the testimony of leading theologians and biblical scholars on the doctrine of the trinity

5/27/2018 the Testimony of Leading Theologians and Biblical Scholars on the Doctrine ...

http:///reader/full/the-testimony-of-leading-theologians-and-biblical-scholars-o

The Testimony of Leading Theologians and BiblicalScholars on the Doctrine of the Trinity

the average educated reader will see that a natural interpretation, backed by scholars

of the highest standing, is preferable to a freak one backed by dogmatism and the

requirements of a system.--The Approaching Advent of Christ (rand !apids" #nternational $ublications, rep.

%&'), *ii

+he mentality of those who say, # ust study the ible, not commentaries/ may turn out

to be a passport to disaster and ignorance.01 2 3hristian in search of truth will have

nothing to fear from the facts.

--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),

'', %9.

This text is a compilation of quotations from many different scholarly sources.

Credit has been given to the authors of each quotation.

This text is dedicated to the thousands of Christian believers in the One True God

who were martyred under Trinitarian persecution.

Contents

The Trinity and the Bible

+opic $age

#ntroduction......:+he 8ld +estament.......:

+he ;ew +estament.....

+he Shema...%esus =orshipped as od?.............@A

+he 8rigin of +rinitarianism..'%

3oncluding !emarks..''

2 +rinitarian 4tatement of 5aith9B

2 3all to !eturn to >esus the Cessiah...99

3omparing the 5ather and the 4on&:

Old Testament Proof Texts

+opic $age

Deuteronomy B":.%ohn "%9A9>ohn "@AA&

>ohn "::A&

>ohn B"AA:ohn B"B@:ohn 9":@:%

>ohn 9"9:%>ohn %ohn %@"::.:B

>ohn %:"&...:B>ohn %:"%@.:B

>ohn %:"@9.:'>ohn %"@A.:'

>ohn %B"@9.:'

>ohn %'"A...:'

>ohn %'"...:9

>ohn %'"9...ohn %'"%9.ohn %'"@%-@Aohn @



>ohn @ohn @"@@..B'

% >ohn :"@B9

% >ohn :"%A..B9% >ohn "'-9.B9

% >ohn "@ohn 'B&

!evelation @@...'ohn "@ohn 'B&

A



$ntroduction

+he oldest discovered fragment of the ospels is only three words long, and records$ilate/s question to >esus, =hat is truth? (>ohn %9"A9). +he 3hristian finds truth in

>esus 3hrist, who is the way, the truth, and the life (>ohn %:"B). Get for centuries, the

3hurch has been divided over the issue of e*actly who >esus is. +o what e*tent is >esusman, and to what e*tent is he od? +he truth of this matter is not a mystery or an

impossible enigma. 8n the contrary, >esus came into the world to testify to the truth

(>ohn %9"A') that the truth might set us free (>ohn 9"A@) and that honest faith in a trueunderstanding of the identity of od and the identity of >esus would provide the key to

eternal life (>ohn %'"A). 7e who has an ear, let him hear.

7e that would seriously set upon the search for truth ought, in the first place, to preparehis mind with a love of it. 5or he that loves it not, will not take much pains to get it, nor

be much concerned when he misses it. +here is nobody in the commonwealth who does

not profess himself a lover of truthH and there is not a rational creature that would not take

it amiss to be thought otherwise of. 2nd yet, for all this, one may truly say, there are veryfew lovers of truth for truth/s sake, even among those who persuade themselves that they

are so.-->ohn Eocke, Concerning uman !nderstanding, %BB%.

+hey perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.--@ +hessalonians @"%ews of >esus/ time held firmly to

faith in a unipersonal od. #t is one of the great ironies of history that 3hristian

theologians have denied the >ews the right to e*plain the meaning of od in their own4criptures.

--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:

Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),

@&.

+here is in the 8ld +estament no indication of distinctions in the odheadH it is an

anachronism to find either the doctrine of the #ncarnation or that of the +rinity in itspages.

--=.+. Davison, od (iblical and 3hristian),Encyclopedia of "eligion and Ethics

(+I+ 3lark, %&%A) B"@@-@B&.

+heologians today are in agreement that the 7ebrew ible does not contain a doctrine of

the +rinity.

:



--The Encyclopedia of "eligion, ed. Circea Fliade, Cacmillan $ublishing 3ompany,

%&9', %":.

+he doctrine of the +rinity is not taught in the 8ld +estament.

--#e$ Catholic Encyclopedia, $ub. uild., %&B', %:"Aohn %B"%A-%, cited by =ilson, !nitarian rinciples

Confirmed +y Trinitarian Testimonies, :''.

+he 8ld +estament is strictly monotheistic. od is a single personal being. +he idea

that a +rinity is to be found there or even in any way shadowed forth, is an assumptionthat has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation. +he >ews, as apeople, under its teachings became stern opponents of all polytheistic tendencies, and

they have remained unflinching monotheists to this day. 8n this point there is no break

between the 8ld +estament 4criptures and the ;ew. +he monotheistic tradition iscontinued. >esus was a >ew, trained by >ewish parents in the 8ld +estament 4criptures.

7is teaching was >ewish to the coreH a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology.

--E.E. $aine,A Critical istory of the Evolution of Trinitarianism(oston and ;ew Gork"

7oughton Cifflin and 3o., %&



e*plain it. #n truth, its great practical principles and character are most simple, as those

will find it, who sturdy it in the teachings and e*ample of >esus, rather than amidst the

confusion of tongues, hypercriticisms, the presumptuous, or the frivolous conceits ofuncompromising, preudiced, bigoted, infuriate polemicsH and enveloped in all the

mystery and metaphysical abstruseness of theological controversy

--.aledictory, from sermons of 7enry 3olman (n.p., %9@esus is the 4upreme Deity rather than the perfect reflection ofDeity, the authori6ed human ambassador of the 8ne od. 4ome modern proponents of

+rinitarianism produce these verses as though it were self-evident that their testimony

favors +rinitarianism. +here is a strong tradition among +rinitarians of the highestrepute, however, that these te*ts do not establish the Deity of >esus.01 =e suggest that

a false distinction has been drawn between a so-called high/ 3hristology of >ohn and the

3hristology from below/ of the 4ynoptics 0Cark, Catthew, and Euke1. oth >ohn and

the 4ynoptics present a >esus who comes not only from above/ (Catthew and Euke bydescribing >esus/ divine origin in the womb of Cary), but also from behind,/ by which

>esus is the culmination of the 8ld +estament promise that the greater son of David willappear. #n fact, all ;ew +estament 3hristology is Cessianic. Fach writer contributes,with different emphases, to the one portrait f >esus as 4on of od, in that /essianic

sense. #t is the transition from 4on of od/ in the biblical sense to od the 4on/ which

has proved so devastating to the apostolic presentation of >esus.01 4ome of thearguments advanced in favor of the doctrine of the +rinity are remarkably misleading. #n

the ible, it is said, there is one called the 5ather who is od, one called the 4on who is

od and one called the 7oly 4pirit who is od. ut we know that there is only one od.

+herefore there must be three persons who compose the one od. +his is ane*traordinary way of presenting the evidence. #n fact there is one in the ;ew +estament

called the 5ather who is said to be the 8ne od (ho theos) over %Aesus 3hrist, who is

given the title od (theos) twice for certain (>ohn @



and only true od,/ applied e*clusively to the 5ather, point to a unique classification for

7im as distinct from the 4on. 2 mass of ;ew +estament te*ts present >esus as

subordinate to the 5ather, a fact not easily reconciled with the notion that the son iscoequal with the 5ather. $aul believed that the 4on would be for all time subected to the

5ather, after he had handed back the (future) Jingdom of od (% 3or. %"@9). #f the

+rinity were taught in the ;ew +estament, one would e*pect at least one versesomewhere stating that the one od is 5ather, son and 7oly 4pirit./ 4uch a statement is

absent from the pages of 4cripture. =hen 5ather, 4on and 7oly 4pirit are placed together

in a biblical passage, they are never said to be the one od/ (Catt. @9"%&H @ 3or. %A"%:).#t is remarkable that greetings at the opening of $aul/s epistles are never sent from the

7oly 4pirit. ;or is the 7oly 4pirit ever addressed or prayed to. =hen $aul, however,

defines monotheism as distinct from polytheism, he e*pressly says that there is one od,

the 0ather, and that there is no other od but that one od, the 5ather (%. 3or. 9":, B).+hat in its simplest beauty is the biblical creed. #t should lay all argument to rest.



A', @', @'&, AAesus with od.--=illiam arclay,A Spiritual Auto+iography(rand !apids" Ferdmans, %&'), esus with od.--$rofessor =.!. Catthews

2pparently $aul did not call >esus od.

--4ydney 3ave, The Doctrine of the erson of Christ(Duckworth, %&@), :9.

