The Testimony of Leading Theologians and Biblical Scholars 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...%< Elohim, Echad, and the ;ame of od%% +he $hrase 4on of od...%& =as >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":.%< enesis %"@B%@ Deuteronomy %9"%(-%9...%A $salm :("B, %%.%: $salm 9@"%, B...%( $salm %%<"%.%(

$roverbs 9"%@......%B $roverbs 9"A<..%B $roverbs A<"%..%' #saiah B"A.%' #saiah '"%:...%9 #saiah &"B.%9 #saiah :<"%A.%& #saiah ::"@:.%& Calachi @"%(.......%& ynoptic Proof Texts +opic $age Cathew %"%B..@: Catthew %"%9.@: Catthew %"@A.@( Catthew @9"%&...@( Cark @@( Cark %@"@&.@( Cark %A"A@.@B Euke %"A(...@' Euke :":A...@9 Euke @A":B.@& !ohannine Proof Texts +opic $age >ohn %"%-%:.@& >ohn %"%(AB >ohn %"%9A' >ohn A"%AA' >ohn A"A(A9 >ohn ("%9A9 >ohn ("@AA& >ohn ("::A& >ohn B"AA:< >ohn B"B@:< >ohn 9":@:% >ohn 9"(9:% >ohn %<"A<..:: >ohn %<"AA-AB:( >ohn %@"::.:B >ohn %:"&...:B >ohn %:"%@.:B >ohn %:"@9.:' >ohn %("@A.:' >ohn %B"@9.:' >ohn %'"A...:' >ohn %'"(...:9 >ohn %'"9...(< >ohn %'"%9.(< >ohn %'"@%-@A(< >ohn @<"%'.(%

>ohn @<"@9.(@ % >ohn %"@BB % >ohn @"@@..B' % >ohn :"@B9 % >ohn :"%A..B9 % >ohn ("'-9.B9 % >ohn ("@<-@%.B9 @ >ohn 'B& !evelation @@...'< "cts Proof Texts +opic $age 2cts A"@B(: 2cts ("A-:...(: #pistles Proof Texts +opic $age !omans %"A.(( !omans :"%'...(( !omans 9"A.(( !omans 9"@B...(( !omans &"(.(B !omans %%"A:.(' % 3orinthians %<":..(' % 3orinthians 9":, B(' @ 3orinthians ("%&..(9 @ 3orinthians %A"%:(9 alatians @"(..(9 alatians :":..(& Fphesians %"%'..(& Fphesians A"%&..(& $hilippians %"%&B< $hilippians @"B-%%B< 3olossians %"%(-%&...B% 3olossians @"&..B@ % +imothy A"%B.B@ +itus @"AB@ 7ebrews %"@.BA 7ebrews %"(.B: 7ebrews %"9.B: 7ebrews %"%<..B( % $eter %"@<.B( @ $eter %"%...BB % >ohn %"@BB % >ohn @"@@..B' % >ohn :"@B9 % >ohn :"%A..B9 % >ohn ("'-9.B9 % >ohn ("@<-@%.B9 @ >ohn 'B&

$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 >esus man, 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 true understanding 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 prepare his 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 very few 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 @"%< The Old Testament 2 search of the 7ebrew 4criptures for any sign of a duality or +rinity of divine persons active in the creation will provide fruitless. +o propose a odhead of more than one person would require us to cast aside the rules of language and grammar. !esponsible historians, both secular and religious, agree that the >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 own 4criptures. --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 its pages. --=.+. 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', %:"A<B. +he 8ld +estament tells us nothing e*plicitly or by necessary implication of a +riune od who is 5ather, 4on, and 7oly 4piritThere is no evidence that any sacred $riter even suspected the e%istence of a &Trinity' $ithin the (odhead)Fven to see in the 8ld +estament suggestions or foreshadowings or ,veiled signs/ of the +rinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. --Fdmund >. 5ortman, The Triune (od, .aker .ook 7ouse, %&'@, *v, 9, &. +he 8ld +estament can scarcely be used as authority for the e*istence of distinctions within the odhead. --2... Davidson, od, astings Dictionary of the *i+le, 3harles 4cribner/s 4ons, %&%%, @"@<( #t cannot be proved, out of the whole number of passages in the 8ld +estament in which the 7oly 4pirit is mentioned, that this is a person in the odheadH and it is now the almost universally received opinion of learned commentators, that, in the language of the >ews, the ,7oly 4pirit/ means nothing more than divine inspiration, without any reference to a person. -->.D. Cichaelis, "emar,s on >ohn %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 assumption that has long held sway in theology, but is utterly without foundation. +he >ews, as a people, 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 is continued. >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., %&<@), :. The %ew Testament +he ospel was addressed to plain and honest minds, and plain and honest minds can understand its important and practical lessons. +he great principles of natural religion are so simple that our 4avior thought men could gather them from the birds of the air, the flowers of the field, and the clouds of heavenH and he demanded of those who stood around him, why they did not of themselves -udge what is right. +he ospel was addressed to the poor, the uneducatedH and it was committed to unlettered men to teach it to others. #t would be most strange, therefore, if only the learned could understand or

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 of uncompromising, pre-udiced, bigoted, infuriate polemicsH and enveloped in all the mystery and metaphysical abstruseness of theological controversy --.aledictory, from sermons of 7enry 3olman (n.p., %9@<), A@@, A@A. #t remains a fact that the doctrine of the +rinity was never defended in the whole of the ;ew +estament. +his could simply be because it was unheard of. +he Cessiah is seen in the ;ew +estament documents as the unique, legal representative of od, not as the second member of the +rinity.01 +he correctness of this evaluation is confirmed by the startling fact that there is no te*t in the ;ew +estament in which the term ho theos ( od) means ,5ather, 4on, and 7oly 4pirit./ +he reasons appears to be that no writer thought that od was ,three-in-one./ #t ought to be a matter of concern for +rinitarians that when they say , od,/ they mean the +riune od, but when the ;ew +estament (or indeed the whole .ible) says , od,/ a +riune od is never meant. #t would be hard to find more conclusive evidence that the +riune od is not the od of 4cripture.0..1 Discussion of the +rinity often centers around a handful of ;ew +estament verses which are meant to prove that >esus is the 4upreme Deity rather than the perfect reflection of Deity, 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 highest repute, 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 by describing >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 will appear. #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 the arguments 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 an e*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 %A<< times. 7e is also designated ,the only od/ (!om. %B"@'H >ude @(), ,the one who alone is od/ (>ohn (H::) and ,the only true od/ (>ohn %'"A). +here is one called the 4on, >esus 3hrist, who is given the title od (theos) twice for certain (>ohn @<"@9H 7eb. %"9), but is never called ho theos (used absolutely), the ,only od,/ ,the one who alone is od,/ or ,the only true od./ +he data hardly suggests that there are two who are to be ranked equally as od, both being the one od. 2dd to this the fact that od in the 8ld +estament is said to be a single individual thousands of times, and it should be clear that +rinitarianism does not do -ustice to the biblical data. Coreover, the titles ,only god,/ ,one who alone is od/

,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 is coequal with the 5ather. $aul believed that the 4on would be for all time sub-ected 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 verse somewhere 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. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), A', @'(, @'&, AA<, AA@, AAA. ;owhere does the ;ew +estament identify >esus with od. --=illiam .arclay, A Spiritual Auto+iography ( rand !apids" Ferdmans, %&'(), (<. $aul never equates >esus with od. --$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), :<-:@. $aul neither calls 0>esus1 od, nor identifies him anywhere with od. #t is true he does od/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 to be 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, in Evangelical 1uarterly '<"%, >an. %&&9, 'B. o Theos 0 od1 is never used in the ;ew +estament to speak of the pneuma hagion 07oly 4pirit1. --Jarl !ahner, Theological Investigations (.altimore" 7elicon $ress, %&BA), %"%:A. =e are not to infer that >ohn regarded the 4pirit as a personality in the sense of the later 3hurch doctrine. +he discourses of >ohn dwell on the relation of the 5ather to the 4on without any thought of a third person coordinated in one odhead. --F.5. 4cott, The 0ourth (ospel (+ I + 3lark, %&@B), A:@. +heologically considered, the +rinity grew out of a syncretism of >udaism and 3hristianity with 7ellenism and a resulting combination of >ewish and 3hristian monotheism with 7ellenistic monism=hat the theologian thus discovers poses a question to theology about the legitimacy of such a construct. =hen it is clear K and there is no way around this -that >esus himself knew only the od of #srael, whom he called 5ather, and knew nothing abut his own later ,being made od,/ what right have we to call the doctrine of the +rinity normative and binding on 3hristians?...7owever we interpret the various stages of the development of the +rinity, it is clear that this doctrine, which became ,dogma/ in the Fast and =est has no biblical basis and cannot be traced continuously back to the ;ew +estament radually, theology must face the facts. --Jarl-7ein6 8hlig, Ein (ott in drei -ersonen2 .om .ater 3um 4/yserium5 der Trinitat Cain6" Catthias runewald-Lerlag, %&&&, %@A-%@(, translated by 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting. +he history of 3hristian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the +rinity as the distinctive element in the 3hristian idea of od.8n the other hand we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the +rinity did not form part of the early 3hristian ;ew +estamentit was never the intent of the original witnesses to 3hrist in the ;ew +estament to set before us the intellectual problem K that of three divine persons K and then to tell us silently to worship this mystery of three-in-one. +here is no trace of such an idea in the ;ew +estament. +his ,mysterioum logicum,/ the fact that od is three yet one, lies wholly outside the message of the .ible. #t is a mystery which the 3hurch places before the faithful in her theologybut which has n connection with the message of >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 our understanding. +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, %&(<), %"@<(, @@B, @A9.

+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 Fli-ah is a person. +he 4pirit of od is of course personalH it is od/s dunamis 0power1 in action. .ut the 7oly 4pirit is not a person, 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 represents the 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), %@<. .ecause the +rinity is such an important part of later 3hristian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the ;ew +estament. Eikewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the odhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. --+rinity in The 7%ford Companion to the *i+le (8*ford Mniversity $ress, %&&A), '9@ 3hristological doctrine has never in practice been derived simply by way of logical inference from the statements of 4cripture +he 3hurch has not usually in practice (whatever it may have claimed to be doing in theory) based its 3hristology e*clusively on the witness of the ;ew +estament. --Caurice =iles, The "ema,ing of Christian Doctrine (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&':), (:-(( +he primary kinship of the ;ew +estament is not with this entile environment, but rather with the >ewish heritage and environment 01 =e are often led by our traditional creeds and theology to think in terms dictated by entile and especially reek concepts. =e know that no later than the second century there began the systematic effort of the 2pologists to show that the 3hristian faith perfected the best in reek philosophy+he ;ew +estament speaks always with disapproval and usually with blunt denunciation of entile cults and philosophies. #t agrees essentially with the >ewish indictment of the pagan world. --5. 5ilson, The #e$ Testament Against Its Environment (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&(<), @B, @'. ;ot only did >esus and his first disciples accept >ewish monotheism without questionH 7e e*pressly reaffirmed it (4t. Cark %@"@&ff.). --!.>.=. .evan, Steps to Christian !nderstanding (8*ford Mniversity $ress, %&(9), %:<, %B'. #f >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

&

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 %B<&. $ublished by Eondon" Eongman, 7urst, !ees, 8rme, and .rown, and translated from the Eatin by +. !ees, in %9%9), %::, %:(. #n 2pril, %B(@, the Fnglish $arliament ordered that all e*isting copies of this catechism be burned because the catechism does not agree with the doctrine of the +rinity. #n order to protect the oneness of od from every multiplication, watering down, or amalgamation with the rites of the surrounding world, the people of #srael chose for itself that verse of the .ible 0Deuteronomy B":1 to be its credo which to this very day belongs to the daily liturgy of the synagogue but also is impressed as the first sentence of instruction upon the five-year-old school child. +his is the confession which >esus acknowledged as ,the most important of all the commandments./ --$inchas Eapide, 8e$ish /onotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine, ($hiladelphia" 5ortress $ress, %&9%), @'. >udaism is not as devoid of dogmatic formulas as formulas as one often supposes >udaism has its own creeds and articles of faith. +he Shema Israel (Deu. B":) is not only a liturgical formula and a commandmentH it is also a confession of faith, and considered as more important than the historical >ewish creeds. 2s a confession of faith, the Shema is the affirmation of the unity and uniqueness of od. #t constitutes the highest e*pression of the ,>ewish monotheism/" ,Adonai is our od, Adonai is one/ +he 3hristian symbols of faith K the 2postles/ 3reed, the ;icaean-3onstantinopolitan 3reed, the 2thanasian 3reed, to quote only the main ones K are considered by the >ews as being in flat contradiction to this fundamental assertion of >ewish monotheism. --Eev illet, Communion in the /essiah: Studies in the "elationship +et$een 8udaism and 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 the divine 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 re-ected 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 to wander, to suffer, to die. --3hief !abbi >.7. 7ert6, -entateuch and aftorahs (Eondon" 4oncino $ress, %&B<), ''<. 03hristianity1 arose within >udaism and the monotheism of >udaism 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 an occasion 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 looked unhesitatingly 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, in Encyclopedia of "eligion and Ethics, %@":(9. +hough a plural form, elohim can be treated as a singular, in which case it means the one supreme Deity+here is only one supreme od and he is a $erson. -- od in the Illustrated *i+le Dictionary (#nterLarsity $ress, %&9<), ('%. +he name Gahweh is distinguished by a specific content. od is not -ust any deity but a distinct divine person .ehind statements like ,the Eord if od/ (% Jings %9"A&) or ,the Eord is his name/ (e*. %("A) stand the more specific e*pressions ,Gahweh (or Gahweh of hosts) is his name./ +here is encounter here with the definite person of od. --+he 8ld +estament name for od, Theological Dictionary of the #e$ Testament6 A+ridged in 7ne .olume, :9&. +he plural of ma-esty sums up the several characteristics belonging to the idea, besides posing the secondary sense of an intensification of the original idea +hat the language has entirely re-ected the idea of a numerical plurality in elohim (whenever it denotes od), is proved especially by its being almost invariably -oined with a singular attribute. --(esenius e+re$ (rammar6 ed. F. Jaut6sch (8*ford" 3larendon $ress, %&%<), A&9. A&&. Fven weaker 0than the argument for plurality within the odhead because of Elohim1 is the argument that the 7ebrew word for ,one/ (echad) used in the Shema (,7ear 8 #srael, the Eord our od is one Eord/) refers to a unified one, not an absolute one. 7ence, some +rinitarians have argued, the 8ld +estament has a view of a united odhead. #t is, of course true that the meaning of the word may in some conte*ts denote a unified plurality (e.g. en. @"@:, ,they shall become one flesh/). .ut this really proves nothing. 2n e*amination of the 8ld +estament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as is our Fnglish word one. +he conte*t must determine whether a numeral or unified singularity is intended.

%%

--+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 elohim as 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 therefore might 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 (,(<<) of occurrences. #f singular pronouns, constantly designating the 8ne od, cannot persuade the reader that od is a single individual there is no little else in language that can. Elohim has singular verbs in nearly all of its @(<< references to the 8ne od. 2n occasional anomaly proves as little as the fact that >oseph/s master is described by a plural noun several times ( en. A&"@, A, ', 9, %&, @<). =ill anyone contend that ,>oseph/s master 0plural in 7ebrew1 took 0singular verb1 him/ is incorrectly translated? 2braham is the ,masters/ (plural in 7ebrew) of his servant ( en. @:"&, %<). #s there plurality in 2braham? ;o one would want to alter the translation of another passage in enesis" ,+he man who is lord of the land spoke harshly to us./ .ut though the verb is singular the noun has a plural form, ,the lords of the land/ ( en. :@"A<) 0see also en. :@"AA" ,+he man who is ,lords/ of the land./1. =e have in these e*amples the same plurality in 2braham, $otiphar and >oseph as is supposedly found in elohim when it refers to the 4upreme od. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @'@. Genesis 0)1( 3hristians have traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating the +rinity. #t is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author. -- .>. =enham in commentary on enesis %-%(, Word *i+lical Commentary, =ord .ooks, %&9', @'). +he 8ld +estament can scarcely be used as authority for the e*istence of distinctions within the odhead. +he use of ,us/ by the divine speaker ( en. %"@BH A"A@H %%"') is

%@

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, %&%%, @"@<( 0#n enesis "@B1 od speaks as the 3reator-Jing, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court. --#I. Study *i+le ( rand !apids" Nondervan, %&9(), '. +rinitarian writers seem to have gone far beyond the evidence of 4cripture when they assert that the third person of the +rinity was involved in a conversation when od said, ,Eet us make man in our own image/ ( en. %"@B).01 #t seems imaginative to say that od here spoke to the 7oly 4pirit. od does not speak to 7is own 4pirit. 7e would be talking to 7imself (unless by ,spirit/ an angel-messenger of od is meant). #s therer anywhere in 4cripture a hunt of od speaking to 7is 7oly 4pirit? 4uch an idea is as foreign to the .ible as the notion that the 7oly 4pirit is to be worshipped or thanked, as +orrey recommends 0!.2. +orrey, The oly Spirit (5leming !evell 3o., %&''), %A, %&.1. +he hymn which encourages us to ,praise the 5ather, 4on, and 7oly host/ originates in a milieu which has lost track of the biblical doctrine of the 4pirit. +orrey even tells us that the Shema of #srael (Deu. B":) is really a +rinitarian creed 0#bid., @%, @@1. +he plural form of elohim is the basis of his argument, which has been re-ected by a mass of +rinitarian scholars. =hy is it that popular literature makes such an appeal while the much more thorough investigations of recogni6ed authorities on the 7ebrew language go unnoticed? --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @A<, @A%. 'euteronomy 02)03402 Deuteronomy %9"%(-%9 e*pressly says that the Cessiah is to arise from a family in #srael. +he Cessiah is e*pressly said in this important 3hristological te*t not to +e (od +ut (ods agent +orn to the family of Israel: 2ll >ews who looked forward to the Cessiah e*pected a human person, not an angel, much less od 7imselfO +hough the >ews had not understood that the Cessiah was to be born supernaturally, even this miraculous begetting was in fact predicted (#sa. '"%:H Catt. %"@A). 2 ,pre-human/ Cessiah, however, is nowhere suggested.01+here were many such cosmic saviors in the raeco-!oman world. .ut there was only one Cessiah, whose identity was given long ago in advance of his birth. 7e was foreknown (% $et. %"@<) and would arise fromt eh 7ouse of #srael as an #sraelite of the tribe of >udah (Deut. %9"%(-%9, 2cts A"@@H '"A'). +hat important te*t in Deuteronomy actually states that the promised agent of od would not be the Eord od, but 7is spokesman. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %B&, %'A. Psalm *3)(/ 00

