testament times on, held that God was one, and never considered it in a Trinitarian sense. The word "discreetly" in verse 34 is translated "wisely" or "intelligently" in other versions. Jesus concluded their discourse with the statement, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." If Jesus was a Trinitarian, he'd have been dishonest to agree with the scribe. Had Jesus believed that God was one essence, but existing in three persons, it would have constituted a major departure from traditional Jewish doctrine. Such a departure on the part of Jesus or his disciples would have been met with questions and controversy as well. But no such controversy ever occurred in the first century Church. There was controversy about the need for Messiah to be crucified, about the need to keep the letter of the Law, and especially about the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church. But no controversy ever arose in the first century concerning the definition of God as more than one person. None of the apostles subscribed to the notion that Jesus was God. The first century Church (who were mostly converted Jews) believed that Jesus was the Messiah promised to Israel. However, when more and more Gentiles became Christians, Gentile thinking came to dominate the Church, replacing Hebrew thinking, as discussed in the article about the Hebrew Origins of the Bible. With the loss of Hebrew understanding, the terms "Son of God" and "Son of Man" lost much of their meaning and eventually took on new meaning, based on Greek philosophical ideas. Similarly, words like "Lord," "God," "person" and "Word" acquired new meaning when the Hebrew understanding was lost. Confusion arose as to the exact relationship between God and Jesus. Gnosticism was a philosophical movement that predated Christianity, and stemmed from a variety of sources. There are a number of variations, but the basic theme that they have in common is that the spiritual is good, and matter is evil. Escape from the evil of matter was considered to be dependent on gnosis or special knowledge available to those who are fully initiated. Christians who embraced gnosticism began to develop a different interpretation of Jesus. He could not be fully human to them, since matter is evil, so they began to theorize that he was either a spiritual being who inhabited a body, or else only "appeared" to be human (a belief known as "docetism"). Those who considered him a spiritual being considered him to be a "lesser god" created by God some time after the beginning, but still many years before his birth. But if that were the case, he would not have been entirely human. Likewise, if he only "appeared" to be human, he did not truly come in the flesh. John refuted these ideas in his epistles. I John 4: In addition, Greek philosophy, particularly stoicism, spoke of a supreme rational principal, which they called logos. It also taught that "hypostases" were realities which derived from higher essentials. The highest principle was called "the One" and from that was derived the second hypostasis, called Mind. From this came the third, or the Soul. Such ideas were incorporated into Christian doctrine as early as the second century Apologists, after the Hebrew understanding of the Messiah was largely lost. They began to describe the Word as a pre-existent person, created by God, but inferior to Him. This shift from the historical coming of the Messiah in the flesh to the incarnation of a pre-existent being, provided the foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity. Historian Paul Schrodt, in his book The Problem of the Beginning of Dogma in Recent Theology, writes the following:
Thus the Logos, or Word, was changed from God's preexisting purpose to a preexisting person. Justin Martyr (mid 2nd century) proposed that it was the Son of God, rather than the word of God, which existed before, and appeared as an angel in the Old Testament. Still, the Son was not yet "co-eternal" or "co-equal" with the Father, as later developments described him. Tertullian was the first Christian writer to use the term "trinity" to describe three "persons" having "one substance," around the end of the 2nd century. But he still considered the second and third persons to have proceeded from the first to fulfill a specific function. Origen (early-to-mid 3rd century), on the other hand, considered them to have always existed. He coined the term "eternally begotten" or "eternally generated" which is actually a meaningless contradiction in terms, since "begotten" means someone is brought into existence. But "three persons in one substance" means "God" is now a "substance" or an "essence" rather than a person. Such language, which is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity, was coined to explain the apparent contradiction between Jesus being deity (in whatever sense) and the belief in only one God. Had these Christian writers simply maintained the original Jewish understanding of God and Lord, along with the understanding of Messiah being God's Son and thus His ultimate representative, there would have been no contradiction. There would therefore have been no need to coin new language which, in addition to being illogical and self-contradictory, is found nowhere in the Bible. Instead they believed that Greek philosophy provided a way to explain the complex nature of God. They then took these foreign concepts and read them back into the Scriptures, in an attempt to prove that the concepts were Biblical. As time went on, differences in the nature of the Son and of his relationship with the Father grew more contentious. Athanasius taught that Jesus was co-equal with God, while the Arians believed he was inferior to the Father (though they still believed he preexisted his birth). The heated division over these questions necessitated the Council of Nicea in 325. Under the leadership of the Emperor Constantine, it was officially declared that Jesus was God. The Nicene creed states that he was "begotten of the Father before all ages; God from God; Light from Light; True God from True God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made." In 381, the Council of Constantinople added the designation that the Holy Ghost was "the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified; and who spoke through the prophets." The doctrine was further developed in the middle ages, as witnessed by the Athanasian Creed of the fifth century. It states that "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal." However, complete equality with regards to their origins was still not claimed for all three, but rather it states, "The Father is neither made, created, nor begotten. The Son of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." After the Reformation, this distinction was dropped and the definition of the Trinity was fully developed into three persons in one God, completely equal in origin as well as substance, power, and glory. Since the first introduction of these doctrines, there were always individuals or small groups that opposed the "orthodox" teaching. They were generally excommunicated, exiled, and often persecuted and even killed. Yet there have always been small pockets of Biblical Unitarians throughout history. The 16th century Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation brought it more into the open, and during the 1800s many more people came to an understanding of this view of Jesus. Today, many Biblical scholars recognize that the Scriptures present Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God, and not God the Son. However, they are in the minority and often ridiculed or berated. Nevertheless, they present a sound case that doctrine of the Trinity cannot be shown from the Bible, and in fact is refuted by it.