$aul habitually differentiates 3hrist from od.--3.>. 3adou*,A ilgrims 0urther rogress: Dialogues on Christian Teaching(lackwell, %&:A), :esus1 od, nor identifies him anywhere with od. #t is true he doesod/s workH he is certainly od/s supernatural agent, who acts because of od/s

initiative.

--5rances Goung, 2 3loud of =itnesses, The /yth of (od Incarnate, @%.

4t. $aul never gives to 3hrist the name or description of od!eviewing the whole of

$aul/s utterances regarding 3hrist, the total impression is that of a monotheistic

conviction consistently resisting the impulse to do this very thing K to call >esus od.--2nderson 4cott, 3hristology,Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, %"%&:.

;owhere in the ;ew +estament is there a te*t with od/ which has unquestionably tobe referred to the +rinitarian od as a whole e*isting in three $ersons.

--Jarl !ahner

'



All;ew +estament 3hristology is subordinationist 0supporting the belief that the 4on is

not equal with the 5ather1.

--#. 7oward Carshall, book review of >ervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles, inEvangelical 1uarterly'esus and the 2postles. ;o 2postle would have dreamt of thinking that here are three

divine persons whose mutual relations and parado*ical unity are beyond ourunderstanding. +he mystery of the +rinityis a pseudo-mystery which sprang out of an

aberration in logical thought from the lines laid down in the ible, and not from the

biblical doctrine itself.--Fmil runner, Christian Doctrine of (od6 Dogmatics (=estminster $ress, %&



+o ask whether in the ;ew +estament the spirit is a person in the modern sense of the

word would be like asking whether the spirit of Fliah is a person. +he 4pirit of od is of

course personalH it is od/s dunamis0power1 in action. ut the 7oly 4pirit is not aperson, e*isting independently of odH it is a way of speaking about od/s personally

acting in history, or of the !isen 3hrist/s personally acting in the life and witness of the

3hurch. +he ;ew +estament (and indeed patristic thought generally) nowhere representsthe 4pirit, any more than the wisdom of od, as having independent personality.

--2lan !ichardson,Introduction to the Theology of the #e$ Testament(Eondon" 43C

$ress, %&9), %@ewish heritage and environment 01 =e are often led by our traditional

creeds and theology to think in terms dictated by entile and especially reek concepts.

=e know that no later than the second century there began the systematic effort of the2pologists to show that the 3hristian faith perfected the best in reek philosophy+he

;ew +estament speaks always with disapproval and usually with blunt denunciation ofentile cults and philosophies. #t agrees essentially with the >ewish indictment of thepagan world.

--5. 5ilson, The #e$ Testament Against Its Environment (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&esus was evidently not a +rinitarian, why should his followers be?--4idney 2. 7atch, .2. (M3E2), C. Div. (2merican aptist 4eminary of the =est), +h.

C. (Dallas +heological 4eminary)

The Shema&'euteronomy ()*+ and Christianity,s -ebrew oots

&


http:///reader/full/the-testimony-of-leading-theologians-and-biblical-scholars-on

it has been the unanimous opinion of the >ews down to the present day, that the

Cessiah had no e*istence before the creation of the world, e*cept in the divine decrees.--. =issowatius, The "acovian Catechism (8riginally written in %Besus

acknowledged as the most important of all the commandments./

--$inchas Eapide,8e$ish /onotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine, ($hiladelphia"

5ortress $ress, %&9%), @'.

>udaism is not as devoid of dogmatic formulas as formulas as one often supposes>udaism has its own creeds and articles of faith. +he Shema Israel (Deu. B":) is not only

a liturgical formula and a commandmentH it is also a confession of faith, and considered

as more important than the historical >ewish creeds. 2s a confession of faith, the Shemais the affirmation of the unity and uniqueness of od. #t constitutes the highest

e*pression of the >ewish monotheism/" Adonaiis our od,Adonai is one/ +he

3hristian symbols of faith K the 2postles/ 3reed, the ;icaean-3onstantinopolitan 3reed,

the 2thanasian 3reed, to quote only the main ones K are considered by the >ews as beingin flat contradiction to this fundamental assertion of >ewish monotheism.

--Eev illet, Communion in the /essiah: Studies in the "elationship +et$een 8udaismand Christianity(Eutterworth $ress, %&B9), ', 'B.

2s to the nature of od, all >ews maintain that the doctrines of the divinity of 3hrist, of

the +rinity, of the Fternal 4on, of the personality of the 7oly 4pirit, are infractions of thedivine Mnity and false.

--3laude Contefiore

+he belief that od is made up of several personalities such as the 3hristian belief in the+rinity is a departure from the pure conception of the unity of od. #srael has throughout

the ages reected everything that marred or obscured the conception of pure monotheism

it has given to the world, and rather than admit any weakening of it, >ews are prepared towander, to suffer, to die.

--3hief !abbi >.7. 7ert6,entateuch and aftorahs (Eondon" 4oncino $ress, %&Budaism was then, and it is

still, unitarian.01 3ould the monotheism be revised so as to include the new revelation

0of the +rinity1 without ceasing to be monotheistic?

%



--+rinitarian theologian Eeonard 7odgson in Christian 0aith and ractice6 Seven

9ectures (8*ford" lackwell, %&@), ':.

#f >esus had wanted to institute a formula for the religion he taught, there is one moment,

described in Cark/s ospel, when he had the perfect opportunity to do so. 2 scribe is

reported as having asked him" =hich is the first of all the commandments?/ #t was anoccasion to which >esus could have imparted one of those characteristic twists, bringing

in something new, something involving himself, if he wished us to believe that he was a

member of a +rinity, on an equal footing with od the father. #nstead he lookedunhesitatingly to his traditional >ewish roots.

--#an =ilson,8esus6 The Evidence, %'B, %''.

#lohim/ #chad/ and the -oly %ame of God

#t is e*egesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the +rinity in

the plural form elohim.

--=. 5ulton, +rinity, inEncyclopedia of "eligion and Ethics, %@":9.

+hough a plural form, elohim can be treated as a singular, in which case it means the onesupreme Deity+here is only one supreme od and he is a $erson.

--od in theIllustrated *i+le Dictionary(#nterLarsity $ress, %&9



--+rinitarian professor of theology regory oyd, 7neness entecostals and the Trinity

(aker ook 7ouse, %&&), :', :9.

5rom the 7ebrew word echad (meaning one) we learn not only that there is none outside

the Eord, but also that the Eord is one and that therefore the Eord cannot be viewed as

something put together which would be divisible into various properties or attributes.--$inchas Eapide,8e$ish /onotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine, ($hiladelphia"

5ortress $ress, %&9%), A%.

+he plural form of the 7ebrew word for od, elohim, however, does not provide clues

pointing to the +rinity. #t is as misleading to talk of elohimas a uniplural/ word as it is to

say that echad, one,/ hints at a plural odhead. 8ne cannot successfully argue the

+rinity from the fact that echad can modify a noun like cluster/ or herd/ and thereforemight lead us to think that od is compound. Echad is simply the numerical one/ in

7ebrew. Gahweh is one Eord,/ so the creed of #srael states (Deu. B":). Echad appears as

a modifier for 2braham/ (F6ek. AA"@:H #sa. %"@), and it may sometimes be properly

rendered as unique/ (F6ek. '"). #ts normal meaning is one and not two/ (Fcc. :"9).+here is nothing at all in the word Gahweh/ which suggests a plurality, especially since

the word occurs with singular verbs and pronouns in all of its multiple thousands (about,



strange, but it is perhaps due to 7is consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of

a loftier order than Cen (#sa. B"9).