%A

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 , od Cessiah/ 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 the royal 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 that it 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 be willing 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 truth which 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 %<"A:-AB). >ohn distinguishes >esus from the one and only od, his 5ather (>ohn %'"A). !eaders of the ;ew +estament often do not reali6e that the word , od/ can be applied to a representative of od. +here is good evidence that >ohn incorporates into his portrait of >esus as Cessiah, ideas drawn from the Cessianic $salm :(. #n answer to $ilate, >esus declared 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. $salm :( is written in praise of the Cessiah (7eb. %"9), who is addressed as ,most mighty,/ and urged to ,ride prosperously in the cause of +ruth/ (vv. A, :). +he psalmist foresees the king/s enemies ,will fall under you/ (v. (). +he royal status of this leader is emphasi6ed when the writer addressed him with the words ,8 od/ ($s :("B). +he career of the Cessiah outlines in $salm :( is reflected 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: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %@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 %<"A:-AB) >esus argues" ,4ince magistrates and -udges are in 4cripture e*pressly called ,gods,/ it is un-ust 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 >esus maintained, 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. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&<, @&%. Psalm 005)0 #t is quite true that 8ld +estament te*ts containing this word 0,Eord/1 are sometimes in the ;ew +estament transferred to >esus $hen he functions as an agent for ;ah$eh (-ust as the angel of the Eord who e*ercises the authority of Gahweh is sometimes equated with Gahweh). #n $salm %%<"%, however, there is no question that the first Eord mentioned (Gahweh) refers to od, the 5ather, the 8ne od of #srael (as it does on some B'<< occasions). +he second word for ,lord/ (here ,my lord/) is adoni, meaning according to all standard 7ebrew le*icons, ,lord,/ ,master,/ or ,owner,/ and it refers here, by way of prediction, to the Cessiah. #f David has e*pected the Cessiah to be od, the word used would not have been adoni but adonai, a term used e*clusively for the 8ne od.01 +he whole +rinitarian argument from this $salm fails because the facts of the language are wrongly reported.01 +he 7ebrew .ible does not confuse od with a human being as +rinitarianism does.01 +he consistent distinction between human and divine references, indicated by a vital difference in the pointing of the 7ebrew word Eord, has been ignored or misrepresented in translation, .ible notes and commentary under the pressure of +rinitarian dogma.01 #t is only by reading a +rinitarian or .initarian view into this te*t that the claim that the Cessiah was to be fully od can be upheld. +he ,lord/ e*pected by Jing David was to be both his descendent or son as well as his superior or master, but emphatically not Gahweh 7imself. $salm %%<"% stands as a barrier against any e*pansion of the odhead into two or three persons.01 Fverywhere in the ;ew +estament >esus is declared to be the ,Eord Cessiah/ 0Christ literally means /essiah1 or ,Eord >esus Cessiah/ 04ee Euke @"%% for the Cessianic title christos ,urios K 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 %%<"%, where the second ,lord/ is the promised Cessiah. $eter knew that this $salm described the appointment of 3hrist as ,Eord/ (2cts @"A:-AB). +he enormous significance of $salm %%<"% for ;ew +estament 3hristology has been largely ignored by +rinitarians. +he fact that this verse is cited by the ;ew +estament more often than any verse from the 7ebrew 4criptures should have alerted us to its critical importance. +he

%(

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. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), :&, (@, (A, ((, (', A@:. 0+he !4L translation1 has rightly dropped the capital letter on lord 0in $salm %<"%1, as being of the nature of an interpretation. Cy lord (adoni) is the title of respect and reverence used in the 8ld +estament in addressing or speaking of a person of rank and dignity, especially a king ( en. @A"BH % 4am. @@"%@ and frequently). --2.5. Jirkpatrick, -slams, The Cam+ridge *i+le for Schools and Colleges (3ambridge Mniversity $ress, %&<%), BB(. the attribute of lordship is given to >esusH he is not equated with Gahweh. --#. 7oward Carshall, Acts6 Tyndale #e$ Testament Commentaries ( rand !apids" Ferdmans, %&9<). Proverbs 2)01 5inally, it is most unreasonable to claim that ,=isdom/ in $roverbs (i.e., ,Eady =isdom/) was in fact >esus, the 4on, pree*isting. #t should not be difficult to discern that ,=isdom/ here is a personification of a divine quality, not a person. +he proof of this is found not only in all ma-or commentaries but very clearly in the te*t itself. ,#, =isdom, swell with $rudence/ ($rov. 9"%@). #f =isdom is really a (male) 4on of od, then who is $rudence? --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %'A. Proverbs 2)65 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"A<). >ohn says that the ,word/ was ,with 0pros1 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 heart of 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 %<"%A" ,with you/ is parallel to ,concealed in your heart,/ i.e., ,fi*ed in your decree./ 4ee also >ob @A"%<, %:.1. +he latter is a striking parallel to >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 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

%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. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9:. Proverbs 65)0 #t is sometimes asserted that the name #mmanuel K , od is with us/ K given to >esus proves that he is od. #f that were so, then the child born soon after the prediction was given by #saiah in the days of 2ha6 would also have been od. +he name, however, does not tell us that >esus was od, but that in his life od has intervened to save 7is people. +he parents who in 8ld +estament times called their son #thiel ($rov. A<"%) K , od is with me/ K did not believe their offspring to be Deity. ;ames of this type indicate the divine event associated with the life of the individual so named. od, the 5ather of >esus, was certainly with #srael as 7e worked through 7is unique 4on. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9&. +o maintain that the name #mmanuel proves the doctrine 0of the +rinity1 is a fallacious argument, although many +rinitarians have urged it. >erusalem is called ,>ehovah our !ighteousness./ #s >erusalem also divine? --+rinitarian theologian Coses 4tuart, Ans$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 .ible tens 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 one will 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 the most 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 simple creedal 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 % 3orinthians 9"B1. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %9%.

%'

$saiah 7)0* #t is sometimes asserted that the name #mmanuel K , od is with us/ K given to >esus proves that he is od. #f that were so, then the child born soon after the prediction was given by #saiah in the days of 2ha6 would also have been od. +he name, however, does not tell us that >esus was od, but that in his life od has intervened to save 7is people. +he parents who in 8ld +estament times called their son #thiel ($rov. A<"%) K , od is with me/ K did not believe their offspring to be Deity. ;ames of this type indicate the divine event associated with the life of the individual so named. od, the 5ather of >esus, was certainly with #srael as 7e worked through 7is unique 4on. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9&. +o maintain that the name #mmanuel proves the doctrine 0of the +rinity1 is a fallacious argument, although many +rinitarians have urged it. >erusalem is called ,>ehovah our !ighteousness./ #s >erusalem also divine? --+rinitarian theologian Coses 4tuart, Ans$er to Channing, cited in Concessions of Trinitarians (.oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:(), @AB. $saiah 8)( +he ,Cighty od/ of #saiah &"B does indeed mean, as defined by the 7ebrew Ee*icon, ,divine hero, reflecting the divine ma-esty./ #t is precisely that same Cessianic sense of the term , od,/ without inviting us to think that there are now two members of the odhead. +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 >ewish use of titles. #t is a serious mistake to think that the Cessiah has not stepped into the space 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*pression ,Fternal 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 sub-ected to him. +hen the 4on himself will be sub-ected to the one 0 od, the 5ather1 who sub-ected all things to him 0>esus1, that od may be all in all/ (% 3or. %("@9). #t was widely 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: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), '9, '&, 99, 9&.

%9

$saiah *5)06 Jnowing nothing of later dogma, $aul freely interchanges ,spirit/ and ,mind,/ thus giving 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 the spirit of the Eord?/ (#sa. :<"%A). .y receiving the 4pirit, which is equivalent to ,receiving the knowledge of the truth/ (7eb. %<"@B), we gain access to the divine personality e*tended to us in the 4pirit. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @A&. $saiah **)1* 2ccording to #saiah ::"@: od was unaccompanied at the original creation. >esus in the ospels attributes the creation to the 5ather and has no memory of being the agent in the enesis creation (Cark %<"BH Catt. B"A<H %&":H Euke %@"@9). #f >esus had really been the creator of the enesis heaven and earth, why does he have no memory of this? =hy does he e*pressly say that od was the creator? +he answer is that >esus worked within the >ewish and biblical framework of the scriptural heritage he had received and which he ,came not to destroy./ --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %B&. 9alachi 1)03 difficulty faces +rinitarianism when the 4pirit is quantified, as when Calachi speaks of od having ,the residue of the 4pirit/ (Cal. @"%(). >ohn also thinks of the 4pirit as given 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 on the 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 $ublications, %&&9), @AB, @A'. The Phrase : on of God; +he generation of the 4on as divine6 as (od, seems to be out of the question K unless it be an e*press doctrine of revelation, which is 01 far from being the case --+rinitarian theologian Coses 4taurt, Ans$er to Channing, cited by =ilson in Concessions 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 worse condition 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 the 8ld +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 title imply a Deity in a +rinitarian sense. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), :@. +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 these two titles K Cessiah and 4on of od K stand in apposition 0,apposition/ is the opposite ,opposition/1. +he title 4on of od undoubtedly stems from 8ld +estament te*ts such as @ 4am. '"%: and $salm @"', in its association with the Davidic Jing. -->ames !. .randy in Do Ciracles 2uthenticate the Cessiah? Evangelical "evie$ of Theology %A (%&9&)" %<%. +he cru* of the matter is how we understand the term ,4on of od/+he title 4on of od is not in itself a designation of personal deity or an e*pression of metaphysical distinctions within the odhead. #ndeed, to be a ,4on of od/ one has to be a being who is not odO #t is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with od. #n particular, it denoted od/s representative, od/s vice-regent. #t is a designation of kingship, identifying the king as od/s 4on. --5uller 4eminary $rofessor of 4ystematic +heology and editor of the #e$ International Dictionary of #e$ Testament Theology 3olin .rown, +rinity and #ncarnation" #n 4earch of 3ontemporary 8rthodo*y, E% Auditu, %&&%, 9'-99. =ithin the 3hristian tradition, the ;ew +estament has long been read through the prism of the later conciliar creeds4peaking of >esus as the 4on of od had a very different

@<

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 divine purpose 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 the conception 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 +eing od. +hinking of a human as being od was strictly a reek or 7ellenistic 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 one hand, and 2le*andrian 3hristianity, heavily colored by neo-$latonic speculation, on the other. 5or the most part, the >ewish 3hristians/ argument tended to be that they had known >esus and his family and that he was a human being, a great teacher, one filled with the divine Eogosbut that he was not divine in the ontological sense, as the 2le*andrians insisted. +he arguments persisted in on form or another until 3yril of 2le*andria/s faction finally won the day for a highly mythologi6ed >esus of divine ontological being. 3yril was capable of murdering his fellow bishops to get his way. .y the time of the 3ouncil of ;icea in A@( 3F, this 2le*andrian perspective was dominant but not uncontested by the 2ntiochian perspective of low 3hristology. 5rom ;icea to 3halcedon the speculative and neo-$latonist perspective gained increasing ground and became 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 reek philosophical 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 (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 permitted to 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 # re-ect 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 such generation. 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 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 no beginning, nor stands in any reference in time. 4on supposes time, generation and 5ather" and time also antecedent to such generation. +herefore the con-uction 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 to od 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 they were 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 who had 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 Fli-ah, 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 were od?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 title for a supreme representative of od, since the -udges themselves had been addressed as gods (>ohn %<"A:H $s. 9"B), $hich for 8esus is e<uivalent to Son of (od (>ohn %<"AB). +o be the 4on of od was to demonstrate perfect obedience to the 5ather, the ideal status of #srael whose citi6ens are destined to be ,sons of the living od/ (7os. %"%<). ,4on of od/ is also the recogni6ed title of the Cessiah, od/s chosen king 0$s. @"BH 9&"@B, @', A(, ABH Catt. %B"%BH @ 4am. '"%:1. 2nd it was to prove the Cessiahship of >esus that >ohn penned his entire ospel (>ohn @<"A%). Fverywhere in the ;ew +estament >esus is declared to be the ,Eord Cessiah/ 0Christ literally means /essiah1 or ,Eord >esus Cessiah/ 04ee Euke @"%% for the Cessianic title christos ,urios K 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 %%<"%, where the second ,lord/ is the promised Cessiah. $eter knew that this $salm described the appointment of 3hrist as ,Eord/ (2cts @"A:-AB).01 it is interesting to note the difficulty encountered by ,orthodo*/ theology when it attempts to -ustify the new, non-biblical meaning assigned to the term ,4on of od/ by the post-biblical 5athers.01 +he admission 0by +rinitarian theologians1 that here may in fact be no certain references in >ohn to >esus as pree*istent 4on confirms how far later orthodo*y departed from the evidence of 4cripture in its definition of >esus. +he later dogma about belief in the ,eternal 4on,/ a title for which 4cripture provides no support , as necessary for salvation, was based, as we have seen, on a misreading of the words of >ohn and the substitution of new meanings for key >ohannine terms describing >esus. +he development of 3hristology might have been very different had e*egetes remained within the meaning of 4on of od as ,the highest 3hristological designation, >ewish-messianic in origin/ 0Catthew .lack, "omans6 #e$ Century *i+le (Carshall, Corgan and 4cott, %&'A), A(.1. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), B(, %'', A@A, A@:, A@(, A@B. <as !esus <orshipped as God= it dos not follow from 03hrist/s acceptance of worship1 that the blind man regarded >esus as of the same nature with od. +he term which is translated $orship is used of the homage which sub-ects pay to their sovereign and simply implies that the one who receives it is of a dignity superior to the one who renders it (cp. !ev. @@"9).01 >esus accepted the homage of +homas as homage rendered to his Cessiaship+here is no suggestion that he regarded the homage as implying that he was of the same substance as the 5ather. --3hicago +heological 4eminary professor of ;ew +estament Eiterature and Eanguage .7. ilbert, The "evelation of 8esus6 A Study of the -rimary Sources of Christianity (;ew Gork" Cacmillan 3o., %9&&), @@(, @@B. ,worship/ in 4cripture is offered not only to od but to human persons who hold positions of dignity. +he reek verb pros,uneo is used both of worship to od and doing obeisance to human persons. +hus, for e*ample, the king of #srael is worshipped in association with od (% 3hron. @&"@<, J>LH the word pros,uneo in the EPP). Daniel was worshipped (Dan. @":B). +he saints are worshipped (!ev. @"&, J>L). >esus is worshipped 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 to suppose 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. @&"@<). ,7e6ekiah and the princes blessed the Eord and 7is people #srael/ (@ 3hron. A%"9). Codern translations have helped to clarify the issue of ,worshipping >esus./ #n Catthew 9"@, for e*ample, we read of a leper who came and ,prostrated himself before him/ (+ranslator/s ;ew +estament). 2ll this is not to deny that >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./ 2s Cessiah, >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&, %:<. 9atthew 0)0( #n the commentary # shall stress that Catthew and Euke show no knowledge of pree*istence, seemingly for them the conception was the becoming or begetting of the 4on of od.01 +he fact that Catthew can speak of >esus as ,begotten/ (passive of gennan) 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 with od takes on flesh. --!aymond .rown, The *irth of the /essiah, A%, fn. '., %:<, %:%. 9atthew 0)02 Mnpre-udiced reader swill see (as acknowledged by a host of biblical e*perts) that the >esus of Catthew, Cark, Euke 2cts and $eter is a human being originating at his conception and birth as do all other human persons. 7e has not pree*isted. Catthew even speaks of the ,genesis/ of >esus in Catthew %"%9. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&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)" %<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, 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. A<"%) K , od is with me/ K did not believe their offspring to be Deity. ;ames of this type indicate the divine event associated with the life of the individual so named. od, the 5ather of >esus, was certainly with #srael as 7e worked through 7is unique 4on. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9&. +o maintain that the name #mmanuel proves the doctrine 0of the +rinity1 is a fallacious argument, although many +rinitarians have urged it. >erusalem is called ,>ehovah our !ighteousness./ #s >erusalem also divine? --+rinitarian theologian Coses 4tuart, Ans$er to Channing, cited in Concessions of Trinitarians (.oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:(), @AB. 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 subscribed to 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:(), :<. 9ar> 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/s legal 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 had given 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 sub-ect of 8ld +estament monotheism was not at issue. >esus/ opponents took offense at his claim to be the 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 later occasion he invested the 2postles with the right to forgive sins K a responsibility which did not include them in the odhead (>ohn @<"@A). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), ::. 9ar> 01)18 2 claim to be Deity in the +rinitarian sense would actually be blasphemous by >esus/ own standards, since he repeatedly affirmed that the 5ather was the only true od.01 +o worship a 4avior with wrong ideas about him runs the risk of worshipping another 4avior. The creed of 8esus is the right creed for Christians (Cark %@"@&). 2s so many scholars know, that creed is not a +rinitarian creed. +he 8ne od of #srael and of >esus was and is the 5ather 0>ohn %'"AH >ohn ("::H % +im. @"(H % 3or. 9":-B1, ,the 8ne and only od/ (>ohn ("::), ,the only true od/ (>ohn %'"A).01 8ut of respect and honor for >esus the Cessiah, 3hristians should adopt his >ewish creed in Cark %@"@&" ,7ear, 8 #srael, the Eord our od is one 9ord./ od is one Eord 0the ,Eord od/1. >esus is another Eord 0the ,Eord Cessiah/1. +hat makes t$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 that creed 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 solve the 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 distinct from 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 a 0blind1 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: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @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 not od. --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" rather for 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/s womb and was thus part of the creation, not the 3reator.01 +he so-called 3hurch 5athers 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 a reconstruction 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, and for that reason the holy thing being generated will be called the 4on 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 firmly grounded 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. +he absence 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) --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @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 permitted to 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 # re-ect 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 such generation. 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 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 no beginning, nor stands in any reference in time. 4on supposes time, generation and 5ather" and time also antecedent to such generation. +herefore the con-uction 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'). ?u>e *)*6 Cark %@"@9ff. presents >esus as affirming his own belief in the unitary monotheism of the >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 a different 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: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), A:<, A:%. ?u>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? #t is 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 to the nature of >esus seems inescapable. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @99, @9&. !ohn 0)040* +he clear evidence of >ohn is that >esus refused the claim to be od. --$rofessor >.2.+. !obinson there is no clear indication that the priority 0of 3hrist1 was intended in a temporal sense. =e may conclude that for the earliest 3hurch, >esus was accorded the priority in reality 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 than unintelligible, it would destroy all coherence in the essential 3hristian claim that >esus was truly a human being, that the =ord became flesh>esus of ;a6areth began his life, began to e*ist, at a definite time in history" the =ord became flesh. --$aul van .uren, A Theology of 8e$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 never intended.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 $ersons in the odhead and words like ,generation/ and ,procession/ made into technical terms which ;ew +estament usage simply will not substantiate. -->ohn !obinson, T$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 already ,e*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 antecedent to 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 eternal word 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 0literally1 pree%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 with od/? 0such a reading would be unscriptural, since ,in the beginning/ the logos was not the 4on. #n the first chapter of his gospel, Catthew writes of the conception of >esus within Cary as the genesis, or origin of >esus 3hrist. +herefore the 4on did not e*ist as the 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+out the 7rigin of Christ (;ew Gork" 3rossroads, %&&@), A9%. 8ur literature shows traces of a way of thinking that was widespread in contemporary syncretism, 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<.