| |
|
This is not meant to be an exhaustive consideration of this topic. I refer you to other Biblical Unitarian writers, all of whom back up from Scripture their view that Jesus is the Son of God and not God. It is important to recognize who he is, since his identity as the promised Messiah is part of the Gospel of the coming Kingdom, the acceptance of which is the key to eternal life. If the Father and the Son are co-equal, co-eternal persons, and one "essence," how can they have separate wills? Yet Jesus said, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me" (John 5:30). If Jesus were God, he would have just naturally done His own will. But he made a point of being obedient and always doing the Father's will. This is a great example to us as well. And when he died on the cross, it was not an automatic action. The Bible tells us that he did not want to die on the cross. He asked the Father if there were any other way besides that torturous death. "Nevertheless," he said, "Not my will but Thine be done" (Luke 22:42). If he were God he would just be doing his own will. But as God's Son, he had to choose to do his Father's will and not his own. Besides, if he were God he could not have been the sacrifice for our sins, since sin came by man, and a man had to be sacrificed. Another important point is that being a man he did not have immortality inherently. He was given immortality, as the firstborn from the dead. This is significant as he is the first of the new creation of people who will rule on God's behalf in the Coming Age. If he were God, or if he were some other kind of pre-existent, eternal being, he would have already had immortality, and would not have gained anything. But because he came in the flesh and was truly a human being, his resurrection from the dead is the guarantee that those who believe in him will also be raised up on the last day, and be given eternal life. This gift of life was first bestowed on Jesus when he was raised, as the firstfruits from the dead, and will be given to those believers who are raised when Christ returns. Many of the obvious differences between God and His Son (such as God cannot die, God cannot be tempted, God knows everything, God is all powerful, etc.) are explained away by Trinitarians by saying that Jesus had two distinct natures: one of them "fully God," and one of them "fully man." Thus the "God" part of Jesus did not die, was not tempted, is all-knowing and all-powerful, etc. But the "man" part of him did die, was tempted, is limited in knowledge and power, etc. There are two problems with this. First of all, there is no Scripture that says anything of the kind. Secondly, Trinitarians don't even claim that he is "half God and half man" but that he is "100% God and 100% man." But nobody can be 200% of anything. Besides, if Jesus had this (logically impossible) dual nature, how in the world could we identify with him or be imitators of him? The whole relationship between God and man is exemplified in the relationship between Jesus and his Father. If he were God, or somehow a co-equal person with the Father, how could we hope to emulate that? But we can be imitators of Christ as the Son of God. And because he was a man and experienced the same things we do, he is able to strengthen us. Trinitarians claim that the relationship within the Trinity is supposed to be an example of unity in the Church. But how can that be? Members of the Church are not multiple persons within one being or essence. They are members of a family, and "one in purpose" as Jesus said he and God were. The love of the Father for His Son is our example, not love among "different persons within Himself" (a phrase which doesn't even make sense). Trinitarians often make the claim that it doesn’t matter if the doctrine is illogical by our standard of reason, because it is based on God’s higher standard of reason, which we can’t understand. If that were the case, then somewhere in His written revelation to us it would have to be explicitly stated. If it is not based on human reason, then it cannot be reasoned out from any of the supposed "implications" in the Scriptures, as Trinitarians claim it is. God would have to make a specific, though seemingly illogical, statement that he was "three persons, yet one God." He would have to make such a statement, and perhaps include the statement that it does not fit with our reason, so we must simply accept it on faith. But of course He made no such statement anywhere in Scripture. This is not to make the claim that we understand everthing about God. Certainly there are things mentioned in the Scriptures that are mysterious to us. But how many God is, is not one of those things, since He repeatedly tells us that he is one. We are told that the Scriptures give us knowledge of "everything that pertains to life and godliness" (II Peter 1:3). Yet they make no explicit statement regarding the Trinity, or the two natures of Jesus which supposedly explain the very clear distinctions between God and His Son. The very idea of the Trinity didn't even exist until many years after the Scriptures were completed. How can it be divine revelation? Such an important doctrine would surely need to have been included in the Canon of Scripture, wouldn’t it? We are told by mainstream Christianity that we are not Christian and not saved if we do not believe that God is three persons in one God. But the Bible never makes such a statement. It only says we must believe that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God." The primary key that was constantly stressed in the first century was believing in who Jesus was, as the Messiah and promised king of the Kingdom. When the understanding of who Jesus was became muddled, so also did the understanding of his primary message, the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the ultimate goal of believers, God's Kingdom on earth. The whole interconnected message of Christianity has become muddled in the Christian Church, and the doctrine of the Trinity is one part of that muddle. I encourage the reader to search the Scriptures diligently to see whether these things are so. For further study:
|