--2.. Davidson, od,astings Dictionary of the *i+le, 3harles 4cribner/s 4ons,%&%%, @"@



Cost significantly, the promised Cessiah was given the title od in $salm :"B" +hy

throne, 8 od, is for ever and ever./ #n the ne*t verse it is made clear that this odCessiah/ has been blessed by his od" +herefore od, thy od, has anointed you/

(7ebrews %"9, quoting $s. :"B, applies the title od, used in a qualified sense, directly to

>esus). +he highest honor was given to >esus by +homas when he addressed him with theroyal Cessianic titles Eord/ and od,/ derived from $salm :"B, %%. ;ew +estament

evidence that >esus is od in the same sense as (od the 0ather is scant indeed. #f we are

sensitive to the proportions of the biblical use of the term od, we will note the fact thatit refers to the 5ather over %A@ times in the ;ew +estament, while od/ is used of >esus

only twice with complete certainty (other possible cases in which >esus is called od are

all doubtful, as is well known, for grammatical and syntactical reasons). +hese facts

suggest that the very occasional use of od/ for >esus is a special reference. 8bviously,then, it might be very misleading to say in the twentieth century that >esus is od,/

unless we first understand in what sense that word is used by >ohn (and +homas whom he

reports). 8ur use of words must not dictate the ible/s usage. =e may not simply rely

on the sound of a word without inquiring about its meaning. 2bove all, we must bewilling to let go of a dogmatic insistence on acceptance of doctrine without inquiry. 4uch

infle*ible adherence to the way we have always believed blocks the search for truthwhich is the hallmark of the growing 3hristian (2cts %'"%%).01 +he well-known words

of +homas to >esus, Cy Eord and my od,/ are supposed to be decisive for the full Deity

of 3hrist. >esus, however, had already denied being od (see above on >ohn %ohn incorporates into his portrait of

>esus as Cessiah, ideas drawn from the Cessianic $salm :. #n answer to $ilate, >esusdeclared that he was king whose task was to bear witness to the truth (>ohn %9"A'). +here

is an 8ld +estament background to this theme. $salm : is written in praise of theCessiah (7eb. %"9), who is addressed as most mighty,/ and urged to ride prosperously inthe cause of +ruth/ (vv. A, :). +he psalmist foresees the king/s enemies will fall under

you/ (v. ). +he royal status of this leader is emphasi6ed when the writer addressed him

with the words 8 od/ ($s :"B). +he career of the Cessiah outlines in $salm : isreflected in >ohn/s observation that >esus/ enemies recoiled at his claim to be the Cessiah

and fell to the ground/ (>ohn %9"B). +homas/ recognition of >esus as od/ is a beautiful

fulfillment of the $salm/s highest address to the Jing of #srael and od./ ut the od/

Cessiah has been appointed by his od, the 8ne and only #nfinite od ($s. :"').--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:


%@B, @&%, @&@.

Psalm 21)0/ (

#t is customary for +rinitarians to assume that the hostile >ewish impression of >esus/

words must be the correct one. 4ince they accused him of blasphemy and making

himself equal with od/ (>ohn "%9), it is maintained that >esus must have been making a

+rinitarian claim. #t is unfair to assume that the >ews had properly evaluated >esus/

%:



words. #f they had, there would have been no need for >esus to ustify himself further.

7e need only have repeated that he was in fact the 4upreme od. #n his much neglected

response to the angry >ews (>ohn %esus links his own authority with that of the

human gods,/ whom od so designated ($s. 9@"%, B). ranting that he was far superior

to any previous divine authority,/ a correct idea of his status is to be gained, so >esusmaintained, by considering that even #sraelite leaders were entitled to be called gods./

>esus is the highest human authority, fully and uniquely authori6ed by the 5ather.


Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),@&esus $hen he functions as an agent for ;ah$eh (ust asthe angel of the Eord who e*ercises the authority of Gahweh is sometimes equated with

Gahweh). #n $salm %%esus is declared to be the Eord Cessiah/ 0Christ literally means

/essiah1 or Eord >esus Cessiah/ 04ee Euke @"%% for the Cessianic title christos ,uriosK

Eord Cessiah1. +he term lord/ does not, as so often mistakenly thought, mean that >esusis the Eord (od (thus creating the +rinitarian problem/). >esus is the Cessiah Eord,/

based on $salm %%



use of adoni, not adonai, to designate the Cessiah in this divine oracle should have

prevented ible students from thinking that 3hrist was to be od.


:&, @, A, , ', A@:.

0+he !4L translation1 has rightly dropped the capital letter on lord 0in $salm %ob %ob @A"%ohn/s opening sentence. #n the ;ew +estament something impersonal can be

with/ a person, as, for e*ample, where $aul hopes that the truth of the ospel mightremain with 0pros1 you,/ present to the mind (al. @"). 2t the opening of >ohn/s first

epistle, which may provide ust the commentary we need on >ohn %"%, he writes that

eternal life was with 0pros1 the 5ather/ (% >ohn %"@). 8n the basis of these parallels it is

%B



impossible to say with certainty that the word/ in >ohn %"%-@ must mean a second

member of the +rinity, that is, the 4on of od pree*isting.


@9:.

Proverbs 65)0

#t is sometimes asserted that the name #mmanuel K od is with us/ K given to >esusproves that he is od. #f that were so, then the child born soon after the prediction was

given by #saiah in the days of 2ha6 would also have been od. +he name, however, does

not tell us that >esus was od, but that in his life od has intervened to save 7is people.

+he parents who in 8ld +estament times called their son #thiel ($rov. Aerusalem is called >ehovah our!ighteousness./ #s >erusalem also divine?

--+rinitarian theologian Coses 4tuart,Ans$er to Channing, cited in Concessions of

Trinitarians(oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:), @AB.

$saiah ()6

4omeone has calculated that singular pronouns describe the od of the 7ebrew ibletens of thousands of times 0>ames Gates, .indication of !nitarianism(oston" =ells and

Eilly, %9%B), BB, %A.1. Fach one of these references is a testimony to od as a single

individual, not a plurality of persons. #t is a standard fact of language, with which no onewill argue, that the personal pronoun of the singular number denotes a single person. +he

process by which the od of #srael became a +rinity speaks of entile failure to penetrate

the depths of >ewish 4cripture. $rodigious efforts have been made to turn the od of

#srael into more than one person. 3lues/ pointing to the +rinity have been found in themost unlikely places, as for e*ample, the holy, holy, holy,/ of #saiah/s vision (#sa. B"A).

Cany +rinitarians have now abandoned the struggle to find their creed in the 7ebrew

ible. Cuch unnecessary labor could have been spared if >esus/ and $aul/s simplecreedal statements had been heeded. #t remains an undeniable fact that >esus agreed with

the unitarian creed of #srael (Cark %@"@&) and $aul describes the 8ne od as numerically

one, as distinct from the many gods of the heathen 0% 3orinthians 9":H % 3orinthians9"B1.



%9%.

%'



$saiah 7)0*

#t is sometimes asserted that the name #mmanuel K od is with us/ K given to >esus

proves that he is od. #f that were so, then the child born soon after the prediction was

given by #saiah in the days of 2ha6 would also have been od. +he name, however, doesnot tell us that >esus was od, but that in his life od has intervened to save 7is people.


--+rinitarian theologian Coses 4tuart,Ans$er to Channing, cited in Concessions ofTrinitarians(oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:), @AB.

$saiah 8)(

+he Cighty od/ of #saiah &"B does indeed mean, as defined by the 7ebrew Ee*icon,

divine hero, reflecting the divine maesty./ #t is precisely that same Cessianic sense of

the term od,/ without inviting us to think that there are now two members of theodhead. +he quotation of $salm :"B in 7ebrews %"9 brings that same Cessianic use of

the word od into the ;ew +estament. =e should not misunderstand this very >ewishuse of titles. #t is a serious mistake to think that the Cessiah has not stepped into thespace reserved for the 8ne od, the 5ather. 7owever e*alted the position of >esus and

despite his function as od/s representative, the strict unipersonal monotheism of #srael/s

faith is never compromised by any ;ew +estament writer.01 2s for the e*pressionFternal 5ather,/ the title was understood by the >ews to mean the father of the 3oming

(Cessianic) 2ge./ +he reek (4eptuagint) word for eternal/ in this case need not convey

the idea of forever and ever,/ for all eternity/ past and future, as we normally understand

it, but contains the concept related to the (future) age./ +ruly >esus, the Eord Cessiah,will be the parent of the 3oming 2ge of the Jingdom of od on earth until all things are

subected to him. +hen the 4on himself will be subected to the one 0od, the 5ather1

who subected all things to him 0>esus1, that od may be all in all/ (% 3or. %"@9). #t waswidely recogni6ed by the >ewish community that a human political leader could be called

father. #saiah states of a leader in #srael" # will entrust him with your authority. 2nd he

will become a father of the inhabitants of >udah and >erusalem/ (#sa. @@"@%). --4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:


'9, '&, 99, 9&.

%9



$saiah *5)06

Jnowing nothing of later dogma, $aul freely interchanges spirit/ and mind,/ thusgiving us an apostolic definition of the 7oly 4pirit. =ho has known the mind 0nous1 of

the Eord, or who became 7is counselor?/ (!oma. %%"A:). +he 7ebrew te*t $aul is

quoting reads =ho has directed thespirit of the Eord?/ (#sa. :esus in the

ospels attributes the creation to the 5ather and has no memory of being the agent in the

enesis creation (Cark %esus worked within the>ewish and biblical framework of the scriptural heritage he had received and which he

came not to destroy./



%B&.

9alachi 1)03

difficulty faces +rinitarianism when the 4pirit is quantified, as when Calachi speaksof od having the residue of the 4pirit/ (Cal. @"%). >ohn also thinks of the 4pirit asgiven in different quantities. >esus received it in full measure/ (>ohn A"A:). $aul

likewise speaks of the supply of the 4pirit of >esus 3hrist/ ($hil. %"%&). +he language

suggests a reservoir of power rather than a person. #t is significant that $aul depends onthe prayers of the church for continues help from the 7oly 4pirit.