A<

$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 of -udgment 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 more than predestination in the divine purpose and foreknowledge. --3. 8ttley, The Doctrine of the Incarnation (Cethuen and 3o., %9&B), (&, B<. #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 the conception 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:. +he Eogos teaching is not a ,higher/ 3hristology than the customary one. #t lags in fact far behind the genuine appreciation of 3hrist. 2ccording to their teaching 0+rinitarianism1 it is no longer od who reveals 7imself in 3hrist, but the Eogos, the inferior od, a od who as od is subordinated to the 7ighest od (inferiorism or subordinationism). --5riedrich Eoofs, 9eitfaden 3um Studium der Dogmengeschichte (/anual for the Study of the istory of Dogma, %9&<), 7alle-4aale" Ca* ;iemeyer Lerlag, %&(%, part %, sec. %9" 3hristianity as a !evealed $hilosophy. +he reek 2pologists, &', translation by 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting. +he freedom to e*plore apart from the ,tyranny of dogma/ (represented, for e*ample, by the 2thanasian 3reed which threatens death to deviants from orthodo* +rinitarianism) led to the rediscovery of a frequently forgotten element in the 3hurch/s presentation of >esus K his humanity. #t was widely admitted that traditional understandings of >esus had often suffered from a latent ,docetism/ (belief that >esus only seemed to be human), which for >ohn, the 2postle, signaled very ,antichrist/ (% >ohn :"@H @ >ohn '). Coreover, traditional formulations about 3hrist seemed to demonstrate a fondness for a particular interpretation of >ohn %"%, 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 been because 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, against an incipient nostic docetism, the humanity of >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 @AB C the D$ord of (od C +ecoming em+odied as a human +eing:01 +he close association of >esus wit the 8ne od of #srael does not lead to the 3hristological conclusions of the 0;icene, 2thanasian and 3halcedonian1 creeds. +he development which culminated at ;icea and 3halcedon may be traced in three ma-or stages. 5irstly, the ,logos/ of reek philosophy was identified by the 2le*andrian theologians with the pree*istent 3hrist. 4econdly 8rigen postulated the unbiblical doctrine of the eternal generation of the 4on. +hirdly the socalled 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 where it 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 takes the 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 of life. +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 says that the son of od ,came into e%istence/ from a woman and from the seed of David ( al. :":H !om. %"A). #t is unimagina+le that $aul could have believed in the pree*istence of the 4on. #t would be untrue to say that the son came into e*istence at his birth, if in fact he had always e*isted0.1 >ohn %"%has been sub-ected to a minute analysis by commentators of every shade of opinion. #t is obvious that some modern translations are blatantly +rinitarian interpretations: The 9iving (ospels 0+yndale 7ouse, %&BB1 reads" ,.efore anything else e*isted there was 3hrist, with od. 7e has always been alive and is 7imself od./ .ut that is to raise the whole +rinitarian problem. 4uddenly od is t$o persons. 2 little known fact is that the ,word/ was not assumed to be a second person 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 %(B<. #t is an assumption that by ,word/ >ohn 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 who alone 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"A<). >ohn says that the ,word/ was ,with 0pros1 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 heart of 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 %<"%A" ,with you/ is parallel to ,concealed in your heart,/ i.e., ,fi*ed in your decree./ 4ee also >ob @A"%<, %:.1. +he latter is a striking parallel to >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 on to 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 article does 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 one person.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 the perfect e*pression of the mind of od in human form. >esus is not to be identified oneto-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&, %:<, %:%, %'@, @9A, @9:, @9(, @9B, @9', emphasis added. 0, od/ in >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 $erson. #t would be pure 4abellianism to say that ,the =ord was ho theos:/ --+rinitarian .ishop =estcott, cited by 3.5.D Coule, An Idiom *oo, of #e$ 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 Studies A% (%&9()" %A<. $atristic theology of whatever school abused these te*ts 0the writings of the 2postle >ohn1 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 by the 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*isting personality. #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 (%<"A(), had come to the >ews in 7oly 4cripture (("A9) and which had been entrusted to >esus and committed by him to his disciples (9"((, %@":9, %'"B, 9, %:, %'H % >ohn %"%) and which would now be preserved by them (% >ohn %"%<, @"(, %:). +he slightly personifying way in which the word is spoken of as coming into the world (%"&-%:) is typical of the personifying style of the 8ld +estament references to the word (#sa. (("%%H $s. %<'"@<H %:'"%(H cp.@ +hess. A"%). #t cannot be proved that the author of the prologue thought of the word as a real person. 8nly the historical >esus and not the original word is said to be the 4on (>ohn %"%:, %9). .ut in this 4on there dwelt and worked the eternal revelation of od.01 5rm the time of >ustin the logos 3hristology became dominant in 3hristian theology+his logos teaching created a contact and an agreement with the philosophy of Eate 2ntiquity. +he main problem for the latter was how to determine the relationship of the lower, material world to the transcendental world of od and the spirit. +o solve this problem the e*istence of ,middle beings/ was posited. +hese beings were emanations of the deity and represented a gradual means by which the gap between od and man could be bridged. 3hristian speculation about the logos as the intermediary in creation was directly related to this 7ellenistic, philosophical speculation, since it offered a similar solution to the same cosmological problem.ut the combining of the cosmological, philosophical with religious and stereological interests contained an inner selfcontradiction. #f the logos teaching were to offer an adequate solution to the cosmological problem, the logos had to be presented as a real, mediating person, proceeding indeed from od but less than od, so that as mediator the logos could link od with man. #f one the other hand the mediator were to bring salvation than his being must be of equal value with the salvation he is to bring to mankind 7e must be thought of ,as of od/01. 2s either the cosmological view or the stereological view prevailed, so correspondingly the distance of the logos from od or his similarity with od was emphasi6ed. 01 =hen not only a personal, heavenly pree*istence but an eternal, coessential e*istence with the 5ather was attributed to the 4on, the idea of the unity of (od $as lost. +his was the important complaint of all Conarchians 0believers in an absolutely unitary odhead1.01 Conotheism, which for the 3hristian view of od is not an insignificant matter but of fundamental importance, was impaired#f the logos which belongs to the eternal od is a person and as such to be distinguished from the person of the 5ather, there inevitably arises a plurality in od and pure monotheism is destroyed. --7eidelberg professor theology 7.7. =endt, System der Christlichen 9ehre ( ottingen" Landenhoeck und !uprecht, %&<'), $t. @, ch. :, A(A, A(:, A(', A(9, A(&, AB9. +ranslated by 4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting. +hat any e*pression or vehicle of od/s will for the world, 7is saving counsel and purpose, was present in 7is mind, or 7is ,=ord,/ from the beginning is a natural way of saying that it is not fortuitous, but the due unfolding and e*pression of od/s own being. +his attribution of pree*istence indicates religious importance of the highest order.

A:

!abbinic theology speaks of the Eaw, of od/s throne of glory, of #srael and of other important ob-ects 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 is included 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 is true 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. #n -rei,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 means that 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 himself understood 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 dogmatic history of the three centuries subsequent to the Fvangelist/s writing.01 2n author/s language will confuse us, unless we have some rapport wit 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 whole religious 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 is his essential personality. Fvery mind must e*press itself, for activity is the very nature of the mind+hus >ohn speaks of the ,=ord/ that was $ith od, and was Divine6 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, ,Cy 5ather works up till now/ he is saying what the Fvangelist says in the first verse of the $rologue. >ohn/s language is not the language of philosophical definition. >ohn has a ,concrete/ and ,pictorial/ mind. +he failure to understand >ohn 0in his prologue1 has led many to the conclusion that he is ,father of metaphysical 3hristology,/ and therefore responsible for the later ecclesiastical obscuration of the ethical and spiritual emphasis on >esus+he evangelist did not think in terms of the category of ,substance/ K a category which was so congenial to the reek mind. --3.>. =right, 8esus: The "evelation of (od, .ook of The /ission and /essage of 8esus: An E%position of the (ospels in the 9ight of /odern "esearch (;ew Gork" F.$. Dutton and 3o., %&A9), B'', '<', '%%. +he conclusion which seems to emerge from our analysis thus far is that it is only with verse %: 0,and the word became flesh/1 that we can begin to speak of the personal Eogos. +he poem uses rather impersonal language (became flesh), but no 3hristian would fail to

A(

recogni6e here a reference to >esus K the word became not flesh in general but >esus 3hrist. -rior to verse EF we are in the same realm as pre-3hristian talk of =isdom and Eogos, the same language and ideas we find in $hilo, where as we have seen, we are dealing with personification rather than persons, personified actions of od rather than an individual divine being as such. +he point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine Eogos as ,he/ throughout the poem 0the logos is translated as ,he/ in most modern translations, but in fact logos should be translated as ,it/ in all cases prior to verse %:, when it becomes ,flesh/ in the form of the man >esus 3hrist, and therefore becomes masculine. 2ll early Fnglish translations translate logos as ,it/ and not ,he/ prior to verse %:.1. .ut if we translated Eogos as , od/s utterance/ instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the Eogos of vv. %-%A to be thought of as a personal divine being. #n other words, the revolutionary significance of v. %: may well be that it marks not only the transition in the thought of the poem from pree*istence to incarnation, but also the transition from impersonal personification to actual person. -->ames Dunn, Christology in the /a,ing, @:A, emphasis added. +his word, like wisdom 0$roverbs 9"A<1 was with od in the beginning and through it 0not him1 all things were made. -->ames 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 the pree*istence without the humanity. +here is absolutely no way of having both. -->ohn Jno*, The umanity and Divinity of 8esus (3ambridge Mniversity $ress, %&B'), %<B. !ohn 0)03 >ohn the .aptist says of >esus that ,he was before me/ (>ohn %"%(). Cany readers naturally 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, %<9, %<&.1. +his is how Curray and 2bbot understand this verse 0>.8.5. Curray, 8esus According to St: 8ohn (Eondon" Eongmans, reen, %&AB)H F.2. 2bbot 8ohannine (rammar (Eondon" 2. and 3. .lack, %&<B) cited by Eeon Corris in The (ospel According to 8ohn, %<&.1. >ohn %"%(, A< cannot be claimed as proof that >esus e*isted before his birth. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @<:, @<(. !ohn 0)02

AB

>esus himself was interested in the use of the word , od/ for human rules (>ohn %<"A:H $s. 9@"B). +he Cessiah is supremely entitled to be called , od/ in this special sense, particularly because he embodies the ,word/ which is itself theos (>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 his entire book to prove that >esus was the 3hrist (>ohn @<"A%), and that the od of >esus is also the od of the disciples (>ohn @<"%'). 2n unusual occurrence of theos in reference to >esus should not overturn >ohn/s and >esus/ uniform insistence on the creed of #srael. #t is an unwarranted advance (@ >ohn & should be noted) beyond the intention of >ohn to make him the innovator of the equation ,3hrist/ Q ,the 4upreme od./ #t is sufficient to believe in >esus as the Cessiah, the 4on of od (>ohn @<"A%). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&@, @&A. !ohn 6)06 7ow then can >esus have said that the 4on ,has ascended to heaven/? 4imply because this is what had been forecast about him in Daniel. 5ollowing a well-established principle of 7ebrew thinking, od/s acts may be said to have happened already, once they are fi*ed in the divine counsels. +he une*pected past tense ,has ascended/ may be e*plained as a past tense of determination in the divine plan. +hus ,;o one 0it is written in the book of Daniel1 is destined to ascend to haven e*cept the one who came down from heaven, the 4on of Can who 0in Daniel/s vision of the future1 is in heaven./ +he final phrase ,who is in heaven/ (omitted from some versions) is well-attested and may well be originalH its omission from some manuscripts was due to the difficulty of understanding how >esus could say he was in heaven during his ministry on earth. +he difficulty disappears when the special reference to Daniel/s prophecy is taken into account. +he son of Can is identified with the figure who in the book of Daniel is seen in heaven. 7e is there not because he is actually alive prior to his birth, but because od has granted a vision of his future destiny. 2t the time of speaking, >esus had not yet ascended to heavenH but the ascension is so certainly prophesied by Daniel that >esus can say he has ascended, i.e., that he is destined to do so.01 #n >ohn A"%A the son of Can ,has ascended./ .ut later, parado*ically, in >ohn @<"%', >esus states that he has ,not yet ascended to the 5ather./ +he apparent conflict between the two statements is easily resolved when we understand that things may +e said to have already happened in (ods intention6 $hile they a$ait actual fulfillment in the future:01 +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 @<"%'), but that he was destined to do so in fulfillment of Daniel/s vision of the 4on of Can (>ohn B"B@). 7is glory had been prepared for him before the world came into e*istence (>ohn %'"(), and he was chosen as od/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 the notion 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 the psalms must +e fulfilled (Euke @:"@B, ::). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @<', @<9, A@9. >esus speaks in the prophetic language of accomplished redemption7e is here speaking proleptically of the results of the course of his sufferings on earth. --7enry 2lford, (ree, #e$ Testament (Eondon" !ivingtons and Deighton, .ell I 3o., %9B%), %"B'(. !ohn 6)63 difficulty faces +rinitarianism when the 4pirit is quantified, as when Calachi speaks of od having ,the residue of the 4pirit/ (Cal. @"%(). >ohn also thinks of the 4pirit as given 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 on the 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 $ublications, %&&9), @AB, @A'. !ohn 3)02 >esus refuses the claim to +e od (>ohn %<"AA) or in any way to usurp the position of the 5ather>esus is prepared to ignore the charge that by calling od his own 5ather he is claiming equality with od (>ohn ("%9) and accepts that of being the 4on of od (%<"AB), while vigorously denying the blasphemy of being od or 7is substitute. -->.2.+. !obinon, T$elve /ore #e$ Testament Studies, %'(, %'B. #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 %<"A:-AB) >esus argues" ,4ince magistrates and -udges

A9

are in 4cripture e*pressly called ,gods,/ it is un-ust 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 >esus maintained, 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, a blasphemy 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 addressed as gods (>ohn %<"A:H $s. 9"B), $hich for 8esus is e<uivalent to Son of (od (>ohn %<"AB). +o be the 4on of od was to demonstrate perfect obedience to the 5ather, the ideal status of #srael whose citi6ens are destined to be ,sons of the living od/ (7os. %"%<). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&<, @&%, A@A. !ohn 3)16 +rinitarian conviction about unity of substance causes them to misread >ohn/s ,senderRagent/ description of >esus. #n seeing >esus men were seeing odH in believing in him they were believing in odH in honoring him they were honoring od and in hating him they were hating od 0>ohn %:"&H %@"::H ("@AH %("@A1. ;one of this requires a +rinitarian e*planation. >ohn gives us a beautiful picture of a miraculous human individual in whom od has invested 7is 4pirit and to whom od has e*tended 7is authority and character K and all this in a way never seen before or since. >esus in the unique ambassador for the 8ne od. #t is not that od had become man, but that od had provided in the promised descendent of David the man who is the raison detre of 7is cosmic plan. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&%. !ohn 3)** #t should be noted that >ohn is as undeviating a witness as any in the ;ew +estament to the fundamental tenet of >udaism, of unitary monotheism. +here is the one true and only od (>ohn ("::H %'"A)H everything else is idols (% >ohn ("@%). -->.2.+. !obinson, T$elve /ore #e$ Testament Studies, %'(. !ohn ()66 +o be ,sent from od/ means to be commissioned to perform a special task for odH and to ,come forth into the world/ is to appear before the public with a mission. #t has

A&

nothing to do with e*isting before one/s birth. >ohn is commonly read, however, with the assumption that >esus was literally send from a pre-mundane e*istence in another sphere. 4imilarly, ,coming down from heaven/ need not imply a previous e*istence in heaven in a literal sense. #n ;ew +estament language ,every good gift comes down from above/ (>ames %"%'H cp. A"%(), not that every gift descends through the sky. +he holy city will also come down from heaven (!ev. @%"@). .ut this does not prove that it literally floats down out of the sky. +his ,descent/ language reflects the well-known characteristic of 7ebrew thinking that many of the prominent persons or ob-ects in od/s plan have ,e*isted/ in heaven before they are seen on earth. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @<A, @<:. 3p. Fmil 4churer/s statement that in >ewish thinking ,everything truly valuable pree*isted in heaven/ though not in the literal sense (The istory of the 8e$ish -eople in the Age of 8esus Christ, +I+ 3lark, %&'&, @"(@@). !ohn ()(1 #n >ohn B"B@ >esus made another challenging statement about his destiny as the predicted 4on of Can. 2fter referring to his own ,difficult statements/ about being ,the bread which came down from heaven/ (>ohn B"(9-B<), >esus asked whether this teaching might also cause his audience to stumble" ,=hat if you should see the 4on of Can ascending where he was before?/ 8nce again, the sub-ect of this enigmatic question is the 4on of Can, the title which designates >esus as the 7uman .eing. +he reference appears to be to his future ascension (as it was also in >ohn A"%A, above). #f we ask where the Son of /an was before, the biblical answer is found in Daniel '"%A. +he man Cessiah was seen in heaven in a vision of the future which became reality at the ascension (2cts @"AA), when >esus had been e*alted to the right hand of od. David had not ascended to haven (2cts @"A:). 3ontrary to much cherished tradition, the patriarchs have not ,gone to heaven./ +hey are sleeping in their graves awaiting the resurrection of the faithful (Dan. %@"@)H >ohn ("@9, @&). 8nly the Cessiah was destined for that position 0a position of heavenly ascension1. +hus >esus had predicted that only the 4on of Can would ascend into heaven (>ohn A"%A). #n >ohn B"B@, he again anticipates his future ascension in order to fulfill what was predetermined for him according to the divine plan revealed in Daniel/s vision.01 +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 himself later said the had ,not yet ascended/ (>ohn @<"%'), but that he was destined to do so in fulfillment of Daniel/s vision of the 4on of Can (>ohn B"B@). 7is glory had been prepared for him before the world came into e*istence (>ohn %'"(), and he was chosen as od/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 the notion 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 the psalms must +e fulfilled (Euke @:"@B, ::). --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@9. >esus possessed this glory before the foundation of the world in the same sense that it was divinely purposed for him. 7e knew that his Cessianic work had been planned by od from eternity, and that the glorious outcome of it had been fi*ed, and was kept in store for him=e conclude, then, that these three passages in >ohn 0B"B@H 9"(9H %'"(1, in which >esus alludes to his pree*istence, do not involve the claim that this pree*istence was personal and real. +hey are to be classed with the other phenomena of the Cessianic consciousness of >esus, none of which, either in the 4ynoptists or in the fourth ospel, have to do with metaphysical relationships with the 5ather. --3hicago +heological 4eminary professor of ;ew +estament Eiterature and Eanguage .7. ilbert, The "evelation of 8esus6 A Study of the -rimary Sources of Christianity (;ew Gork" Cacmillan 3o., %9&&), @@%, @@@. !ohn 2)*1 +he phrase ,from od/ found its way into the ;icene 3reed in the e*pression , od from od./ +heologians have used this passage as a description of the internal life of the +rinity indicating that the son proceeds from the 5ather. 7owever, the aorist tense indicates that the reference is rather to the mission of the 4on. --!aymond .rown, The (ospel of 8ohn6 Anchor *i+le (;ew Gork" Doubleday I 3o., #nc., %&BB), A('. !ohn 2)32 >esus/ ego eimi 0 reek for ,# am/1 is not a claim of divinity. --+rinitarian theologian .arrett, Essays on 8ohn (Eondon"4$3J, %&9@), '%. +o claim to be ,be before 2braham/ (>ohn 9"(9) does not mean that you remember being alive before your birth. +hat is to think like a reek who believes in the pree*istence of souls. #n the 7ebrew thought of the ;ew +estament one can ,e*ist/ as part of od/s $lan as did also the tabernacle, the temple, repentance and other ma-or elements of the Divine purpose. Fven Coses pree*isted in that sense, according to a quotation we introduce later. >ohn the 2postle could also say that 3hrist was ,crucified before the foundation of the world/ (!ev. %A"9). +his gives us an enormously valuable clue as to the way the ;ew +estament writers understood ,pree*istence./01 >ohn/s e*pressly stated purpose for writing the whole of the gospel must be kept in mind. 7is aim was that we should ,believe that >esus is the 3hrist, the 4on of od/ (-ohn @<"A%). +he fact that in the 8ld +estament od speaks of 7imself as ,# am 07e1/ does not lead us, as often thought, to the conclusion that on >esus/ lips ,# am 0he1/ means ,# am od/ in the +rinitarian sense. >esus/ ,# am he/ declarations in >ohn can be satisfactorily e*plained as a claim to be the

:%

/essiah 0>ohn %9"(, >ohn B"@<, >ohn &"&, >ohn :"@B, >ohn 9"@:, >ohn 9"@9, >ohn %A"%&, >ohn &"A(-A', 3p. >ohn %<"@:-@(, >ohn 9"(91. 2s such >esus resents himself as the unique agent of the 8ne +rue od and empowered by the latter to act on 7is behalf. Fven if one were to connect >esus/ ego eimi (,# am/) statements with the words of od in the 8ld +estament, there would still be no -ustification for identifying >esus with od in the +rinitarian sense. >esus, as Cessiah, may bear a divine title without being od. 8nce the >ewish principle of ,agency/ is taken into account, it will be readily understood that >esus perfectly represents the 5ather. 2s agent he acts for and speaks for his principal, so that the acts of od are manifested in >esus. ;one of this, however, makes >esus literally od. 7e remains the human Cessiah promised by the 4criptures. +rinitarian theology often displays its anti-Cessianic bias, and ,overrides/ the evidence of >ohn, failing to reckon with his simple monotheistic statements defining the 5ather as ,the only true od,/ distinct from 7is 4on (>ohn %'"AH ("::). +his procedure sets >phn against Catthew, mark, and EukeR2cts. #t also blurs the ;ew +estament/s central point which is to proclaim the identity of >esus as the Cessiah. +he evidence before us (cited above) shows that the famous phrase ego eimi means ,# am the promised one,/ ,the one in question/ 0>ohn %9"(, >ohn B"@<, >ohn &"&, >ohn :"@B, >ohn 9"@:, >ohn 9"@9, >ohn %A"%&, >ohn &"A(-A', 3p. >ohn %<"@:-@(, >ohn 9"(91. +he blind man identifies himself by saying ,# am the person you are looking for/H ,# am the one./ #n conte*ts where the son of Can or the 3hrist are being discussed >esus claims to be ,the one,/ i.e., 4on of Can, 3hrist. #n each case it is proper (as translators recogni6e) to add the word ,he/ to the ,# am./ +here is every reason to be consistent and to supply ,he/ in >ohn 9"(9 also. +hus in >ohn :"@B, ,# am/ Q ,# am he 0the Cessiah1./ #n >ohn 9"(9 likewise >esus declares" ,.efore 2braham was, # am he 0the appointed Cessiah1. #t is important to notice that >esus did not use the phrase revealing od/s name to Coses. 2t the burning bush the 8ne od had declared 7is name as ,# am who # am/ or ,# am the self-e*istent one/ (F*. A"%:). +he phrase in the reek version of the 8ld +estament reads ego eimi ho ho$n, which is quite different from the ,# am he/ used by >esus. #f >esus had indeed claimed to be od, it is quite e*traordinary that in a subsequent encounter with hostile >ews he claims not to be od, but the unique agent of od bearing the title ,4on of od/ (>ohn %<"A:-AB). #t is fair to ask how someone can ,be/ before he actually is. #s the traditional doctrine of the #ncarnation of a second divine being the only possible way of dealing with the >ohannine pree*istence statements? +he pattern of foreordination language found in >ohn/s ospel does not require a literal pree*istence of the 4on. 2braham re-oiced as he looked forward to the coming of the Cessiah. Cessiah/s day was a reality to 2braham through the eyes of faith. 4o also the Cessiah ,e*isted/ as the supreme sub-ect of od/s plan long before the birth of 2braham. ,.efore 2braham came to be, # am 0the one1/ is a profound statement about od/s original plan for the world centered in >esus, whom >ohn can also describe as ,crucified before the foundation of the world/ (!ev. %A"9). =e have no difficulty grasping how this is to be understood" >esus was the one appointed K and appointed to die K long before 2braham, as the supreme agent of od/s plan. #f >esus was ,crucified before 2braham,/ he himself may be said to have ,e*isted/ in the eternal counsels of od. #n that sense he was indeed appointed as 4avior of the world before the birth of 2braham.01 #t is an elementary fact of language that a reek aorist infinitive takes its meaning from the conte*t. #t may refer to events future or past 0Catthew @B"A:, Catthew %"%9, >ohn :":&, >ohn %:"@&1.01 =hat is the proper rendering of >ohn ("(9?

:@

Did >esus say" ,.efore 2braham comes to be 0i.e., returns to life in the resurrection1, # am,/ or ,.efore 2braham came to be 0i.e., was born1, # am 0he, the Cessiah1/? #t may be that orthodo*y misreads this verse as a proof of a pree*istent 3hrist. 8nly a few verses earlier >esus had spoken of resurrection as conferring endless life on those who follow him (>ohn 9"(%). +he >ews ob-ected that this made >esus superior to 2braham who was then dead. >esus -ustifies his claim by pointing out that 2braham had in fact looked forward to the Cessiah/s day. +he >ews misunderstood >esus to mean that he and 2braham were contemporaries (,7ave you seen 2braham?/H >ohn ("(A, (B, ('). #t is possible that >esus counters with the stupendous claim that he will precede 2braham in the resurrection. .efore 2braham gains immortality in the resurrection, >esus will already be alive and immortal. +his would fully -ustify the claim to be superior to 2braham. ,3oming to be/ (the aorist infinitive of ginomai) is in fact used of the resurrection in >ob %:"%:" ,# will wait until # come to be again./ #f the te*t is read as standard translations render it >esus will have claimed to be the Cessiah appointed from eternity. 8r he may be stating his superiority to 2braham in another sense. 2braham anticipated the Cessiah/s triumph. >esus will indeed be en-oying endless life as the resurrected 4avior long before 2braham reappears in the future resurrection.01 +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 himself later said the had ,not yet ascended/ (>ohn @<"%'), but that he was destined to do so in fulfillment of Daniel/s vision of the 4on of Can (>ohn B"B@). 7is glory had been prepared for him before the world came into e*istence (>ohn %'"(), and he was chosen as od/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 the notion 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 the psalms must +e fulfilled (Euke @:"@B, ::). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %B', @%&, @@<, @@%, @@@, @@A, A@9. >ust before this 0>ohn 9"(91 he 0>esus1 had spoken of ,my day,/ which 2braham saw (>ohn 9"(B), by which we must understand the historical appearance of >esus as Cessiah. 2braham had seen this, virtually seen it in od/s promise of a seed ( en. %@"AH %(":, () and had greeted it from afar (7eb. %%"%A). 2nd now it is this one who consciously reali6es the distant vision of 2braham who says, ,.efore 2braham was born, # am./ >esus, therefore, seems to affirm that his historic Cessianic personality e*isted before 2braham was born. #f that be the case, then its e*istence before 2braham must be thought of as ideal. -- ilbert, The "evelation of 8esus6 A Study of the -rimary Sources of Christianity, @%:, @%(.

:A

>esus possessed this glory before the foundation of the world in the same sense that it was divinely purposed for him. 7e knew that his Cessianic work had been planned by od from eternity, and that the glorious outcome of it had been fi*ed, and was kept in store for him=e conclude, then, that these three passages in >ohn 0B"B@H 9"(9H %'"(1, in which >esus alludes to his pree*istence, do not involve the claim that this pree*istence was personal and real. +hey are to be classed with the other phenomena of the Cessianic consciousness of >esus, none of which, either in the 4ynoptists or in the fourth ospel, have to do with metaphysical relationships with the 5ather. --3hicago +heological 4eminary professor of ;ew +estament Eiterature and Eanguage .7. ilbert, The "evelation of 8esus6 A Study of the -rimary Sources of Christianity (;ew Gork" Cacmillan 3o., %9&&), @@%, @@@. !ohn 05)65 +he e*pression 0,# and the 5ather are one/1 seemsmainly to imply that the 5ather and 4on are united in will and purpose. >esus prays in >ohn %'"%% that his followers may all be one (hen), i.e., united in purpose, as he and his 5ather are united. --!.L. . +akser, 8ohn6 Tyndale Commentaries ( rand !apids" Ferdmans, %&9A), %AB. # do not see how this te*t is of any value in confirming the opinion of the orthodo*, or in restraining the pertinacity of the heretic. --+rinitarian theologian Frasmus, cited by =ilson, Concessions of Trinitarians (.oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:(), A(A. the ancients improperly used this passage to prove that 3hrist is of the same substance as the 5ather. 5or 03hrist1 does not argue concerning unity of substance, but speaks of his agreement with the 5atherH so that whatever is done by 3hrist will be confirmed by the 5ather/s power. -->ohn 3alvin, cited by =ilson, Concessions of Trinitarians (.oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:(), A(:. if the doctrine of the +rinity, and unity of essence, be immediately inferred 0from >ohn %<"A<1, this is a faulty application of the dogmatic system, because the conte*t of the passage is neglected. --+rinitarian theologian 3.5. 2mmon, cited by =ilson, Concessions of Trinitarians (.oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:(), A((. #n this verse >esus claimed to be ,one/ with the 5ather. +he word ,one/ is in this much discussed te*t the reek term hen. #t is not the masculine numeral heis which describes the odhead in the 3hristian creed announced by >esus (Cark %@"@&). #t is unfair that the >ehovah/s =itnesses are sometimes attacked in popular presentations of the +rinity for saying only what even conservative evangelical commentators admit0.1 >esus has been talking about the 5ather preserving the sheep. 4ince >esus/ power is derived from the 5ather 0>ohn ("A<1, that power is able to keep the sheep safe. >esus and the 5ather are one in respect of the preservation of the sheep.

::

--4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&<. !ohn 05)6646( >esus refuses the claim to +e od (>ohn %<"AA) or in any way to usurp the position of the 5ather>esus is prepared to ignore the charge that by calling od his own 5ather he is claiming equality with od (>ohn ("%9) and accepts that of being the 4on of od (%<"AB), while vigorously denying the blasphemy of being od or 7is substitute. -->.2.+. !obinon, T$elve /ore #e$ Testament Studies, %'(, %'B. #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 %<"A:-AB) >esus argues" ,4ince magistrates and -udges are in 4cripture e*pressly called ,gods,/ it is un-ust 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 >esus maintained, 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, a blasphemy 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 addressed as gods (>ohn %<"A:H $s. 9"B), $hich for 8esus is e<uivalent to Son of (od (>ohn %<"AB). +o be the 4on of od was to demonstrate perfect obedience to the 5ather, the ideal status of #srael whose citi6ens are destined to be ,sons of the living od/ (7os. %"%<). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&<, @&%, A@A.

!ohn 01)** +rinitarian conviction about unity of substance causes them to misread >ohn/s ,senderRagent/ description of >esus. #n seeing >esus men were seeing odH in believing in him they were believing in odH in honoring him they were honoring od and in hating him they were hating od 0>ohn %:"&H %@"::H ("@AH %("@A1. ;one of this requires a

:(

+rinitarian e*planation. >ohn gives us a beautiful picture of a miraculous human individual in whom od has invested 7is 4pirit and to whom od has e*tended 7is authority and character K and all this in a way never seen before or since. >esus in the unique ambassador for the 8ne od. #t is not that od had become man, but that od had provided in the promised descendent of David the man who is the raison detre of 7is cosmic plan. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&%. !ohn 0*)8 +he ,divinity/ of >esus is not diminished since ,he who has seen him has seen the 5ather/ (>ohn %:"&). .ut it is ,divinity/ in a sense other than that e*pressed by +rinitarian orthodo*y. 5or the divinity is od/s activity working in and through a perfectly surrendered human being. >esus, on this reading, is not od in the +rinitarian sense, but a human person fully e*pressing od01 +rinitarian conviction about unity of substance causes them to misread >ohn/s ,senderRagent/ description of >esus. #n seeing >esus men were seeing odH in believing in him they were believing in odH in honoring him they were honoring od and in hating him they were hating od 0>ohn %:"&H %@"::H ("@AH %("@A1. ;one of this requires a +rinitarian e*planation. >ohn gives us a beautiful picture of a miraculous human individual in whom od has invested 7is 4pirit and to whom od has e*tended 7is authority and character K and all this in a way never seen before or since. >esus in the unique ambassador for the 8ne od. #t is not that od had become man, but that od had provided in the promised descendent of David the man who is the raison detre of 7is cosmic plan. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @B%, @&%. !ohn 0*)01 >ohn/s fully human >esus is not only the >esus presented by canonical 4cripture, but also a more attractive model for imitation than some traditional versions of >esus. 8ne who is really od (in disguise?) would seem to be so far e*alted above us that we would have no chance of living as he did. .ut >ohn/s >esus, though he is unique by virtue of the spirit given to him ,without measure/ (>ohn A"A:), does not distance himself from the disciples, as though they would be incapable of doing what he did. 7e constantly promises them that ,-ust as/ he has been sent into the world, they will be ,sent into the world/ to perform as great or even greater works than he (>ohn %'"%9H %:"%@). 2nd ,-ust as/ he is one with the 5ather, so also the disciples are to be (>ohn %'"%%, @%). >ust as he was sent to announce the Jingdom of od (Euke :":A), so are they. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), A:%.