@AB, @A'.

The Phrase :on of God;

+he generation of the 4on as divine6 as (od, seems to be out of the question K unless it

be an e*press doctrine of revelation, which is 01 far from being the case

--+rinitarian theologian Coses 4taurt,Ans$er to Channing, cited by =ilson inConcessions of Trinitarians(oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:), A%.

+he mainstream churches are committed to a certain doctrine about >esus, but specialists

in early 3hristian thought re questioning the arguments by which that doctrine was

%&



reached. ;ew +estament scholars ask if the ;ew +estament teaches it at all, and

historians wonder at the gulf between >esus himself and fully-developed 3hristianity.

+hese questions are very unsettling, for they imply that 3hristianity may be in worsecondition than was thought. #t is perhaps not a basically sound structure that needs only

to be moderni6ed, but may be in need of radical reconstruction+he ;ew +estament

never suggests that the phrase 4on of od/ ust means od/.--Don 3upitt, The De+ate A+out Christ (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&'&), vii, :.

the conception 0the virgin Cary/s conception of >esus1 was the becoming (beginning)of od/s son.

--!aymond rown, The *irth of the /essiah, A%, fn. %'.

;o evidence is presented to show that the ;ew +estament abandons its own roots in the8ld +estament and ascribes to the title 4on of od/ a meaning never hinted at in the

7ebrew ible. +he 8ld +estament meaning of 4on of od/ is devastating to the

+rinitarian cause. 4on of od/ was used in various ways K to describe the nation of

#srael, its king, and, in the plural, even angels. #n none of these instances does the titleimply a Deity in a +rinitarian sense.


:@.

+he title 4on of the Cost 7igh/ e*presses some close relationship between >esus and

>ehovah but not the divine 4onship of the +rinity.

--2lfred $lummer, (ospel According to S 9u,e,International Critical Commentary, @A.

=hen the 4criptures talk of >esus as the Cessiah probably the most significant title they

use is 4on of od./ #n passages such as Catthew %B"%B and @B"BA it is clear that thesetwo titles K Cessiah and 4on of od K stand in apposition 0apposition/ is the oppositeopposition/1. +he title 4on of od undoubtedly stems from 8ld +estament te*ts such as

@ 4am. '"%: and $salm @"', in its association with the Davidic Jing.

-->ames !. randy in Do Ciracles 2uthenticate the Cessiah?Evangelical "evie$ ofTheology %A (%&9&)" %



connotation in the first century from that which it has had ever since the 3ouncil of ;icea

(A@ 2D). +alk of his pree*istence ought probably in most, perhaps in all, cases to be

understood, on the analogy of the pree*istence of the +orah, to indicate the eternal divinepurpose being achieved through him, rather than pree*istence of a fully personal kind.

--Caurice =iles, The "ema,ing of Christian Doctrine

#t cannot be too strongly established that the 2ntiochene tradition knew nothing of the

term 4on as applied to the pree*istent Eogos, in whatever sense used. y the word 4on/

they always meant the historical 3hristEoof/s remarks that the transference of theconception of 4on to the pree*istent Eogos by the 2le*andrian theologians was the most

important factor in the establishment of the pluralistic character of 3hristian doctrine.

--5.=. reen,Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, B:.

0+itles such as 4on of od/1 were never meant to designate the figures to whom they

were applied as divine beings. +hey meant rather that these figures were imbued with

divine spirit, or the Eogos. +he titles referred to their function and character as men of

od, not to their +eingod. +hinking of a human as being od was strictly a reek or7ellenistic notion. +hus the early theological debates from the middle of the second

century on were largely between 2ntioch, a center of >ewish 3hristianity, on the onehand, and 2le*andrian 3hristianity, heavily colored by neo-$latonic speculation, on the

other. 5or the most part, the >ewish 3hristians/ argument tended to be that they had

known >esus and his family and that he was a human being, a great teacher, one filledwith the divine Eogosbut that he was not divine in the ontological sense, as the

2le*andrians insisted. +he arguments persisted in on form or another until 3yril of

2le*andria/s faction finally won the day for a highly mythologi6ed >esus of divine

ontological being. 3yril was capable of murdering his fellow bishops to get his way. ythe time of the 3ouncil of ;icea in A@ 3F, this 2le*andrian perspective was dominant

but not uncontested by the 2ntiochian perspective of low 3hristology. 5rom ;icea to3halcedon the speculative and neo-$latonist perspective gained increasing ground andbecame orthodo* 3hristian dogma in :% 3F. Mnfortunately, what the theologians of the

great ecumenical councils meant by such creedal titles as 4on of od was remote from

what those same titles meant in the ospels. +he creeds were speaking in reekphilosophical terms" the gospels were speaking in 4econd +emple >udaism terms+he

ishops of the councils should have reali6ed that they had shifted ground from 7ebrew

metaphor to reek ontology and in effect betrayed the real >esus 3hrist.

-->. 7arold Fllens, +he 2ncient Eibrary of 2le*andria,*i+le "evie$ (5eb. %&&'), %&-@&and further comments in 5rom Eogos to 3hrist/ (!eaders !eply/),*i+le "evie$, :-'.

=e may plainly perceive here that the angel does not give the appellation of Son of (odto the divine nature of 3hrist, but to the holy person or thing6 to hagion6 which was to be

born of the Lirgin, by the energy of the holy spirit7ere # trust that # may be permitted

to say, with all due respect to those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternalSonship of 3hrist is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural and highly dangerous. +his doctrine #

reect for the following reasons.

%. # have not been able to find any e*press declaration in the 4criptures concerning

it.

@%



@. #f 3hrist is the 4on of od as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal" for

son implies father, and father implies the idea of generation, and generation

implies a time in which it was effected and time also antecedent to suchgeneration.

A. #f 3hrist is the 4on of od as to his divine nature, then the 5ather is of necessity

prior, consequently superior to him.:. 2gain, if this divine nature were begotten of the 5ather, then it must be in time,

i.e., there was a period in which it did not e*ist and a period where it began to

e*ist. +his destroys the eternity of our blessed Eord and robs him at once of hisodhead.

. +o say that he was begotten from all eternity is in my opinion absurd, and the

phrase eternal son is a positive self-contradiction. Fternity is that which has no

beginning, nor stands in any reference in time. 4on supposes time, generation and5ather" and time also antecedent to such generation. +herefore the conuction of

these two terms 4on and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply different

and opposite ideas.

--+rinitarian theologian 2dam 3larke, Euke %"A, Clar,es Commentary(;ew Gork" +.Cason and . Eane, %9A').

+he disciples e*pected the Cessiah to be born from the seed of David. 2s it would have

appeared to any monotheistic >ew, the term 4on of od carried the royal meaning it had

acquired in the 8ld +estament. #t designated a human being, a king especially related tood and invested with 7is spirit. +hat it implied the Deity of >esus in a +rinitarian sense

would have been the most astounding, revolutionary information ever to invade the mind

of $eter or any other religious >ew.01 Did >udas know he was betraying his creator and

od? 2nd on the occasions when the disciples deserted >esus, were they aware that theywere leaving od? Did they believe od was washing their feet at the East 4upper?

=hen $eter took out his sword to cut off a soldier/s ear, did he think that the od whohad created him was somehow incapable of defending himself? 2t the Count of+ransfiguration, after the disciples saw a vision of >esus in a future glorified state along

with Coses and Fliah, they wanted to built three tabernacles, one for each of these three

men (Catt. %'":). =hy was no distinction made between these three, if one of them wereod?01 #t is not difficult to understand that the ible is abandoned when fundamental

terms like 4on of od are given new and unbiblical meanings.01 $arado*ically,

traditional theology has attributed to >esus the claim to be od, a blasphemy which he

discounted by asserting his claim to be the Son of (od. 4on of od is a legitimate titlefor a supreme representative of od, since the udges themselves had been addressed as

gods (>ohn %esus is

declared to be the Eord Cessiah/ 0Christ literally means/essiah1 or Eord >esus

Cessiah/ 04ee Euke @"%% for the Cessianic title christos ,uriosK Eord Cessiah1. +he

term lord/ does not, as so often mistakenly thought, mean that >esus is the Eord (od

@@



(thus creating the +rinitarian problem/). >esus is the Cessiah Eord,/ based on $salm

%%ohn to >esus as pree*istent 4on confirms how far later orthodo*y departed from the

evidence of 4cripture in its definition of >esus. +he later dogma about belief in the

eternal 4on,/ a title for which 4cripture provides no support , as necessary for salvation,was based, as we have seen, on a misreading of the words of >ohn and the substitution of

new meanings for key >ohannine terms describing >esus. +he development of

3hristology might have been very different had e*egetes remained within the meaning of

4on of od as the highest 3hristological designation, >ewish-messianic in origin/0Catthew lack,"omans6 #e$ Century *i+le (Carshall, Corgan and 4cott, %&'A), A.1.



B, %'', A@A, A@:, A@, A@B.

L). >esus isworshipped as the Cessiah, but only one person, the 5ather, is worthy of worship as d.

#t is highly significant that another reek word, latreuo, which is used of religious

service only, is applied in all of its @% occurrences e*clusively to the 5ather in the ;ew+estament. !eaders of the Jing >ames Lersion are given the false impression that >esus

is od because he is worshipped./ +he same argument would prove that David and the

saints are also odO #t is the modern usage of our word worship/ which leads readers tosuppose that >esus was worshipped as od. od and 7is human servants are frequently

in close association. 2nd the people feared the Eord and believed the Eord and 7is

servant Coses/ (F*od. %:"A%). 2nd all the people greatly feared the Eord and 4amuel

(% 4am. %@"%9). 2nd all the congregation blessed the Eord od of their 5athers, and

@A



worshipped the Eord and the king/ (% 3hron. @&"@esus is the one of whom it is said, =orthy is the Eamb that was slain to

receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing./ 2sCessiah, >esus, the accredited representative of the 3reator, is honored in association

with the 8ne od, his 5ather (!ev. "%@, %A). ut he also oins the saints in the Eamb/s

song of praise to the 5ather (!ev. %"AH cp. 7eb. @"%@, where the Cessiah praises od).7e is the beginning and end of od/s great plan for salvation (!ev. %"%'). Get he died

(!ev. %"%9), a fact which plainly means that he cannot be od since od cannot die.

8nly the 2lmighty is the 4upreme od. #n !evelation %"9 (cp. %":) the 5ather is both the

2lpha and 8mega and the Eord od 2lmighty who is coming./ +he latter title,panto,rator, is nowhere given to >esus, despite the attempts of some red-letter ibles to

apply this verse to the 4on, perpetuating the long-standing confusion of the Cessiah with

od. +he risen >esus actually receives a revelation from the 5ather (!ev. %"%),

demonstrating once again that the 4on is not the omniscient odO--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:

Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),%A9, %A&, %:esus as begotten/ (passive ofgennan) in %"%B, @< suggests that for him the conception through the agency of the 7oly

4pirit is the becoming of od/s 4on3learly here divine sonship is not adoptive sonship,but there is no suggestion of an incarnation whereby a figure who was previously withod takes on flesh.

--!aymond rown, The *irth of the /essiah, A%, fn. '., %:esus of Catthew, Cark, Euke 2cts and $eter is a human being originating at hisconception and birth as do all other human persons. 7e has not pree*isted. Catthew

even speaks of the genesis/ of >esus in Catthew %"%9.


%B9.

+he 3hristian doctrine of pree*istence would be entirely incompatible with Catthew/s

depiction of >esus/ origins.

--2aron Cilavec, Catthew/s #ntegration of 4e*ual and Divine egetting,*i+lical

Theology *ulletin 9 (%&'9)" %



9atthew 0)16

#t is sometimes asserted that the name #mmanuel K od is with us/ K given to >esus

proves that he is od. #f that were so, then the child born soon after the prediction was

given by #saiah in the days of 2ha6 would also have been od. +he name, however, doesnot tell us that >esus was od, but that in his life od has intervened to save 7is people.


--+rinitarian theologian Coses 4tuart,Ans$er to Channing, cited in Concessions ofTrinitarians(oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:), @AB.

9atthew 12)08

>esus/ command to bapti6e into the name of the 5ather, the 4on and the 7oly 4pirit/

(Catt. @9"%&) is of no weight in proving that >esus believed in a +rinity of three coequal

persons, since he recogni6ed the 5ather as the only true od/ (>ohn %'"A) and subscribedto the non-+rinitarian creed of #srael (Cark %@"@&).

--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),@A, @AB.

#t is impossible to understand from this passage, whether the 7oly 4pirit is a person.+he meaning of >esus may have been this" +hose who were bapti6ed should, upon their

baptism, confess that they believed in the 5ather and the 4on, and in all the doctrines

inculcated by the 7oly 4pirit.

--+rinitarian theologian Cichaelis, The *urial and "esurrection of 8esus Christ, A@-A@',cited in Concessions of Trinitarians(oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:), : 1

+he authority to forgive sins had been bestowed on >esus as (ods representative. +his

did not make him od, but a human being vested with e*traordinary powers as od/slegal agent. +he point was not lost on the crowds. +hey did not believe that >esus had

claimed to be od, but that od had given e*ceptional authority to a man. Catthew

reports that when the multitudes saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified od

who hadgiven such authority to men (Catt. &"9). ;othing in the account suggests that

@



the crowds understood that >esus was claiming to be od. +here is no indication that the

monotheism of the 8ld +estament is in any way disturbed. #ndeed, the subect of 8ld

+estament monotheism was not at issue. >esus/ opponents took offense at his claim to bethe uniquely authori6ed agent of od. 7is is a functional equality with od which has

nothing to do with a claim to be a coequal, coeternal member of the odhead. >esus was

careful to point out that the 4on can do nothing of himself (>ohn "%&). 8n a lateroccasion he invested the 2postles with the right to forgive sins K a responsibility which

did not include them in the odhead (>ohn @ 01)18

2 claim to be Deity in the +rinitarian sense would actually be blasphemous by >esus/

own standards, since he repeatedly affirmed that the 5ather was the only true od.01

+o worship a 4avior with wrong ideas about him runs the risk of worshipping another4avior. The creed of 8esus is the right creed for Christians (Cark %@"@&). 2s so many

scholars know, that creed is not a +rinitarian creed. +he 8ne od of #srael and of >esuswas and is the 5ather 0>ohn %'"AH >ohn "::H % +im. @"H % 3or. 9":-B1, the 8ne and only

od/ (>ohn "::), the only true od/ (>ohn %'"A).01 8ut of respect and honor for >esus

the Cessiah, 3hristians should adopt his >ewish creed in Cark %@"@&" 7ear, 8 #srael, theEord our od is one 9ord./ od is one Eord 0the Eord od/1. >esus is another Eord 0the

Eord Cessiah/1. +hat makes t$o Eords, but the creed knows of only one Eord who is

od (Deut. B":H Cark %@"@&). +hat is the creed of >esus and therefore the original and

authentic 3hristian creed. #t is also the creed of $aul. Cay we all oyfully embrace thatcreed and align ourselves with the >esus Cessiah of history.

--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),::, %':, %'&.

9ar> 06)61

+his verse reports >esus/ statement that he did not know the day of his return. #t seems

plainly contradictory to assert that omniscient Deity can be ignorant in any respect.

4ome +rinitarians appeal to the doctrine of the divine and human natures of >esus to solvethe problem. +he 4on did in fact know, but as a human being he did not. +his seems

little different from saying that one is poor because he has no money in his pocket,

though in the other pocket he has a million dollars. #n this te*t it is the Son as distinctfrom the 0ather who did not know. #t is therefore quite impossible to plead that only the

human nature in >esus was ignorant. +he ible anyway does not distinguish natures/ in

>esus as 4on of od and 4on of Can. oth are Cessianic titles for one person. #f a0blind1 witness in a court of law were to be asked whether he had seen the defendant on a

certain day and he replies in the negative, meaning that he had not seen him with his

defective eyes, though he did with his sound eye, we would consider him dishonest.

=hen >esus referred to himself as the 4on, he could not have meant a part of himself.

@B



+he theory by which >esus did and did not know the day of his future coming would

render all of his sayings unintelligible. +he plain fact is that a confession of ignorance is

incompatible with the theory of the absolute Deity of >esus.--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:


@99.

7e that saith that 3hrist died, saith that 3hrist was not od, for od could not die. ut

every 3hristian saith that 3hrist died, therefore every 3hristian saith that 3hrist was notod.

--2nonymous, c. %B.

?u>e 0)63

we can say with confidence that the ible has nothing whatever to say about

begetting/ as an act of eternal relationship between 5ather and 4on.

--uswell,A Systematic Theology of the Christian "eligion (Nondervan, %&B@), %%%.

+here is no evidence that Euke had a theology of #ncarnation and pree*istence" ratherfor Euke (%"A) divine 4onship seems to have been brought about through the virginal

conception>esus was conceived and born, and that is solidarity enough with the human

race.--!aymond rown, The *irth of the /essiah, :A@.