:B

!ohn 0*)12 >esus is not od but od/s representative and, as such, so completely and totally acts on od/s behalf that he stands in od/s stead before the world. +he ospel clearly states that ods and >esus are not to be understood as identical persons, as in 0>ohn1 %:"@9, ,+he 5ather is greater than # 0>esus1./ -->acob >ervell, 8esus in the (ospel of 8ohn (Cinneapolis" 2ugsburg, %&9:), @%. !ohn 03)16 +rinitarian conviction about unity of substance causes them to misread >ohn/s ,senderRagent/ description of >esus. #n seeing >esus men were seeing odH in believing in him they were believing in odH in honoring him they were honoring od and in hating him they were hating od 0>ohn %:"&H %@"::H ("@AH %("@A1. ;one of this requires a +rinitarian e*planation. >ohn gives us a beautiful picture of a miraculous human individual in whom od has invested 7is 4pirit and to whom od has e*tended 7is authority and character K and all this in a way never seen before or since. >esus in the unique ambassador for the 8ne od. #t is not that od had become man, but that od had provided in the promised descendent of David the man who is the raison detre of 7is cosmic plan. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&%. !ohn 0()12 ,from/ 0e,1 cannot be interpreted theologically in reference to the intra-+rinitarian relationship of 5ather and 4on (,came out from the 5ather/). --!aymond .rown, The (ospel of 8ohn6 Anchor *i+le (;ew Gork" Doubleday I 3o., #nc., %&BB), @':. !ohn 07)6 #t should be noted that >ohn is as undeviating a witness as any in the ;ew +estament to the fundamental tenet of >udaism, of unitary monotheism. +here is the one true and only od (>ohn ("::H %'"A)H everything else is idols (% >ohn ("@%). -->.2.+. !obinson, T$elve /ore #e$ Testament Studies, %'(. #t is an assumption that by ,word/ >ohn 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 who alone is od/ (>ohn ("::).01 2ugustine 0one of the early founders of +rinitarianism1, when faced with >ohn %'"A, where >ohn/s unitary monotheism is most clear, was forced to suggest an alteration of the te*t to include >esus 3hrist within the phrase ,only true od./ 7e proposed to restructure the verse" ,+his is eternal life, that they may know +hee and >esus 3hrist, whom +hou has sent, as the only true od./ 04ee 2ugustine/s omilies on 8ohn, tractate 3L, ch. %'1. 2ugustine had

:'

inherited a tradition in which biblical monotheism became e*panded to include a second person as 4upreme .eing. 2ugustine/s alteration of 4cripture to fir his system is the inevitable result of trying to e*plain the essentially 7ebrew 4criptures in terms of the alien thought-world of reek philosophy. +he attempt ought to be abandoned. reek philosophy thinks in terms of ,essence./ +hings are related because they are of the same ,stuff./ 8b-ects that are green partake of the essence of ,greenness./ 4o, post-biblical theologians have argued, the 5ather, 4on, and 7oly 4pirit share a common quality of , odness./ +his fact, of course, is quite obvious, but it is a sadly inadequate way of describing the richness of biblical data. #t blurs the sharp contours of the .ible/s definition of the 8ne od, 7is 4on and the 7oly 4pirit. #t seems to us as if the doctrine of the +rinity is like saying that a plan, a car, and a tricycle are essentially the same thing. +hey possess a common quality of ,conveyance./ +here is truth to this, but it is not the whole truth. 2ctually these three things are very different. #t is that difference between 5ather, 4on and 7oly 4pirit which is swamped by the dogma that they are all ,one od./ +he fact that the son of od has a beginning according to Euke has been overwhelmed by the 0unbiblical1 teaching that the 4on never had a beginning. +he influence of reek philosophy has been a disaster, especially because it has produced desperate attempts to gerrymander the te*ts of the .ible into the prescribed mold of later creeds. --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@<, A@%. !ohn 07)3 +here are multiple e*amples of past tenses in the 7ebrew .ible which actually refer to future events. +hey are ,past/ because they describe events fi*ed in od/s counsels and therefore certain to be reali6ed. .ible readers disregard this very >ewish way of thinking when they leap to the conclusion that when >esus said he ,had/ glory with the father from the foundation of the world (>ohn %'"(), he meant that he was alive at that time. 3ertainly in a western frame of reference the traditional understanding is reasonable. .ut can we not do the Cessiah the honor of trying to understand his words in their own 7ebrew environment? 4hould not the .ible be interpreted in the light of its own conte*t and not our later creeds?01 +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 himself later said the had ,not yet ascended/ (>ohn @<"%'), but that he was destined to do so in fulfillment of Daniel/s vision of the 4on of Can (>ohn B"B@). 7is glory had been prepared for him before the world came into e*istence (>ohn %'"(), and he was chosen as od/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 the notion 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

:9

about me in the law of Coses, the prophets and the psalms must +e fulfilled (Euke @:"@B, ::). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %B', A@9. +hat a person may have had something, and consequently may have had glory, with the 5ather before the world was, without its being concluded that he actually e*isted is evident from @ +imothy %"&, where the 2postle says of believers that grace was given to them before the world began. .esides it is here 0in >ohn %'1 stated that 3hrist prayed for this glory. 3hrist beseeches od to give him, in actual possession, with 7imself, the glory which he had with 7im, in purpose and decrees, before the world was. 5or it is often said that a person has something with any one, when it is promised, or is destined for him. 8n this account believers are frequently said by the evangelist to have eternal life. 7ence it happens that 3hrist does not say absolutely that he had that glory, but that he had had it with the 5atherH as if he had said that he now prayed to have actually conferred upon him that glory which had been laid up for him with the 5ather of old and before the creation of the world. --.. =issowatius, The "acovian Catechism (8riginally written in %B<&. $ublished by Eondon" Eongman, 7urst, !ees, 8rme, and .rown, and translated from the Eatin by +. !ees, in %9%9), %::, %:(. #n 2pril, %B(@, the Fnglish $arliament ordered that all e*isting copies of this catechism be burned because the catechism does not agree with the doctrine of the +rinity. #t rests on a misconception of the ;ew +estament mode of speech and conception if we immediately infer that the declaration of >esus 0in >ohn %'"(1, that he had a glory with the 5ather before the world was created is simply and necessarily identical in meaning with the thought that he himself pree*isted2ccording to the mode of speech and conception prevalent in the ;ew +estament, a heavenly good, and so also a heavenly glory, can be conceived and spoken of as e*isting with od and belonging to a person, not because this person already e*ists and is invested with glory, but because the glory of od is in some way deposited and preserved for this person in heaven. =e remember how, according to the report of Catthew, >esus also speaks of the treasure (B"@<) or the reward (Catt. ("%@, :BH B"%) which his disciples have in heaven with odH and further, how, in the description of the final -udgment of the nations, the kingdom which those blessed of the 5ather shall inherit is described as one prepared for them from the creation of the world (Catt. @("A:)H and how also (3ol. %"( and % $et. %":) the hop of salvation of the 3hristians is represented as a blessing laid up in heaven for them>esus asks for himself not something arbitrary, but what was to be given him according to od/s decree and what had always ideally belonged to himH the presupposition for this declaration, however, is certainly the thought, which finds decided e*pression at the close of the prayer in verse @:, that >esus himself, as the Cessiah, did not indeed really e*ist from the beginning with od, but was the ob-ect of the love of od, of 7is loving thoughts, plans and purposes. --7eidelberg professor of theology 7.7. =endt, The Teaching of 8esus (Fdinburgh" + I + 3lark, %9&@), @"%B&-%'@.

:&

>esus possessed this glory before the foundation of the world in the same sense that it was divinely purposed for him. 7e knew that his Cessianic work had been planned by od from eternity, and that the glorious outcome of it had been fi*ed, and was kept in store for him=e conclude, then, that these three passages in >ohn 0B"B@H 9"(9H %'"(1, in which >esus alludes to his pree*istence, do not involve the claim that this pree*istence was personal and real. +hey are to be classed with the other phenomena of the Cessianic consciousness of >esus, none of which, either in the 4ynoptists or in the fourth ospel, have to do with metaphysical relationships with the 5ather. --3hicago +heological 4eminary professor of ;ew +estament Eiterature and Eanguage .7. ilbert, The "evelation of 8esus6 A Study of the -rimary Sources of Christianity (;ew Gork" Cacmillan 3o., %9&&), @@%, @@@. !ohn 07)2 # came forth from Gou 01 refers to the earthly mission of the 4on rather than an intra+rinitarian procession. --!aymond .rown, The (ospel of 8ohn6 Anchor *i+le (;ew Gork" Doubleday I 3o., #nc., %&BB), @':. !ohn 07)02 >ohn/s fully human >esus is not only the >esus presented by canonical 4cripture, but also a more attractive model for imitation than some traditional versions of >esus. 8ne who is really od (in disguise?) would seem to be so far e*alted above us that we would have no chance of living as he did. .ut >ohn/s >esus, though he is unique by virtue of the spirit given to him ,without measure/ (>ohn A"A:), does not distance himself from the disciples, as though they would be incapable of doing what he did. 7e constantly promises them that ,-ust as/ he has been sent into the world, they will be ,sent into the world/ to perform as great or even greater works than he (>ohn %'"%9H %:"%@). 2nd ,-ust as/ he is one with the 5ather, so also the disciples are to be (>ohn %'"%%, @%). >ust as he was sent to announce the Jingdom of od (Euke :":A), so are they. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), A:%. !ohn 07)10416 +he biblical data is adequately e*plained by thinking of the 4pirit as the mind, heart and personality of od and 3hrist e*tended to the creation. +he 4pirit has personality because it reflects the persons of the 5ather and the 4on 0not because the 4pirit is itself a ,person/1. 7oly 4pirit is another way of speaking of the 5ather and son in action, teaching, guiding, and inspiring the 3hurch. =e see no need to posit the e*istence of a third person, separate and distinct from od and 7is 4on. +here is in fact biblical support for a ,trinity/ of 5ather, 4on, and believers who are united and bonded by the 7oly 4pirit. +hus >ohn reports >esus as praying ,that they may be one, as Gou, father, are

(<

in me and # in Gou, that they may also be one in us# in them, +hou in me, and they may be perfect in one/ (>ohn %'"@%, @A) 0+his unity amongst 5ather, 4on, and believers united by the 7oly 4pirit does not suggest that the 4on is a person in the odhead any more than it suggests that believers are members of the odhead, and obviously believers are not members of the odhead1. +he 7oly 4pirit is found in the words of >esus, which are ,spirit and are life/ (>ohn B"BA). 3hristians possess the anointing which teaches them true doctrine, guards them against the destructive lies of the devil, and enables them to remain in union with 3hrist (% >ohn @"@'). =e cannot help thinking that the real function of the 7oly 4pirit is obscured when attention is diverted to the question about the 4pirit as a third member of the odhead. +he enormous significance of the 4pirit lies in its being od 7imself in 7is creative and communicating function, opening 7is very heart to 7is creatures. ,+he 4pirit speaks/ is not different from , od speaks./ =ord, wisdom, and spirit are closely connected. +hese are divine attributes of the 8ne od, not persons distinct from 7im. Defining the 4pirit as a third person is unnecessary. #t raises a speculative problem (with catastrophic results). +he problem arose when a divine attribute (which may sometimes in the .ible be personified) was turned into a person. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @A', @A9. !ohn 15)07 7ow then can >esus have said that the 4on ,has ascended to heaven/? 4imply because this is what had been forecast about him in Daniel. 5ollowing a well-established principle of 7ebrew thinking, od/s acts may be said to have happened already, once they are fi*ed in the divine counsels. +he une*pected past tense ,has ascended/ may be e*plained as a past tense of determination in the divine plan. +hus ,;o one 0it is written in the book of Daniel1 is destined to ascend to haven e*cept the one who came down from heaven, the 4on of Can who 0in Daniel/s vision of the future1 is in heaven./ +he final phrase ,who is in heaven/ (omitted from some versions) is well-attested and may well be originalH its omission from some manuscripts was due to the difficulty of understanding how >esus could say he was in heaven during his ministry on earth. +he difficulty disappears when the special reference to Daniel/s prophecy is taken into account. +he son of Can is identified with the figure who in the book of Daniel is seen in heaven. 7e is there not because he is actually alive prior to his birth, but because od has granted a vision of his future destiny. 2t the time of speaking, >esus had not yet ascended to heavenH but the ascension is so certainly prophesied by Daniel that >esus can say he has ascended, i.e., that he is destined to do so.01 #n >ohn A"%A the son of Can ,has ascended./ .ut later, parado*ically, in >ohn @<"%', >esus states that he has ,not yet ascended to the 5ather./ +he apparent conflict between the two statements is easily resolved when we understand that things may +e said to have already happened in (ods intention6 $hile they a$ait actual fulfillment in the future:01 +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 himself later said the had ,not yet ascended/ (>ohn @<"%'), but that he was destined to do so in fulfillment of Daniel/s vision of the 4on of Can (>ohn B"B@). 7is glory had been prepared for him before the world came into e*istence (>ohn %'"(), and he was chosen as od/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 the notion 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 the psalms must +e fulfilled (Euke @:"@B, ::). --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@9. !ohn 15)12 >esus accepted the homage of +homas as homage rendered to his Cessiaship+here is no suggestion that he regarded the homage as implying that he was of the same substance as the 5ather. --3hicago +heological 4eminary professor of ;ew +estament Eiterature and Eanguage .7. ilbert, The "evelation of 8esus6 A Study of the -rimary Sources of Christianity (;ew Gork" Cacmillan 3o., %9&&), @@(, @@B. +homas recogni6ed in the risen >esus the one appointed to be , od/ of the coming age, replacing 4atan, the , od/ of the present age. 7owever, +homas/s words ,Eord/ and , od/ are simply Cessianic titles analogous with the divine title given in the 8ld +estament to the angel of the Eord and od/s representative. +he previously doubting 2postle did not suddenly adopt the ;icene or the 2thanasian 3reed and see his Eord as ,very od of very od./ +he ospel of >ohn must not be forced to conform to much later speculation by reek theologians. --4idney 2. 7atch, ..2. (M3E2), C. Div. (2merican .aptist 4eminary of the =est), +h. C. (Dallas +heological 4eminary) +he meaning of words must be sought within the environment in which they were written. +he .ible was not composed in the @<th century, nor did its writers know anything of the subsequent creeds and councils. 3onte*t is all-important in determining an author/s intent. =ithin the pages of >ohn/s ospel >esus never referred to himself as od. +he fact is that the ;ew +estament applies the word od K in its reek form ho theos K to od, the 5ather alone some %A(< times. +he words ho theos (i.e. the one od), used absolutely, are nowhere with certainty applied to >esus. +he word +homas used to describe >esus in >ohn @<"@9 was indeed theos. .ut >esus himself had recogni6ed that the 8ld +estament called the -udges ,gods,/ when he referred in >ohn %<"A: to $salm 9@"B" ,7as it not been written in your law, ,# said, Gou are gods/?/ Theos (here in the plural theoi) appeared in the reek 4eptuagint version of the 8ld +estament as a title of men who represented the one true od. >esus on no occasion referred to himself as od in the

(@

absolute sense. =hat precedent did +homas have for calling >esus ,my od/? =ithout question, early 3hristians used the word ,god/ with a broader meaning than is customary today. , od/ was descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the !oman emperor. #t was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today. #t is from the early 3hurch that the biblical words come to us, and it is from that ;ew +estament environment that we must discover their meaning.01 +homas, unlike >udas, had to come to recogni6e the one who was to be , od/ of the 3oming 2ge, replacing 4atan, the , od/ of this present age (@. 3or. :":). +homas had not suddenly arrived at a revolutionary new belief that >esus was ,very od of very od./ +here was nothing in the 8ld +estament concerning >esus/ Cessiaship which predicted that an eternal immortal being was to become a human person as the promised Jing of #srael. ;evertheless the human king could on rare occasions be addressed as , od/ as in $salm :("B, where he is also given the title ,lord/ (v. %%). .oth ,Eord/ and , od/ are Cessianic titles, and appropriately used by >ohn who wrote his book to convince us to believe that >esus was the Cessiah (>ohn @<"A%). !eality struck home to the skeptic +homas when he recogni6ed that it was the resurrected >esus through whom od was going to restore the fortunes of #srael. +hus >esus became , od/ to +homas in a way parallel to the sense in which Coses had en-oyed the status of , od/ in the presence of $haraoh" ,+he Eord 0had1 said to Coses, ,4ee, # make you od to $haraoh/ (F*odus '"%). +hese titles of high honor bestowed on od/s human instruments did not infringe upon the strict monotheism of the 8ld +estament. ;or should they imply the overthrow of the .ible/s first principle" od is one person, not two or three (Cark %@"@&). +he angel of the Eord in the 8ld +estament could also be called , od/ as representing the 8ne od of #srael ( en. %B"&, %<, %%, %A). Gahweh/s authority was transferred to him because od/s ,name was in him/ (F*od. @A"@<, @%).01 =hen >esus addressed the 5ather as ,my od/ (>ohn @<"%') he acknowledged that he was inferior to od, the 5ather. >esus is not, therefore, od in the absolute sense. 5or +homas, too, >esus is , od/ in a qualified sense, as Cessiah, the supreme legal agent of the 8ne od. +he one whom +homas calls od is himself inferior to the 8ne od addressed by >esus as his od. +hus understood, >esus remains within the category of Cessiah, 4on of od, a category which >ohn e*pressly imposes on his entire book (>ohn @<"A%). 5undamental to >ohn/s whole 3hristological outlook are two primary facts" >esus is to be believed in as ,Cessiah, 4on of od,/ while the 5ather/s unique status is preserved as ,the only true od/ (>ohn %'"A) and ,the one who alone is od/ (>ohn ("::).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 %<"A:-AB). >ohn distinguishes >esus from the one and only od, his 5ather (>ohn %'"A). !eaders of the ;ew +estament often do not reali6e that the word , od/ can be applied to a representative of od. +here is good evidence that >ohn incorporates into his portrait of >esus as Cessiah, ideas drawn from the Cessianic $salm :(. #n answer to $ilate, >esus declared 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. $salm :( is written in praise of the Cessiah (7eb. %"9), who is addressed as ,most mighty,/ and urged to ,ride prosperously in the cause of +ruth/ (vv. A, :). +he psalmist foresees the king/s enemies ,will fall under you/ (v. (). +he royal status of this leader is emphasi6ed when the writer addressed him with the words ,8 od/ ($s :("B). +he career of the Cessiah outlines in $salm :( is reflected