2nd if the 7oly 4pirit is really a distinct personality, was he the 5ather of >esus, rather

than od, the 5ather? #t was the 4pirit which caused Cary/s conception (Euke %"A).01!eaders of the ible neglected to note that 3hrist was called the 4on of od +ecause of

his supernatural conception (Euke %"A). >esus came into e*istence in his mother/swomb and was thus part of the creation, not the 3reator.01 +he so-called 3hurch5athers of the third and fourth centuries changed the language of the ible by reading

their own philosophical meanings into biblical words instead of allowing the scriptural

te*t to speak to them within its own 7ebrew, Cessianic conte*t. +he result was areconstruction of the person of >esus, contrary to Euke/s transparently clear statement that

>esus is a new creation by means of Cary/s supernatural conception" 7oly 4pirit

0pneuma hagion1 shall come upon you 0Cary1 and the power of the Cost 7igh will

overshadow you, andfor that reason the holy thing being generated will be called the4on of od/ (Euke %"A). +his is sonship created in history, not in eternity. #t perfectly

fulfilled the great foundation te*t in @ 4amuel '"%:, the promise to David that od would,

in the future, become the 5ather of his descendant. +he Cessiah/s 4onship is firmlygrounded in a historical event of around A 3. 7is generation occurred when od

brought the 4on into e*istence (2cts %A"AA, quoting $s. @"').01 >esus/ humanity is less

then real once it is proposed that he did not come into e*istence in Cary/s womb. +heabsence of any biblical evidence for >esus being the Son of (od +efore his conception

suggests that the widely-held belief in his pre-human e*istence may not be soundly based

in 4cripture. =e propose that it is based on a misreading of >ohn/s ospel, by

overlooking the peculiar >ewish concept of foreknowledge found there. +he fact 0is1 that

@'



nothing is said about pree*istence in Catthew, Cark, Euke, and 2cts (and $eter/s

epistles)


@A, A%@, A@', A@9.

=e may plainly perceive here that the angel does not give the appellation of Son of (od

to the divine nature of 3hrist, but to the holy person or thing6 to hagion6 which was to be

born of the Lirgin, by the energy of the holy spirit7ere # trust that # may be permittedto say, with all due respect to those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal

Sonship of 3hrist is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural and highly dangerous. +his doctrine #

reect for the following reasons.

%. # have not been able to find any e*press declaration in the 4criptures concerningit.

@. #f 3hrist is the 4on of od as to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal" for

son implies father, and father implies the idea of generation, and generation

implies a time in which it was effected and time also antecedent to suchgeneration.

A. #f 3hrist is the 4on of od as to his divine nature, then the 5ather is of necessityprior, consequently superior to him.

:. 2gain, if this divine nature were begotten of the 5ather, then it must be in time,

i.e., there was a period in which it did not e*ist and a period where it began toe*ist. +his destroys the eternity of our blessed Eord and robs him at once of his

odhead.

. +o say that he was begotten from all eternity is in my opinion absurd, and the

phrase eternal son is a positive self-contradiction. Fternity is that which has nobeginning, nor stands in any reference in time. 4on supposes time, generation and

5ather" and time also antecedent to such generation. +herefore the conuction ofthese two terms 4on and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply differentand opposite ideas.

--+rinitarian theologian 2dam 3larke, Euke %"A, Clar,es Commentary(;ew Gork" +.

Cason and . Eane, %9A').

?u>e *)*6

Cark %@"@9ff. presents >esus as affirming his own belief in the unitary monotheism ofthe >ews. #t is to that passage of 4cripture that all discussion of the odhead should refer.

>ohn/s >ewish/ monotheism is never in doubt. +he 5ather is still the only true od/

(>ohn %'"A), the one who alone is od/ (>ohn "::), and since >esus is evidently adifferent person from the 5ather, >esus is not od. 7e is the fully authori6ed agent of

od, the ideal Jing of #srael for whom the 8ld +estament yearned. >esus perfectly

e*presses the character of his 5ather and relays 7is message of the Jingdom (Euke :":A).+hus it may be said that the fullness of the Deity dwells in >esus/ (3ol. @"&) 0Lery similar

language about the fullness of od dwelling in 3hristians is found in Fph. A"%&1. ut this

does not mean that he is himself od.

@9



----4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:


A:e 16)*(

2 comparable difficulty faces +rinitarians when they assert that only the human part of

>esus died. #f >esus were od, and od is immortal, >esus could not have died. =e

wonder how it is possible to maintain that >esus/ does not represent the whole person.;othing in the ible suggests that >esus is the name of his human nature only. #f >esus is

the whole person and >esus died, he cannot be immortal Deity. #t appears that

+rinitarians argue that only Deity is sufficient to provide the necessary atonement. ut if

the divine nature did not die, how on the +rinitarian theory is the atonement secured? #tis hard to understand why od, if 7e so chooses, may not appoint a uniquely conceived,

sinless human being as a sufficient offering for the sins of the world. #t is unconvincing

to insist that only the death of an eternal person can atone for sin. 4cripture does not say

so. #t does, however, say that >esus died and that od is immortal. +he inference as tothe nature of >esus seems inescapable.


@99, @9&.

!ohn 0)040*

+he clear evidence of >ohn is that >esus refused the claim to be od.

--$rofessor >.2.+. !obinson

there is no clear indication that the priority 0of 3hrist1 was intended in a temporalsense. =e may conclude that for the earliest 3hurch, >esus was accorded the priority inreality that the !abbis assigned to the +orah. #f one were to make the claim of priority in

a temporal sense, one would be claiming that >esus of ;a6areth, born of Cary, had

e*isted with od before the creation of the world. +hat claim would be worse thanunintelligible, it would destroy all coherence in the essential 3hristian claim that >esus

was truly a human being, that the =ord becameflesh>esus of ;a6areth began his life,

began to e*ist, at a definite time in history" the =ord becameflesh.

--$aul van uren,A Theology of 8e$ish-Christian "eality (7arper I !ow, %&9A), 9@.

it is clear that patristic theology of whatever school abused these te*ts 0in >ohn1 by

taking them out of conte*t and giving them a meaning which it is evident that >ohn neverintended.01 5unctional language about the 4on and the 4pirit being sent into the world

by the father was transposed into that of eternal relationships between $ersons in the

odhead and words like generation/ and procession/ made into technical terms which;ew +estament usage simply will notsubstantiate.

-->ohn !obinson, T$elve /ore #e$ Testament Studies, %'@, emphasis added.

@&



the word was an e*pression or reflection of od (cf. =isdom '"@-B), that it was in

some sense divine, i.e. of od.

--2.F. 7arvey,8esus and the Constraints of istory ($hiladelphia" =estminster $ress,%&9@), app. ###, %'B, %''.

3hrist/s place in eternity is in the foreknowledge and the counsel of the 5ather.--Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (+ I + 3lark, %&%B), @"@B:.

=hen the >ew wished to designate something as predestined, he spoke of it as alreadye*isting/ in heaven.

--F.. 4elwyn,0irst Epistle of St eter (aker ook 7ouse, %&9A), %@:.

>udaism has never known anything of a pree*istence peculiar to the Cessiah antecedentto his birth as a human being.

--Dalman, Words of 8esus, %@9-%A@, @:9, @@.

8n the pree*istence question, one can at least accept the pree*istence of the eternalword or wisdom of od which (who?) became incarnate in >esus. ut whether any ;ew

+estament writer believed in his separate conscious e*istence as a second Divine $erson/is not so clear# am not so sure $aul so believed.

--5.5. ruce, %&9%.

+he dominance of the idea 0of 3hrist/s pree*istence1 in any >ewish circle whatever

cannot seriously be upheld. >udaism knew nothing of the 0literally1pree%istent ideal

man.01 >udaism has never known anything of a pree*istence peculiar to the Cessiah,

antecedent to his birth a as human being.--3harles ore,*elief in Christ(Eondon" >ohn Curray, %&@A), A%.

=hy do we instinctively read" #n the beginning was the 4on and the 4on was withod/? 0such a reading would be unscriptural, since in the beginning/ the logoswas not

the 4on. #n the first chapter of his gospel, Catthew writes of the conception of >esus

within Cary as thegenesis, or originof >esus 3hrist. +herefore the 4on did not e*ist asthe logos in the beginning/. #n the beginning the logos was not a person at all, but od/s

$lan which did not always e*ist as a person, but rather +ecame a person in the form of

>esus.1.

--!oman 3atholic scholar Jarl->osef Juschel,*orn *efore All Time2 The De+ate A+outthe 7rigin of Christ (;ew Gork" 3rossroads, %&&@), A9%.

8ur literature shows traces of a way of thinking that was widespread in contemporarysyncretism, as well as in >ewish wisdom literature and $hilo, the most prominent feature

of which is the concept of the Eogos, the independent, personified =ord/ (of od)this

divine =ord/ took on human form in a historical person.--=illiam 5. 2rndt and 5. =ilbur ingrich,A (ree,-English 9e%icon of the #e$

Testament and 7ther Early Christian 9iterature(3hicago" Mniversity of 3hicago $ress,

%&'), :9



$ree*istence is attributed to the e*pected Cessiah, but only in common with other

venerable things and persons, such as the tabernacle, the law, the city of >erusalem, the

lawgiver Coses himself, the people of #srael.01 +he Cessiah is to be the instrument ofudgment on human oppressors, the victorious avenger of the righteous. 7e is human, as

4on of Can, though possessed of transcendent gifts of wisdom and power.01 2llusions

o his being revealed and t his eternal pree*istence, cannot fairly be said to imply morethan predestination in the divine purpose and foreknowledge.

--3. 8ttley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation(Cethuen and 3o., %9&B), &, Bohn %"%, to the e*clusion of the very human portraits presented by

Catthew, Cark, Euke, and 2cts. #n fact, the ospel of >ohn had been allowed a more

than proportionate influence in the formation of 3hristology. 3ould this have beenbecause the style of >ohn/s writing, while actually very 7ebraic, appealed to the

speculative reek mind, and could be easily misunderstood and distorted by the

entiles?01 >ohn, writing at the end of the first century, pointedly emphasi6es, againstan incipient nostic docetism, the humanityof >esus (% >ohn :"@H @ >ohn '). 7e came en

sar,i6 as a human person,/ not into a human body/ which is a very different matter. >ohn

seems in his first epistle to be correcting an emerging misunderstanding of his logos/doctrine in the ospel (>ohn %"%-A). #t was the impersonal eternal life/ which was with

the 5ather/ (% >ohn %"@) before the birth of >esus, not the 4on himself pree*isting. #n

other words, >ohn intended us to understand that when the =ord became flesh (>ohn

%"%:), the transition was not that of a divine person +ecoming a human person6 +ut of an

A%



impersonal personification =cp Wisdom in rover+s >:??6 @B the $ord of (od

+ecoming em+odied as a human +eing01 +he close association of >esus wit the 8ne

od of #srael does not lead to the 3hristological conclusions of the 0;icene, 2thanasianand 3halcedonian1 creeds. +he development which culminated at ;icea and 3halcedon

may be traced in three maor stages. 5irstly, the logos/ of reek philosophy was

identified by the 2le*andrian theologians with the pree*istent 3hrist. 4econdly 8rigenpostulated the unbiblical doctrine of the eternal generation of the 4on. +hirdly the so-

called 2thanasian, reflecting the +rinitarianism of 2ugustine, abolished all subordination

of the 4on to the 5ather and reduced the distinctions within the odhead to a point whereit is all but impossible to say how the +hree/ are to be described.01 #n >ohn/s ospel

the logos (word), being a somewhat ambiguous term, might be liable to

misunderstanding. #t might be thought that >ohn meant that a second eternal person

e*isted alongside the 5ather. ut this was not at all what >ohn had in mind, and he takesthe opportunity at the beginning of his first epistle to make himself clear. #t was, he says,

eternal life/ which had been with the 5ather/ (% >ohn %"@). #t was that impersonal word

of life/ or life/ (% >ohn %"%, @) which had now been manifested in a real human person,

>esus. =hat pree*isted was not the 4on of od, but the word or message or promise oflife. +hat promise of life was e*pressed in a human individual, the Cessiah of #srael.

#ncarnation in the ible does not mean that the second member of a +rinity became man,but the purpose of od to great immortality to 7is creatures was revealed, demonstrated,

and embodied in a unique human being.01 #t is most significant that $aul oftenspeaks

of the gospel as having been hidden in the counsels of od from ages past./ 7e also saysthat the son of od came into e%istence/ from a woman and from the seed of David (al.

:":H !om. %"A). #t is unimagina+lethat $aul could have believed in the pree*istence of

the 4on. #t would be untrue to say that the son came into e*istence at his birth, if in fact

he had always e*isted0.1 >ohn %"%has been subected to a minute analysis bycommentators of every shade of opinion. #t is obvious that some modern translations are

blatantly +rinitarian interpretations The 9iving (ospels 0+yndale 7ouse, %&BB1 reads"efore anything else e*isted there was 3hrist, with od. 7e has always been alive andis 7imself od./ ut that is to raise the whole +rinitarian problem. 4uddenly od is t$o

persons. 2 little known fact is that the word/ was not assumed to be a secondperson in

translations prior to the Jing >ames Lersion 0c. %B%%1. +he ishop/s ible of %B9,replaced by the Jing >ames ible in %B%%, understands the word to be impersonal, and

uses the pronoun it,/ as does the eneva ible of %Bohn meant a second uncreated personal being alongside the 8ne od. >ohn

elsewhere recogni6es that the 5ather is the only true od/ (>ohn %'"A) and the one whoalone is od/ (>ohn "::). Cany have recogni6ed an obvious connection between the

word/ and what is said of =isdom in the 7ebrew ible. #n $roverbs =isdom/ is

personified and is said to be with/ od ($rov. 9"Aohn says that the word/ was with0pros1 od./ #n the 8ld +estament a vision, word or purpose is said to be with/ the

person who receives it or possesses it. +he word has a quaso-e*istence of its own" +he

word of the Eord is with him/H the prophethas a dream with him./ #t was in the heartof David (literally, with his heart/) to build a temple. =isdom is with od/ 0@ Jings

A"%@, >er. @A"@9 (7eb.)H % Jings 9"%'H @ 3hron. B"'H >ob %@"%A, %BH >ob %ob @A"%ohn/s opening sentence. #n the ;ew +estament

A@



something impersonal can be with/ a person, as, for e*ample, where $aul hopes that the

truth of the ospel might remain with 0pros1 you,/ present to the mind (al. @"). 2t the

opening of >ohn/s first epistle, which may provide ust the commentary we need on >ohn%"%, he writes that eternal life was with 0pros1 the 5ather/ (% >ohn %"@). 8n the basis of

these parallels it is impossible to say with certainty that the word/ in >ohn %"%-@ must

mean a second member of the +rinity, that is, the 4on of od pree*isting. >ohn goes onto say that the word was od/ (>ohn %"%). #ntense discussion of the e*act meaning of

od/ (which has no definite article) has made the whole passage seem comple*.

2ccording to some a rule established by 3olwell demands that the absence of the articledoes not weaken >ohn/s intention to say that the word was fully od and identified with

7im. 8thers have insisted that od/ without the article is >ohn/s way of telling us that

the word had the character of od and was fully e*pressive of 7is mind.01 +he

prologue of >ohn/s ospel does not require belief in a odhead of more than oneperson.01 +he word is od/s own creative activity. +hus >ohn says that from the

beginning od/s wisdom, which the 8ne od had with 7im as an architect has his plan,

was fully e*pressive of od. #t was od 7imself in 7is self-manifestation. 2ll things

were made through this plan. +he same word/ was finally embodied in a human being,the Cessiah, when >esus was born, when the word became flesh/ (>ohn %"%:). >esus is

therefore what the word +ecame 0not what the word was in the beginningO1. 7e is theperfect e*pression of the mind of od in human form. >esus is not to be identified one-

to-one with the word of >ohn %"%, as though the Son e*isted from the beginning. >esus is

the divinely authori6ed messenger of od and, like the word, has the character of od.--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),

%@9, %@&, %A&, %:ohn %"%1 is necessarily without the article (theos6 not ho theos) inasmuch as it

describes the nature of the =ord and does not identify 7is $erson. #t would be pure4abellianism to say that the =ord was ho theos/--+rinitarian ishop =estcott, cited by 3.5.D Coule,An Idiom *oo, of #e$ Testament

(ree,(3ambridge Mniversity $ress, %&A), %%B.

>ohn %"%b denotes, not the identity, but rather the character of the Eogos.

---D.2. 5ennema, >ohn %"%9" od the 8nly 4on,/#e$ Testament StudiesA% (%&9)"

%Aohn1 by taking them out of conte*t and giving them a meaning which >ohn never

intended. 5unctional language about the 4on and the 4pirit being sent into the world bythe 5ather was transposed into that of eternal and internal relationships between $ersons

in the odhead and words like generation/ and procession/ made into technical terms

which ;ew +estament usage simply will not substantiate.-->ohn !obinson, +he 5ourth ospel and the 3hurch/s Doctrine of the +rinity, T$elve

/ore #e$ Testament Studies (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&9:), %'@.