(A

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: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), 9', 9&, %@(, %@B, @&%, @&@. ,>esus is od/ seems to be one of those provocative ways. #t has the same ob-ectionableness in my mind as calling Cary the mother of od#n reek, and in the first century, you could say ,>esus is od./ .ut the Fnglish equivalent of that is not ,>esus is od/ (with a capital ), but, # say it as a believer in 7is true Deity, ,>esus is god/ (with a small g K not a god, but a being in whom is the nature which belongs to the one od)2 form of proposition which in our idiom suggests inevitably the precise equivalence of >esus and od does some kind of in-ustice to the truth. --+rinitarian theologian >ames Denny, 9etters of -rincipal 8ames Denny to W: "o+ertson #icoll, %@A, %@(. +homas used the word , od/ in the sense in which it is applied to kings and -udges (who are considered as representatives of the Deity) and preeminently to the Cessiah. --+rinitarian theologian 3. . Juehnoel, cited by =. . Fliot, Discourses on the Doctrines of Christianity (.oston" 2merican Mnitarian 4ociety, %99B), '&. "cts 6)1( $eter has no thought of pree*istence in mind when he says that od ,having raised up >esus, sent him/ to preach to #srael (2cts A"@B). >esus was commissioned to preach, not sent from a previous life. #t appears that standard le*ical authorities recogni6e the weakness of the argument from the word ,send,/ while the pressures of maintaining the status quo in 3hristology may cause e*positors to overlook them. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @B(. "cts 3)64* 2cts ("A, : is no e*ception. 4ome +rinitarians offer these verse as proof of a third person in the +rinity K od, the 7oly 4pirit. +he te*ts equate lying to the 7oly 4pirit with lying to od. +he 7oly 4pirit here means the power and authority invested by od in $eter. +hose who lie to 2postles speaking in the name of od and by 7is 4pirit are rightly said to lie to the 4pirit and to od. +he point is confirmed by a comment from $aul" ,7e who despises us despises not men by god, who has given us 7is 4pirit./ (% +hess. :"9). +here is a striking parallel in the 8ld +estament when the #sraelites rebelled against Coses and 2aron. Coses told them that their religion was ,not against us, but against od whose messengers are we./ +he ,equation/ of Coses and 2aron with od does not, of course, make the former part of the odhead (F*od. %B"@, 9). +he 4pirit of

(:

od did, however, reside in Coses and it may be that the #sraelite rebellion mentioned in the psalms was directed against ,Coses/ spirit/ ($s. %<B"AA, 2L, !L, !4L), or possibly against the angel of od/s presence who was invested with the authority and power of Gahweh (#sa. BA"&-%%).03p. F*od. @A"@ where the angel bears od/s name1. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @A:. .omans 0)6 #t is impossible to find in $aul/s writings a pree*isting odR4on e*cept by neglecting his primary creedal statements concerning the 4on of od, ,who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh/ (!om. %"A, cp. al. :":). +he verb used by $aul simply means ,coming to be,/ ,coming into e*istence,/ i.e., form a woman ( al. :":), herself a descendant of David (!om. %"A). $aul holds firmly to his unrestricted >ewish monotheism, a creed which declares in the simplest terms that ,there is one od and one mediator between od and men, the man 3hrist >esus/ (% +om. @"() and that there is no od but the 5ather (% 3r. 9":, B). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), A%%. .omans *)07 +he spirit of od is available to all believers. 2s they learn to think as od does, they will share the concept that , od speaks of things which do not e*ist as though they did/ (!om. :"%'). #t is a mistake to confuse ,e*istence/ in the $lan of od with actual pree*istence, thus creating a non-fully human >esus. +he 3hrist of biblical e*pectation is a human person, supernaturally conceived. +he supreme glory of his achievement for us lies in he fact that he really was a human being. 7e was tempted. .ut od cannot be tempted. (>ames %"%A). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %B&. .omans 2)6 #t is possible that in the two passages where he 0$aul1 speaks of od sending 7is 4on (!om. 9"A and al. :":) he means to imply that the 4on of od was pree*istence and had become incarnate as >esusH but it is as likely, indeed probably more likely, that $aul/s meaning did not stretch so far and at these points he and his readers thought simply of >esus as one commissioned by od and one who shared wholly in man/s frailty, bondage and sin, and whose death achieved od/s liberating and transforming purpose for man. -->ames Dunn, Christology in the /a,ing, :B. .omans 2)1(

((

+here is insufficient evidence to show that $aul believed in ,three persons in one od./ =e have seen that $aul understood the 4pirit as the self-awareness and mind of od. =hen he speaks of the 4pirit as a heavenly power distinct from the 5ather and helping 3hristians with prayer, he refers in the same passage to 3hrist himself ,pleading for us/ (!om. 9"@B, A:). +he 4pirit is 3hrist himself e*tending his influence on the believers 0and it is therefore not a separate ,third person of the odhead/ entity, as +rinitarians assert1. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @AA. .omans 8)3 +hose who contend that in this te*t 3hrist is clearly termed (od either place little confidence in other passages of 4cripture, deny all understanding to the 2rians, or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the 2postle. 2 similar passage occurs in 4econd 3orinthians %%"A%" ,+he od and 5ather of our Eord >esus 3hrist, who is blessed forever/H the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the 5ather. --+rinitarian theologian Frasmus, Wor,s6 ed. >ean Eeclerc, %< vols. (Eeiden, %'<A-%'<B), B"B%<, B%%. 4ome +rinitarians offer !omans &"( as conclusive proof that >esus is , od over all/ and therefore part of the odhead. #t depends which translation one reads, because there are some seven different ways of punctuating the verse in which either 3hrist or the 5ather is called , od blessed forever./ 05or a full e*amination of the various possibilities, see the essays in the 8ournal of the Society of *i+lical 9iterature and E%egesis, %99A.1 +he issue is" 4hould we read ,of whom, according to the flesh, is 3hrist, who is over all. od be blessed forever,/ or ,of whom, according to the flesh is 3hrist, who being od over all, is blessed forever/?01 Msing the principle of comparison of te*t with te*t, it is most likely that $aul describes the 5ather as , od over all./ $aul uniformly makes a distinction between od and the Eord >esus. #n the same book $aul blesses the 3reator and there is no reason to doubt that the 5ather is meant (!om. %"@(). #n another passage he speaks of , od our 5ather, to whom be glory forevermore. 2men/ ( al. %":, (). !omans &"( is an obvious parallel. #t should not be forgotten that the word theos, od, occurs more than (<< times in $aul/s letters and there is not a single unambiguous instance in which it applies to 3hrist. 2 number of well-known te*tual critics (Eachmann, +ischendorf) place a period after the word ,flesh,/ allowing the rest of the sentence to be a do*ology of the 5ather. 2ncient reek manuscripts do not generally contain punctuation, but the Code% Ephraemi of the fifth century has a period after ,flesh./ Core remarkable is the fact tat during the whole 2rian controversy, this verse was not used by +rinitarians against the unitarians. #t clearly did not attest to >esus as the second member of the odhead.0..1 #t is proper to add that even if >esus is e*ceptionally called , od,/ the tile may be used in its secondary, Cessianic sense of one who reflects the divine ma-esty of the 8ne od, the 5ather. =hen the detail of grammatical nuance has been fully e*plored, balances of probability will be weighed in different ways. #t is incredible to imagine that the

(B

3hristian creed should depend on fine points of language about which many could not reasonably be asked to make a -udgment and e*perts disagree. +he plain language of $aul/s and >esus/ creed is open to every student of the .ible" ,+here is no od e*cept one+here is for us 03hristians1 one od, the 5ather/ (% 3or. 9":, B). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9%, @9@, @9A. .omans 00)6* Jnowing nothing of later dogma, $aul freely interchanges ,spirit/ and ,mind,/ thus giving 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 the spirit of the Eord?/ (#sa. :<"%A). .y receiving the 4pirit, which is equivalent to ,receiving the knowledge of the truth/ (7eb. %<"@B), we gain access to the divine personality e*tended to us in the 4pirit. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @A&. 0 Corinthians 05)* =e must guard against an over-literal, wooden reading of % 3orinthians %<":, bearing in mind the 7ebraic use of symbolism and >ewish ways of speaking. #t is not uncommon for 4cripture to use the phrase ,to be/ in a less than literal sense. >esus said, ,+his cup is my blood of the ;ew 3ovenant/ (Euke @@"@<). +he verb ,is/ does not imply one-to-one identityH the language is figurative" ,+his cup represents my blood./ --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %%<. 0 Corinthians 2)*/ ( +he plain language of $aul/s and >esus/ creed is open to every student of the .ible" ,+here is no od e*cept one+here is for us 03hristians1 one od, the 5ather/ (% 3or. 9":, B). +hat ,one od/ is as distinguished in $aul/s mind from the ,one Eord >esus Cessiah/ as 7e is from the many gods of paganism. +he category of ,one od/ belongs e*clusively to the 5ather, that of ,Eord /essiah/ e*clusively to >esus. >esus himself had provided the basis of $aul/s simple understanding of the phrase ,one od./ .oth master and disciple shared the creed of #srael who believed in od as one, unique person. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9A. 1 Corinthians 3)08

('

>esus, on this reading 0of >ohn1, is not od in the +rinitarian sense, but a human person fully e*pressing od, 7is agent for the reconciliation of the world. +he wonderful thing that od has done will then be seen in terms of the glorification of a perfectly obedient human person who was genuinely tempted as we are. +his portrait will harmoni6e with the 4ynoptic view of >esus 0presented in Cark, Catthew, and Euke1. 2bove all, it avoids a presentation of >esus as a rather less than fully human being who from eternity was himself od. +he truth will then emerge that >esus was in the form of (od ($hil. @"B), not that he $as od. , od was in 3hrist/ (@ 3or. ("%&), but 3hrist was not od. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @B%. 1 Corinthians 06)0* $aul/s benediction which spoke of ,the grace of the Eord >esus 3hrist, the love of od and the fellowship of the 7oly 4pirit/ (@ 3or. %A"%:) is also not a +rinitarian formula, though it will sound +rinitarian if one approaches the te*t with the preconception that $aul believed in three coequal persons. $aul elsewhere spoke of ,the fellowship of the 4pirit/ and ,comfort in 3hrist/ ($hil. @"%). +hese passages can be e*plained as the influence of >esus through his 4pirit working in the believers. #t is unnecessary to postulate the e*istence of the third member of a +rinity. 2n unusual use of pneuma hagion (holy spirit) by $aul/s companion Euke strongly suggests that for him the 4pirit was always the divine influence, not a third person. 7e speaks of ,7oly 4pirit of the mouth of David/ (2cts :"@(). +he e*pression recalls David/s own consciousness that ,the spirit of the Eord spoke by meH 7is work was in my tongue/ (@ 4am. @A"@). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @AB. Galatians 1)3 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"A<). >ohn says that the ,word/ was ,with 0pros1 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 heart of 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 %<"%A" ,with you/ is parallel to ,concealed in your heart,/ i.e., ,fi*ed in your decree./ 4ee also >ob @A"%<, %:.1. +he latter is a striking parallel to >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 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

(9

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. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9:. Galatians *)* Einguistically there is no support for the thesis of Nn (Nn l. %&& ad alatians :":, B, as also many older and more recent commentators) that in alatians :": the e% in e%postellein indicates that prior to his sending, the one sent was in the presence of the one who sent him. --!engstorf, Theological Dictionary of the #e$ Testament, ed. erhard Jittel, erhard 5riedrich and eoffrey =. .romiley, trans. eoffrey =. .romiley, %< vols. ( rand !apids" Ferdmans, %&BA-%9'B), %":<B. #t is evidentthat send forth 0e%apostellein1 when used by od does not tell us anything about the origin or point of departure of the one sentH it underlines the heavenly origin of his commissioning , but not of the one commissioned. -->ames Dunn, Christology in the /a,ing, A&. #t is impossible to find in $aul/s writings a pree*isting odR4on e*cept by neglecting his primary creedal statements concerning the 4on of od, ,who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh/ (!om. %"A, cp. al. :":). +he verb used by $aul simply means ,coming to be,/ ,coming into e*istence,/ i.e., form a woman ( al. :":), herself a descendant of David (!om. %"A). $aul holds firmly to his unrestricted >ewish monotheism, a creed which declares in the simplest terms that ,there is one od and one mediator between od and men, the man 3hrist >esus/ (% +om. @"() and that there is no od but the 5ather (% 3r. 9":, B). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), A%%. #phesians 0)07 >esus on the basis of $salm %%<"%, is David/s lord (,my lord/) and thus ,our Eord >esus 3hrist./ +he 5ather of >esus remains uniquely the one Eord od, who is also ,the od of our Eord >esus 3hrist/ (Fph. %"%'). , od/ and ,lord/ therefore point to a crucial difference of rank. +he Cessiah is not ,coequal od/. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), (@. #phesians 6)08

(&

>esus must certainly be proclaimed, following apostolic precedent, as the e*clusive way to salvation. .ut the potential of 3hristians to be ,filled with all the fullness of od/ (Fph. A"%&) should balance orthodo*y/s stress on ,the fullness of Deity/ (3ol. %"%&H @&) in >esus as a proof of his being od. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @B:. Philippians 0)08 difficulty faces +rinitarianism when the 4pirit is quantified, as when Calachi speaks of od having ,the residue of the 4pirit/ (Cal. @"%(). >ohn also thinks of the 4pirit as given 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 on the 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'. Philippians 1)(400 the pree*istence-incarnation interpretation of $hilippians @"B-%%, etc., owes more to the later nostic redeemer myth than it does to $hilippians @"B-%%. -->ames Dunn, Christology in the /a,ing, %@9. +he traditional +rinitarian reading of $hilippians @ depends almost entirely on understanding >esus/ condition ,in the form of od/ as a reference to a pree*istent life as od in heaven, instead of legal identity with od as a human person on earth. Mnfortunately translators have done much to bolster this view. +he verb ,was/ in the phrase ,was in the form of od/ occurs frequently in the ;ew +estament and by no means carries the sense of ,e*isting in eternity,/ though some versions try to force that meaning into it. #n % 3orinthians %%"', $aul said that a man ought not to cover his head since he is in the image and glory of od. +he verb ,is/ here is a form of the same verb rendered ,was/ describing >esus ,in the form of od./ $aul/s intention was not to introduce the vast sub-ect of an eternally divine, second member of the +rinity who became man, but to teach an important lesson in humility, based on the e*ample of the historical >esus.01 +he Cessiah/s e*altation to the right hand of od is the fulfillment of $salm %%<"%. #t has been well argued that the te*t should read, in the name of >esus every knew will bow,/ not ,at the name of >esus/ ($hil. @"%<). +hus the supreme e*altation of >esus to the right hand of the father does not alter the fact that all that >esus accomplished is for the glory of od. +he lord at od/s right hand, it must be remembered, is adoni (,lord/), which is never the title of Deity.01 +he truth will emerge that >esus was ,in the form of (od ($hil. @"B), not that he $as od.01in $hilippians @ there is no statement about 3hrist being equal to od.