AA



+he opening sentences of >ohn/s ospel, which might sound like the philosophy of

$hilo, could be understood by an educated >ew or 3hristian without any reference to

$hilo. +herefore we should not argue from $hilo/s meaning of word/ as a hypostasis that>ohn also meant by word/ a pree*istingpersonality. #n the remainder of the ospel and

in % >ohn, word/ is never meant to be understood in a personal sense#t means rather

the revelation/ of od which had earlier been given to #srael (%esus and committed by

him to his disciples (9", %@":9, %'"B, 9, %:, %'H % >ohn %"%) and which would now be

preserved by them (% >ohn %"%



!abbinic theology speaks of the Eaw, of od/s throne of glory, of #srael and of other

important obects of faith as things which had been created by od, and were already

present with 7im before the creation of the world. +he same is also true of the Cessiah.#t is said that his name was present with od in heaven beforehand, that it was created

before the world, and that it is eternal. ut the reference here is not to genuine

pree*istence in the strict and literal sense. +his is clear from the fact that #srael isincluded among these pree*istent entities. +his does not mean that either the nation #srael

or its ancestor e*isted long ago in heaven, but that the community #srael, the people of

od, had been from all eternity in the mind of od, as a factor of 7is purpose+his istrue of references to the pree*istence of the Cessiah. #t is his name,/ not the Cessiah

himself, that is said to have been present with od before creation. #nrei,ta "a++ati

%@b it is said that from the beginning of the creation of the world the Jing Cessiah was

born, for he came up in the thought of od before the world was created./ +his meansthat from all eternity it was the will of od that the Cessiah should come into e*istence,

and should do his work in the world to fulfill od/s eternal saving purpose.

--Cowinckel,e That Cometh, +ransl. .=. 2nderson (;ashville" 2bingdon, %&:), AA:.

=hat we do know is that >ohn was steeped in the 8ld +estament 4criptures. #f we wish

to understand the historical ancestry of >ohn/s Eogos 0=ord/1 concept as he himselfunderstood it, we have to go back to those scriptures.01 +he later +rinitarian

distinctions +rinitarian distinctions should not be read into >ohn/s mindin the light of a

philosophy which was not his=e must not read >ohn in the light of the dogmatichistory of the three centuries subsequent to the Fvangelist/s writing.01 2n author/s

language will confuse us, unless we have some rapportwit his mind+he evangelist

>ohn takes a well-known term logos, does not define it, but unfolds what he himself

means by it+he idea belonged to the 8ld +estament, and is involved in the wholereligious belief and e*perience of the 7ebrew 4criptures. #t is the most fitting term to

e*press his message. 5or a man/s word/ is the e*pression of his mind/H and his mind ishis essential personality. Fvery mind must e*press itself, for activity is the very nature ofthe mind+hus >ohn speaks of the =ord/ that was $ith od, and wasDivine6 to e*press

his conviction that od has ever been 2ctive and !evealing Cind. od, by 7is very

nature, cannot sit in heaven and do nothing. =hen later in the ospel >esus says, Cy5ather works up till now/ he is saying what the Fvangelist says in the first verse of the

$rologue. >ohn/s language is not the language of philosophical definition. >ohn has a

concrete/ and pictorial/ mind. +he failure to understand >ohn 0in his prologue1 has led

many to the conclusion that he is father of metaphysical 3hristology,/ and thereforeresponsible for the later ecclesiastical obscuration of the ethical and spiritual emphasis on

>esus+he evangelist did not think in terms of the category of substance/ K a category

which was so congenial to the reek mind.--3.>. =right,8esus: The "evelation of (od, ook of The /ission and /essage of

8esus: An E%position of the (ospels in the 9ight of /odern "esearch (;ew Gork" F.$.

Dutton and 3o., %&A9), B'', '



recogni6e here a reference to >esus K the word became not flesh in general but >esus

3hrist. rior to verse F we are in the same realm as pre-3hristian talk of =isdom and

Eogos, the same language and ideas we find in $hilo, where as we have seen, we aredealing withpersonification rather than persons, personified actions of od rather than

an individual divine being as such. +he point is obscured by the fact that we have to

translate the masculine Eogos as he/ throughout the poem 0the logosis translated as he/in most modern translations, but in fact logos should be translated as it/ in all cases prior

to verse %:, when it becomes flesh/ in the form of the man >esus 3hrist, and therefore

becomes masculine. 2ll early Fnglish translations translate logos as it/ and not he/ priorto verse %:.1. ut if we translated Eogos as od/s utterance/ instead, it would become

clearer that the poem did notnecessarily intend the Eogos of vv. %-%A to be thought of as

a personal divine being. #n other words, the revolutionary significance of v. %: may well

be that it marks not only the transition in the thought of the poem from pree*istence toincarnation, but also the transition from impersonal personification to actual person.

-->ames Dunn, Christology in the /a,ing, @:A, emphasis added.

+his word, like wisdom 0$roverbs 9"Aames Cackey, The Christian E%perience of (od as Trinity (Eondon" 43C $ress,%&9A), &.

=e can have the humanity 0of >esus1 without the pree*istence and we can have thepree*istence without the humanity. +here is absolutely no way of having both.

-->ohn Jno*, The umanity and Divinity of 8esus (3ambridge Mniversity $ress, %&B'),

%ohn the aptist says of >esus that he was before me/ (>ohn %"%). Cany readersnaturally find in these words a confirmation of their belief that the 4on was alive in

heaven before his birth. Corris, however, shows that the ambiguous phrase before me/

may refer to superiority of rank, rather than priority in time. +he verse may be translated,2 follower of mine has taken precedence of me, for he (always) was before me, my

superior./ +hough the commentary supports the idea that >esus was before >ohn in time,

it admits that some tale first/ to mean not first in time,/ before,/ but first in

importance,/ which will give such a meaning as he was my 3hief,/ 0Eeon Corris, The(ospel According to 8ohn, %



>esus himself was interested in the use of the word od/ for human rules (>ohn %ohn %"%). #t is

possible that >ohn adds one further statement about >esus as od./ 7e declares him to be

(if this is the correct manuscript reading K the point is disputed) unique son, od/0theos1/ (>ohn %"%9). +his is the ultimate Cessianic description, e*pressing the fact that

>esus is the image of the 8ne od. 2s 4on of od, however, he is to be distinguished

from the one who is underived, namely his 5ather. #t remains a fact that >ohn wrote hisentire book to prove that >esus was the 3hrist (>ohn @esus states that he has not yet

ascended to the 5ather./ +he apparent conflict between the two statements is easilyresolved when we understand that things may +e said to have already happened in (ods

intention6 $hile they a$ait actual fulfillment in the future01 +e*ts in >ohn which have

been claimed as evidence for the literal pree*istence of >esus have been misunderstood,because too little attention has been paid to >ohn/s and >esus/ >ewish categories of

thought. $articularly the phenomenon that past tenses do not always mean a reference to

past events has been overlooked. +hus >esus did not mean that he had already ascended

to heaven/ (>ohn A"%A), much less that he had literally been in heaven from eternity. 7e

A'



himself later said the had not yet ascended/ (>ohn @ohn %'"), and he was chosen asod/s supreme human representative, the Cessiah, long before 2braham (>ohn 9"9). #t

was as the human Son of /an that he had pree*isted/ in the divine plan. ;o te*t in >ohn

speaks of od, the 4on/ pree*isting in heaven. >esus/ thinking is dominated by thenotion that he must carry out what has been predetermined by od/s plan written in

advance" =as it not necessary for the 3hrist to suffer these things and to enter his

glory?...2ll things which are written about me in the law of Coses, the prophets and thepsalms must +e fulfilled (Euke @:"@B, ::).



@esus 3hrist/ ($hil. %"%&). +he language

suggests a reservoir of power rather than a person. #t is significant that $aul depends onthe prayers of the church for continues help from the 7oly 4pirit.

--4ir 2nthony 5. u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity:Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),@AB, @A'.

!ohn 3)02

>esus refuses the claim to +e od (>ohn %esus must have been making a+rinitarian claim. #t is unfair to assume that the >ews had properly evaluated >esus/

words. #f they had, there would have been no need for >esus to ustify himself further.

7e need only have repeated that he was in fact the 4upreme od. #n his much neglected

response to the angry >ews (>ohn %



are in 4cripture e*pressly called gods,/ it is unust to charge me with blasphemy because

#, whom the 5ather has appointed as the Cessiah and therefore one greater than all kings,

superior to all prophets, announce myself to be the 4on of od, that is the Cessiah,perfectly reflecting the will of my 5ather./ >esus links his own authority with that of the

human gods,/ whom od so designated ($s. 9@"%, B). ranting that he was far superior

to any previous divine authority,/ a correct idea of his status is to be gained, so >esusmaintained, by considering that even #sraelite leaders were entitled to be called gods./

>esus is the highest human authority, fully and uniquely authori6ed by the 5ather.01

$arado*ically, traditional theology has attributed to >esus the claim to be od, ablasphemy which he discounted by asserting his claim to be the Son of (od. 4on of od

is a legitimate title for a supreme representative of od, since the udges themselves had

been addres

the testimony of leading theologians and biblical scholars on the doctrine of the trinity

Documents

ohn ba5272018

ohn bb

free ohn

key toeternal life ohn

search of truth

identity of esus

truth ought

truth inesus