B<

--4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %<A, %<:, @B%, @B(. Colossians 0)03408 >esus must certainly be proclaimed, following apostolic precedent, as the e*clusive way to salvation. .ut the potential of 3hristians to be ,filled with all the fullness of od/ (Fph. A"%&) should balance orthodo*y/s stress on ,the fullness of Deity/ (3ol. %"%&H @&) in >esus as a proof of his being od. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @B:. =e must grasp the fact that $aul was not seeking to win men to belief in a pree*istent being. 7e did not have to establish the viability of speaking of pree*istent wisdom. 4uch language was commonly used, common ground, and was no doubt familiar to most of his readers. ;or was he arguing that >esus was a particular pree*istent being=hat he was saying is that wisdom, whatever precisely that term meant for his readers, is now most fully e*pressed in >esus K >esus is the e*haustive embodiment of divine wisdomH all the divine fullness dwelt in him. +he mistake which many make (unconsciously) is to turn $aul/s argument around and make it point in the wrong direction. .ecause language which seems to envisage pree*istent divine beings is strange to modern ears, it is easy to assume (by an illegitimate transfer of twentieth-century presuppositions to the first century) that this is why the language was used (to promote belief in pree*istent divine intermediaries) and that $aul was attempting to identify 3hrist with or as such a being.01 .ut $aul/s talk was of course conditioned by the culture and cosmological presuppositions of his own day. 4o he was not arguing for the e*istence of pree*istent divine beings or for the e*istence of any particular divine being2nd the meaning is, given the understanding of this language within >ewish monotheism, that >esus is to be seen as the wise activity of od, as the wisdom and embodiment of od/s wisdom more fully than any previous manifestation of the same wisdom whether in creation or in covenant. -->ames Dunn, Christology in the /a,ing, %&(, %&B. en auto" +his does not mean ,by 7im/ --=. !obertson ;icoll in reference to the mistranslation of the phrase ,because of him/ as ,by him/ in 3olossians %"%B, E%positors (ree, Commentary ( rand !apids" Ferdmans, %&B') Colossians 1)8 Cark %@"@9ff. presents >esus as affirming his own belief in the unitary monotheism of the >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/

B%

(>ohn %'"A), ,the one who alone is od/ (>ohn ("::), and since >esus is evidently a different 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. ----4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), A:<, A:%. 0 Timothy 6)0( $aul/s short summary of the history of >esus is not a +rinitarian statement" ,2nd by common confession, great is the mystery of godlinessH he who was revealed in the flesh 0i.e., as a human being1was taken up in glory/ (% +im. A"%B). $aul holds that >esus was revealed in the flesh K a plain statement of the way the 4avior first appeared to man. #t was a human person. ;o hint of pree*istence, as angel or as od, is implied in this concentrated picture of the Cessiah. 4ome manuscripts have inserted the word , od/ for the words ,he who./ +he alteration is admitted by modern translators to be unwarranted. , od/ is most unlikely to have been part of the older manuscripts. 4uch interpolations, like the famous spurious +rinitarian addition in % >ohn ("', which is omitted by modern translations, suggest that someone was trying to force a new idea on the original te*t. F*actly the same violence to 4cripture appears in the Lulgate (Eatin) translation of the .ible when it alters a prediction of the Cessiah from ,7e is your lord/ to ,7e is the Eord your od/ ($s. :("%%). +he change symboli6es a fatal loss to >esus/ identity as Cessiah. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), A<A, A<:. Titus 1)6 2 number of contemporary discussions advance the so-called , ranville 4harp/s rule/ to support their claim that >esus is called ,the great od and 4avior/ in +itus @"%A. 4harp contended that when the reek word ,ai (and) -oins two nouns of the same case, and the first noun has the definite article and the second does not, the two nouns refer to one sub-ect. 7ence the disputed verse should read 0according to 4harp1 ,our great od and 4avior >esus 3hrist,/ and not as the Jing >ames Lersion has it, ,the great od and our 4avior >esus 3hrist./ +he rule about the omission of the article, however, cannot be relied on to settle the matter.01 4ince the absence of a second article is not decisive, it is natural to see here the appearing of od/s glory as it is displayed in 7is 4on at the 4econd 3oming. +here is an obvious parallel with Catthew/s description of the arrival of >esus in power" ,5or the 4on of Can is going to come in the glory of his 5ather with his holy angels/ (Catt. %B"@'). 4ince the 5ather confers 7is glory upon the 4on (as 7e will also share it with the saints), it is most appropriate that 5ather and 4on should be closely linked. $aul had only a few verses earlier spoken of , od the 5ather and 3hrist >esus our 4avior/ (+itus %":). 2 wide range of grammarians and biblical scholars have recogni6ed

B@

that the absence of the definite article before ,our 4avior >esus 3hrist/ is quite inadequate to establish the +rinitarian claim that >esus is here called ,the great od./ 2t best, the argument is ,dubious/ 0see !aymond .rown, 8esus6 (od and /an, %(-%91.0..1 #t should also be noted that the !oman emperor could be called , od and 4avior,/ without the implication that he was the 4upreme Deity. Fven if the title , od and 4avior/ were most e*ceptionally used of >esus, it would not establish his position as coequal and coeternal with the 5ather. #t would rather designate him as the 8ne od/s supreme agent, which is the view of the whole .ible. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @'&, @9<, @9%. no certainty can be reached here 0in +itus @"A1 -- !aymond .rown, 8esus6 (od and /an, %(-%9 Mnfortunately, at this period of reek we cannot be sure that such a rule 0as ranville 4harp/s !ule1 is really decisive. 4ometimes the definite article is not repeated even where there is clearly a separation in idea. --+rinitarian theologian ;igel +urner, (rammatical Insights into the #e$ Testament (Fdinburge" + I + 3lark, %&B(), %B. +he repetition of the article was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately. --Coulton-7oward-+urner, (rammar, Lol. ###, p. %9%. 4ome eminently pious and learned scholarshave so far overstretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the article, as to have run into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their 6eal to maintain the ,honor of the 4on,/ were not aware that they were rather engaged in ,dishonoring the 5ather./ --+rinitarian theologian ranville $enn, Supplemental Annotations to the #e$ Covenant6 %:B, cited by =ilson, !nitarian -rinciples Confirmed +y Trinitarian Testimonies, :A%. -ebrews 0)1 +he book of 7ebrews has been used to support an eternal past e*istence for the Cessiah. 4uch proofs rely heavily on inference drawn from single verses. 5or e*ample, , odin these last days has spoken to us in a 4on, whom 7e appointed heir of all things, through whom he also made the worlds/ (7eb. %"@). #t has been supposed by some that this verse is evidence that >esus created the world. +he verse is more properly translated ,through 0not by1 whom also 7e 0 od1 made the ages./ +here is nothing here which implies that >esus created the heaven and the earth. =hat is said is that the 8ne od, who on 7is own testimony, as we have seen, was unaccompanied in the act of creation (#sa. ::"@:), established the ages of human history with >esus at the center of 7is purpose, prior to speaking through the 4on only ,in these last days./ #t is not difficult to conceive that the Cessiah/s life, death, and rulership of the world would impact all ages, past, present, and future. +he same picture of >esus at the cosmic center of od/s design for the world is

BA

found in 3olossians %"%(-%9. #n 7ebrews it is highly significant that od did not speak through a 4on in the 8ld +estament times but only ,at the end of those days/ (7eb. %"@). +here is a strong suggestion here that the 4on is not eternal but comes into e*istence as the historical >esus. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), '(. od, who is not bound by our time, had in mind in eternity or before anything else was created, the one who was the key to all e*istence 0the Cessiah1, who would bring all to consummation, and for whom (in whom, through whom) all could therefore be said to be created. -->ames Cackey, The Christian E%perience of (od as Trinity (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&9A), ('. -ebrews 0)3 +he author of 7ebrews underlines the fact that >esus came into an inheritance superior to that of the angels. 7is was the rightful inheritance of a first-born son" ,5or to which of the angels did 7e ever say ,Gou are my 4on, today # have begotten you/?/ (7ebrews %"(). >esus could not have been od. 7e was a being created by the 5ather. .egetting or fathering implies beginning, and od has no beginning. >esus was the first-born of od/s ne$ creation. 7is origin was unique, involving a miraculous conception (Euke %"A(), but he was neither od nor literally pree*istent. ;or was he the Celchi6edek of enesis %A"%'-@<. Celchi6edek did in fact have a genealogy, though it is not recorded in the 4cripture. +he mysterious priest of whose lineage there is no scriptural record was not the supreme odO ( od anyway in the 7ebrew .ible is ,not a man./) +ranslations are correct when the designate Celchi6edek as ,this man/ (7eb. '":). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), 'B. -ebrews 0)2 Lincent +aylor admits that in v. 9 the ,8 od/ is vocative spoken of >esus, but he says that the author of 7ebrews was merely citing the $salm and using its terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting that >esus is od. #t is true that the main point of citing the $salm was to contrast the 4on with angels and to show that the 4on en-oys eternal domination while the angels were but servants. +herefore in the citation no ma-or point was being made of the fact that the 4on can be addressed as od. Get we cannot presume that the author did not notice that his citation had this effect. =e can say at least, that the author saw nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar situation in 7eb. %"%<, where the application to the 4on of $salm %<@"@(-@' has the effect of addressing >esus as Eord. 8f course, we have no way of knowing what the ,8 od/ of the $salm meant to the author of 7ebrews when he applies it to >esus. $salm :( is a

B:

royal $salmH and on the analogy of the ,Cighty od/ of #saiah &"B, , od/ may have been looked on simply as a royal title and hence applicable to >esus as the Davidic Cessiah. --!aymond .rown, 8esus6 (od and /an (;ew Gork" Cacmillan, %&B'), @:, @(. 7ebrews %"9 alone (whether or not $aul wrote this book is unclear) may be claimed as a te*t in which >esus is, in some sense, certainly called , od./ 2 handful of other te*ts may or may not contain a reference to >esus as , od./ +he evidence is disputed by scholars for grammatical and syntactical reasons. +hese verses certainly, therefore, cannot be relied on as ,proof-te*ts./ 4ince we know that in the .ible the term , od/ does not always mean ,the 4upreme od,/ it is impossible to substantiate +rinitarianism from isolated verses in which >esus may or may not be referred to as , od/. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), &A. -ebrews 0)05 Fven 7ebrews %"%<, which of all te*ts might appear to ascribe the enesis creation to >esus, in fact does not do so. +he writer e*pressly says that it is about the ,inhabited earth of the future/ (7eb. @"() that he has been speakingH and it was od who rested at creation (7eb. :":), -ust as, according to >esus, it was od who ,made them male and female/ (Cark %<"BH cp. %A"%&). #f with the ;24L we read ,when 7e again brings the firstborn into the world/ (7eb. %"B), it is clear that the author intends us to understand a reference to >esus/ function as founder of the coming world of the Jingdom (cp. #sa. (%"%B, ;24L). 8ccasional ,difficult verses/ must not override the plain evidence distributed throughout 4cripture. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), AA'. 0 Peter 0)15 talk of >esus/ 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 divine purpose being achieved through him 0cp. % $et. %"@<1, rather than pree*istence of a fully personal kind. --Caurice =iles, The "ema,ing of Christian Doctrine (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&':), (A. =e are not entitled to say that $eter was familiar with the idea of 3hrist/s pree*istence with the 5ather before the incarnation 0therefore, $eter was not a +rinitarianO1. 5or this idea is not necessarily implied in his description of 3hrist as ,foreknown before the foundation of the world,/ since 3hristians are also the ob-ects of od/s foreknowledge. 2ll that we can say is that the phrase pro ,ata+oles ,osmou 0before the foundation of the world1 affirms for 3hrist/s office and work a supramundane range and importance.01 ;or are we entitled to say that 0$eter1 was familiar with the idea of 3hrist/s pree*istence5or this idea is not necessarily implied in his description of 3hrist as

B(

,foreknown before the foundation of the world,/ since 3hristians are also ob-ects of od/s foreknowledge 0% $eter %"@1. --F. . 4elwyn, 0irst Epistle of St: -eter, @:', @:9. 1 Peter 0)0 +he same grammatical problem faces e*positors in @ $eter %"%. 7enry 2lford is one of many +rinitarians who argue that >esus is not called , od/ in this verse. 5or him the absence of the article is outweighed here, as in +itus @"%:, by the much more significant fact that both $eter and $aul normally distinguish clearly between od and >esus 3hrist.01 --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9%. 4ome eminently pious and learned scholarshave so far overstretched the argument founded on the presence or absence of the 0definite reek1 article, as to have run into a fallacious sophistry, and, in the intensity of their 6eal to maintain the ,honor of the 4on,/ were not aware that they were rather engaged in ,dishonoring the 5ather./ --+rinitarian theologian ranville $enn, Supplemental Annotations to the #e$ Covenant6 %:B, cited by =ilson, !nitarian -rinciples Confirmed +y Trinitarian Testimonies, :A%. 0 !ohn 0)1 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"A<). >ohn says that the ,word/ was ,with 0pros1 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 heart of 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 %<"%A" ,with you/ is parallel to ,concealed in your heart,/ i.e., ,fi*ed in your decree./ 4ee also >ob @A"%<, %:.1. +he latter is a striking parallel to >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 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. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @9:. 0 !ohn 1)11

BB

4ome writers who promote the idea that the ;ew +estament calls >esus od in the same sense as the 5ather tell us that % >ohn ("@< definitely says that >esus is the true od. +he te*t reads" ,2nd we know that the 4on of od has come, and has given us an understanding so that we might know the true oneH and we are in the true one, in 7is 4on >esus 3hrist. +his is the true od and life eternal./ Cany +rinitarians do not think that >esus is here described as the true od. 7enry 2lford, the distinguished .ritish e*positor and author of the famous commentary on the (ree, Testament, refers to a tendency which has played a ma-or role historically in the interpretation of the .ible. 7e remarks that the fathers interpreted % >ohn ("@< doctrinally rather than e*egetically. #n plain words they were influenced more by a desire to defend their already established theological position than a determination to give the actual meaning of the te*t. 2lford compares >ohn/s statement about the one od in % >ohn ("@< with the structure of similar sentences in the epistles of >ohn. 7e also notes the obvious parallel in >ohn %'"A, where >esus is carefully distinguished from the one od. 7e concludes that e*positors seeking the plain sense of this passage will not see the phrase ,true od/ as a reference to >esus but to the 5ather. +his (houtos) in the last sentence of % >ohn ("@< does not have to refer to the nearest known (>esus 3hrist in this case). 7enry 2lford cites two passages from >ohn/s epistles to make his point" ,=ho is the liar but he who denies that >esus is the 3hrist? +his is the antichrist./ (% >ohn @"@@). ,5or many deceivers went forth into the world, namely they who do not confess >esus 3hrist coming in the flesh. +his is the deceiver and the antichrist./ (@ >ohn '). 5rom these two passages it is clear that ,this/ does not necessarily refer back to the immediately preceding noun. #f it did, it would make >esus the deceiver and the antichrist. +he pronoun ,this/ in % >ohn ("@< refers rather to the preceding phrase ,7im who is true,/ describing the 5ather, not >esus. #f we compare >ohn %'"A we shall see % >ohn ("@< as an echo of that verse" ,+his is eternal life, that they should believe in Gou 0the 5ather1, the only true od, and in >esus 3hrist whom you have sent/ #n his book The Trinity in the #e$ Testament, the +rinitarian 2rthur =ainwright comes to this conclusion. 7e does not think that >esus is called true od in % >ohn ("@<.01 #f we carefully e*amine the evidence, it seems beyond question that >ohn never departed from belief in the unipersonal od of his 8ld +estament heritage. +his brings him in line with his beloved Caster who likewise never veered from devotion to the 8ne od of #srael. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&A, @&:.

0 !ohn *)1 >ohn was adapted as ,their/ gospel 0by nostics1 and the stress in the >ohannine epistles on >esus come in the flesh 0i.e., as a real human person1 (% >ohn :"@H @ >ohn ') must be seen as the reaction to the docetic impression his teaching evidently provoked. -->.2.+. !obinson, T$elve /ore #e$ Testament Studies, %:@.

B'

0 !ohn *)06 =hen the mature >ohn the 2postle wrote his first epistle, he confined his use of ,spirit/ to an activity of od and an endowment given to 3hristians" ,.y this we know that we abide in 7im and 7e in us, because 7e has given us 0a portion1 of 7is 4pirit 0e, tou pneumatos autou1/ (% >ohn :"%A). od does not give a portion of a person, but a masure of 7is mind and power. >ohn is thinking of something which can be quantified, as does $eter when quoting a passage referring to a pouring out ,from Cy spirit/ (2cts @"%'). $ersons, surely, are not poured out. .ut od can grant the provision of 7is limitless energy. +he language is quite inappropriate for the 4pirit as a third person. #n another passage >ohn speaks of the 4pirit as ,that which witnesses,/ because it is itself the truth in our minds (% >ohn ("B). --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @A(. 0 !ohn 3)742 2s is well known a famous spurious verse follows this te*t. #t speaks of the three witnesses ,in haven, the 5ather, the =ord, and the 7oly 4piritH and these three are one./ +hese words ,have no right to stand in the ;ew +estament/ 0..C. Cet6ger, A Te%tual Commentary on the (ree, #e$ Testament (Mnited .ible 4ociety, %&'%), '%(.1. +hey are omitted from modern translations of the .ible. +heir first appearance in reek is in %@%( and only as a translation of the Eatin acts of the 9ateran Council. ;ot until the si*teenth century are the words found in any reek manuscript, and then only as a translation of a Eatin version of the .ible. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @A(. 0 !ohn 3)15410 #t should be noted that >ohn is as undeviating a witness as any in the ;ew +estament to the fundamental tenet of >udaism, of unitary monotheism. +here is the one true and only od (>ohn ("::H %'"A)H everything else is idols (% >ohn ("@%). -->.2.+. !obinson, T$elve /ore #e$ Testament Studies, %'(. 4ome writers who promote the idea that the ;ew +estament calls >esus od in the same sense as the 5ather tell us that % >ohn ("@< definitely says that >esus is the true od. +he te*t reads" ,2nd we know that the 4on of od has come, and has given us an understanding so that we might know the true oneH and we are in the true one, in 7is 4on >esus 3hrist. +his is the true od and life eternal./ Cany +rinitarians do not think that >esus is here described as the true od. 7enry 2lford, the distinguished .ritish e*positor and author of the famous commentary on the (ree, Testament, refers to a tendency which has played a ma-or role historically in the interpretation of the .ible. 7e remarks that the fathers interpreted % >ohn ("@< doctrinally rather than e*egetically. #n plain words they

B9

were influenced more by a desire to defend their already established theological position than a determination to give the actual meaning of the te*t. 2lford compares >ohn/s statement about the one od in % >ohn ("@< with the structure of similar sentences in the epistles of >ohn. 7e also notes the obvious parallel in >ohn %'"A, where >esus is carefully distinguished from the one od. 7e concludes that e*positors seeking the plain sense of this passage will not see the phrase ,true od/ as a reference to >esus but to the 5ather. +his (houtos) in the last sentence of % >ohn ("@< does not have to refer to the nearest known (>esus 3hrist in this case). 7enry 2lford cites two passages from >ohn/s epistles to make his point" ,=ho is the liar but he who denies that >esus is the 3hrist? +his is the antichrist./ (% >ohn @"@@). ,5or many deceivers went forth into the world, namely they who do not confess >esus 3hrist coming in the flesh. +his is the deceiver and the antichrist./ (@ >ohn '). 5rom these two passages it is clear that ,this/ does not necessarily refer back to the immediately preceding noun. #f it did, it would make >esus the deceiver and the antichrist. +he pronoun ,this/ in % >ohn ("@< refers rather to the preceding phrase ,7im who is true,/ describing the 5ather, not >esus. #f we compare >ohn %'"A we shall see % >ohn ("@< as an echo of that verse" ,+his is eternal life, that they should believe in Gou 0the 5ather1, the only true od, and in >esus 3hrist whom you have sent/ #n his book The Trinity in the #e$ Testament, the +rinitarian 2rthur =ainwright comes to this conclusion. 7e does not think that >esus is called true od in % >ohn ("@<.01 #f we carefully e*amine the evidence, it seems beyond question that >ohn never departed from belief in the unipersonal od of his 8ld +estament heritage. +his brings him in line with his beloved Caster who likewise never veered from devotion to the 8ne od of #srael. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&A, @&:. 1 !ohn 7 >ohn was adapted as ,their/ gospel 0by nostics1 and the stress in the >ohannine epistles on >esus come in the flesh 0i.e., as a real human person1 (% >ohn :"@H @ >ohn ') must be seen as the reaction to the docetic impression his teaching evidently provoked. -->.2.+. !obinson, T$elve /ore #e$ Testament Studies, %:@. 4ome writers who promote the idea that the ;ew +estament calls >esus od in the same sense as the 5ather tell us that % >ohn ("@< definitely says that >esus is the true od. +he te*t reads" ,2nd we know that the 4on of od has come, and has given us an understanding so that we might know the true oneH and we are in the true one, in 7is 4on >esus 3hrist. +his is the true od and life eternal./ Cany +rinitarians do not think that >esus is here described as the true od. 7enry 2lford, the distinguished .ritish e*positor and author of the famous commentary on the (ree, Testament, refers to a tendency which has played a ma-or role historically in the interpretation of the .ible. 7e remarks that the fathers interpreted % >ohn ("@< doctrinally rather than e*egetically. #n plain words they were influenced more by a desire to defend their already established theological position than a determination to give the actual meaning of the te*t. 2lford compares >ohn/s statement about the one od in % >ohn ("@< with the structure of similar sentences in the epistles of >ohn. 7e also notes the obvious parallel in >ohn %'"A, where >esus is carefully

B&

distinguished from the one od. 7e concludes that e*positors seeking the plain sense of this passage will not see the phrase ,true od/ as a reference to >esus but to the 5ather. +his (houtos) in the last sentence of % >ohn ("@< does not have to refer to the nearest known (>esus 3hrist in this case). 7enry 2lford cites two passages from >ohn/s epistles to make his point" ,=ho is the liar but he who denies that >esus is the 3hrist? +his is the antichrist./ (% >ohn @"@@). ,5or many deceivers went forth into the world, namely they who do not confess >esus 3hrist coming in the flesh. +his is the deceiver and the antichrist./ (@ >ohn '). 5rom these two passages it is clear that ,this/ does not necessarily refer back to the immediately preceding noun. #f it did, it would make >esus the deceiver and the antichrist. +he pronoun ,this/ in % >ohn ("@< refers rather to the preceding phrase ,7im who is true,/ describing the 5ather, not >esus. #f we compare >ohn %'"A we shall see % >ohn ("@< as an echo of that verse" ,+his is eternal life, that they should believe in Gou 0the 5ather1, the only true od, and in >esus 3hrist whom you have sent/ #n his book The Trinity in the #e$ Testament, the +rinitarian 2rthur =ainwright comes to this conclusion. 7e does not think that >esus is called true od in % >ohn ("@<.01 #f we carefully e*amine the evidence, it seems beyond question that >ohn never departed from belief in the unipersonal od of his 8ld +estament heritage. +his brings him in line with his beloved Caster who likewise never veered from devotion to the 8ne od of #srael. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), @&A, @&:. .evelation 11 +he risen >esus actually receives a revelation from the father (!ev. %"%), demonstrating once again that the son is not the omniscient odO #n !evelation @@"%@, %A it may well be that the angel (the ,he/ of verse %<) speaks, as in the 8ld +estament, as od, representing 7im. +he 2lpha and the 8mega of verse %A probably refers, as does !evelation %"9 and @%"B, to the 5ather for whom the angel is speaking. +he 2lmighty od is the one ,who comes/ in !evelation %"9, and 7is coming may be described also in !evelation @@"%@, followed by the divine title in verse %A. 8esus is the speaker again from verse %B. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), %:<.

The Origin of Trinitarianism +he word +rinity is never found in the Divine !ecords, but is only of human invention, and therefore sounds altogether cold. --Cartin Euther, cited by =ilson, Concessions of Trinitarians (.oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:(), :<.

'<

Jnow then, my friend, that the +rinity was born above three hundred years after the ancient ospel was declaredH it was conceived in ignorance, brought forth and manifested in cruelty. --=illiam $enn =hen the reek mind and the !oman mind, instead of the 7ebrew mind, came to dominate the 3hurch, there occurred a disaster from which the 3hurch has never recovered, either in doctrine or practice. --7.E. oudge, +he 3alling of the >ews, 8udaism and Christianity. the assertion of 3hrist/s pree*istence, placed a strain, so to speak, upon the humanity of >esus which it was unable to bear. -->ohn Jno*, The umanity and Divinity of Christ (3ambridge Mniversity $ress, %&9'), (A. #n the fifth century 3hristianity had conquered paganism and paganism had infected 3hristianity. --Cacaulay +he 5athers of the first two centuries, or thereabouts, when the -udgments of 3hristians were yet free, and not enslaved with the determinations of 3ouncils, asserted the 5ather only to be the one od.01 0+he +rinity was1 first hatched by the subtlety of 4atan in the heads of $latonists, to pervert the worship of the true od.01 0+he +rinity introduces1 three gods, and so subverts the Mnity of od, so frequently inculcated in 4cripture.01 5or who is there (if at least he dare make use of reason in his religion) who seeth not this is as ridiculous as if one should say, $eter is an 2postle, >ames an 2postle, >ohn an 2postleH yet there are not three 2postles by one 2postle? -->ohn .iddle, headmaster of 3rypt 4chool, c. %B((. $arliament ordered the burning of .iddle/s works and .iddle was imprisoned in ;ewgate $rison under charges of publicly denying that >esus 3hrist was the 2lmighty or the Cost 7igh od. .iddle died in prison ten years later, at the age of forty-seven. a Mnitarian surgeon, Dr. eorge van $arrisrefused to ab-ure his faith. #t was said of him at his trail before the 2rchbishop of 3anterbury, +homas 3ranmer" ,that he believes, that od, the 5ather is the only od, and that 3hrist is not very od./ 7e was burned to death by leaders of the 3hurch of Fngland at 4mithfield in Fngland on 2pril @(, %((%. -- .7. =illiams, The "adical "eformation, ''&, '9<. 0+itles such as ,4on of od/1 were never meant to designate the figures to whom they were applied as divine beings. +hey meant rather that these figures were imbued with divine spirit, or the Eogos. +he titles referred to their function and character as men of od, not to their +eing od. +hinking of a human as being od was strictly a reek or 7ellenistic notion. +hus the early theological debates from the middle of the second century on were largely between 2ntioch, a center of >ewish 3hristianity, on the one hand, and 2le*andrian 3hristianity, heavily colored by neo-$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 filled with 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. .y the 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 to 3halcedon the speculative and neo-$latonist perspective gained increasing ground and became orthodo* 3hristian dogma in :(% 3F. Mnfortunately, what the theologians of the great ecumenical councils meant by such creedal titles as 4on of od was remote from what those same titles meant in the ospels. +he creeds were speaking in reek philosophical terms" the gospels were speaking in 4econd +emple >udaism terms+he .ishops of the councils should have reali6ed that they had shifted ground from 7ebrew metaphor to reek ontology and in effect betrayed the real >esus 3hrist. -->. 7arold Fllens, +he 2ncient Eibrary of 2le*andria, *i+le "evie$ (5eb. %&&'), %&-@& and further comments in ,5rom Eogos to 3hrist/ (,!eaders !eply/), *i+le "evie$, :-'. =e often find traditional 3hristology difficult to understandand so have questions to put to its source, the 4criptures. 5or e*ample, let us take so central an assertion of the 4criptures as the statement that >esus is the Cessiah and as such has become Eord in the course of his life, death, and resurrection. #s it agreed that this assertion has imply been made obsolete by the doctrine of the metaphysical 4onship, as we recogni6e it and e*press it in the 3halcedonian declaration, and that its only real interest for us now is historical? #s the 3hristology of the 2cts of the 2postles, which begins from below, with the human e*perience of >esus, merely primitive? 8r has it something special to say to us which classical 3hristology does not say with the same clarity? --Jarl !ahner, Theological Investigations, %"%((ff. +he 2pologists of the second century were more familiar with $latonic cosmology than they were with biblical soteriology, and hence stretched the 3hristian doctrine to fit a philosophical procrustean mold. +hey conceived od as above and beyond all essence, ineffable, incommunicable, impassible, e*alted beyond any commerce with matter, time or space. +his $latonic od put forth the =ordby an act of 7is will to be 7is intermediary for creation, revelation and redemption. +he doctrine construes the 4on as pree*istent 0a doctrine which did not arise until this time, and was not believed by the 2postles or the first century 3hurch1. --=illiam 3hilds !obinson, >esus 3hrist #s >ehovah ($art @), Evangelical 1uarterly ("A (%&AA)" @'(. +he 2pologists laid the foundation for the perversionRcorruption (.er,ehrung) of 3hristianity into a revealed 0philosophical1 teaching. 4pecifically, their 3hristology affected the later development disastrously. .y taking for granted the transfer of the concept of 4on of od onto the pree*isting 3hrist, they were the cause of the 3hristological problem of the fourth century. +hey caused a shift in the point of departure of 3hristological thinking K away from the historical >esus, putting it into the shadow and promoting instead the #ncarnation. +hey tied 3hristology to cosmology and

'@

could not tie it to soteriology. +he Eogos teaching is not a ,higher/ 3hristology than the customary one. #t lags in fact far behind the genuine appreciation of 3hrist. 2ccording to their teaching it is no longer od who reveals 7imself in 3hrist, but the Eogos, the inferior od, a od who as od is subordinated to the 7ighest od (inferiorism or subordinationism). --5riedrich Eoofs, 9eitfaden 3um Studium der Dogmengeschichte (/anual for the Study of the istory of Dogma, %9&<), 7alle-4aale" Ca* ;iemeyer Lerlag, %&(%, part %, sec. %9" 3hristianity as a !evealed $hilosophy. +he reek 2pologists, &', translation by 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting. #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 the conception 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:. #n the year A%', a new contention arose in Fgypt with consequences of a pernicious nature. +he sub-ect of this fatal controversy which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the 3hristian world, was the doctrine of three $ersons in the odhead, a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches. -->.E. Cosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical istory (;ew Gork" 7arper, %9A&), %"A&&. +he adoption of a non-biblical phrase at ;icea constituted a landmark in the growth of dogma" the +rinity is true, since the 3hurch K the universal 3hurch speaking by its .ishops K says so, through the .ible does notO... =e have a formula, but what does that formula contain? ;o child of the 3hurch dare seek an answer. --Dogma, Dogmatic +heology, in Encyclopedia *ritannica, %:th edition (%&AB), '"(<%, (<@. #n earliest 3hristianity, orthodo*y and heresy do not stand in relation to one another as primary to secondary, but in many regions heresy is the original manifestation of 3hristianity. -- eorge 4trecker. 7ow shall we determine the nature of the distinction between the od who became man and the od who did not become man, without destroying the unity of od on the one hand or interfering with 3hristology on the other? ;either the 3ouncil of ;icea nor the 3hurch 5athers of the fourth century satisfactorily answered this question. --#.2. Dorner, The istory of the Development of the Doctrine of the -erson of Christ (Fdinburgh" + I + 3lark, %99@), Div. %, @"AA< Mnitarianism as a theological movement began much earlier in historyH indeed it antedated +rinitarianism by many decades. 3hristianity derived from >udaism, and >udaism was strictly Mnitarian. +he road which led from >erusalem to 0the 3ouncil of1

'A

;icea was scarcely a straight one. 5ourth-century +rinitarianism did not reflect accurately early 3hristian teaching regarding the nature of odH it was on the contrary a deviation from this teaching. #t therefore developed against constant Mnitarian, or at least anti-+rinitarian opposition. --Encyclopedia Americana (%&(B), @'"@&:% controversies relating to the +rinity took their rise in the second century from the introduction of recian philosophy into the 3hurch. --Cosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical istory (;ew Gork" 7arper, %9A&). +he reeks distorted the concept of >esus/ legal agency to ontological identity, creating an illogical set of creeds and doctrines to cause confusion and terror for later generations of 3hristians. --$rofessor .=. .uchanan, %&&: 0>ustin Cartyr1 found in $latoism the nearest approach to 3hristianity and felt that no break was required with its spirit and principles to pass into the greater light of 3hristian revelation.01 +he forces which operated to change apostolic doctrine were derived form paganism+he habits of thought which the entiles brought into the 3hurch are sufficient to e*plain the corruptions of apostolic doctrine which began in the postapostolic age. -- .+. $urves, The Testimony of 8ustin /artyr to Early Christianity (;ew Gork" !andolph and 3o., %99&), %B'. the dogma of 3hrist/s Deity turned >esus into a 7ellenistic redeemer-god, and thus was a myth propagated behind which the historical >esus completely disappeared. --Cartin =erner, 0ormation of Christian Dogma: An istorical Study of Its -ro+lems, (2 I 3 .lack, %&(') @&9. +he heritage from philosophy came in more insidiously. #n the second century we find >ustin Cartyr and others proclaiming 3hristianity as a philosophy of the schools+he logos of 4toicism is identified with the logos of >ohn+he growing web of fantasystill remained a very real danger, and so remains down to this present dayCeanwhile, and most serious of all, a radical confusion had fallen upon the doctrine of od. +he personal od of >udaism was very imperfectly fused with the demigods of popular reek religion and with the metaphysical abstracts whereby the philosophers had sought to make the concept of od adequate as a basis for thought and for being. --E.=. rensted, The -erson of Christ (Eondon" ;isbet and 3o. Etd., %&AA) =hen the reek and !oman mind instead of the 7ebrew mind came to dominate the 3hurch there occurred a disaster in doctrine and practice from which we have never recovered. --3anon oudge, +he 3alling of the >ews, 8udaism and Christianity (4hears and 4ons, %&A&).

':

+he conventional conception of the 7oly 4pirit as a separate and distinct Divine $ersn is a growth. #t was not a belief of early 3hristianity. --.asil =ilberforce, D.D. 0+he1 true religion >esus founded in the unity of od 0fell1 into unintelligible polytheism01 hocus-pocus phantasm of a od like another 3erberus. --3... 4anford, The "eligious 9ife of Thomas 8efferson, 99, 9&. +he +rinitarians and the Mnitarians continued to confront each other, the latter at the beginning of the third century still forming the large ma-ority. --Encyclopedia *ritannica, %%th ed., @A"&BA 05ourth and fifth century1 3hristians adapted to the 0 reek1 culture in order to survive and in an effort to win converts. --!ogers and .aird, Introduction to -hilosophy (7arper I !ow, %&9%), (. $ost-apostolic writings are mi*ed with ideas foreign to apostolic 3hristianity. +he latter is unintentionally distorted and misrepresented. -- .+. $urves #n the middle of the second century >ustin composed his Apology and Dialogue and in these the influence of philosophy on 3hristianity appears in full force7e discloses the ne*us between pagan forms of philosophy, the bridge by which the former passed over into the latter/s territory03hristianity1 found in the 7ellenic >udaism of 2le*andria the means by which, while preserving its hold on 3hristian and 7ebrew revelation, it could yet adopt the philosophical thoughts and retain the philosophical conceptions of the day. -- .+. $urves, +he #nfluence of $aganism on $ost-2postolic 3hristianity, -res+yterian "evie$ AB 8ct., %999). from ;icea to 3halcedon the speculative and ;eoplatonist perspective of 2le*andrian 3hristology gained increasing ground and became orthodo* 3hristian dogma in (:% 3.F. --$rofessor >. 7arold Fllens, *i+le "evie$, >une %&&'. >ews have preserved in living tradition, elements of the prophetic ideal which belonged to 3hristianity at the first but were overlaid by reek metaphysics and !oman law. --3.7. Dodd, Epistle of -aul to the "omans, cited by 7ugh 4chonfield, The -olitics of (od (Eondon" 7utchinson, %&'<), %<(. +he great and still undischarged task which confronts those engaged in the historical study of primitive 3hristianity is to e*plain how the teaching of >esus developed into early reek theology. --2lbert 4cweit6er, -aul and is Interpreters (Eondon, %&%@), v. +he bulk of 0early1 3hristians, had they been left alone, would have been satisfied with the old belief in one od, the 5ather, and would have distrusted the ,dispensation,/ as it

'(

has been called, by which the sole Deity of the 5ather e*panded into the Deity of the 5ather and the 4on/2ll simple people,/ +ertullian wrote, ,not to call them ignorant and uneducatedtake fright at the ,dispensation/+hey will have it that we are proclaiming two or three gods. --!oman 3atholic scholar =.F. 2ddis., Christianity and the "oman Empire (;ew Gork" =.=. ;orton, %&B'), %':. +heologically considered, the +rinity grew out of a syncretism of >udaism and 3hristianity with 7ellenism and a resulting combination of >ewish and 3hristian monotheism with 7ellenistic monism=hat the theologian thus discovers poses a question to theology about the legitimacy of such a construct. =hen it is clear K and there is no way around this -that >esus himself knew only the od of #srael, whom he called 5ather, and knew nothing abut his own later ,being made od,/ what right have we to call the doctrine of the +rinity normative and binding on 3hristians?...7owever we interpret the various stages of the development of the +rinity, it is clear that this doctrine, which became ,dogma/ in the Fast and =est has no biblical basis and cannot be traced continuously back to the ;ew +estament radually, theology must face the facts. --Jarl-7ein6 8hlig, Ein (ott in drei -ersonen2 .om .ater 3um 4/yserium5 der Trinitat Cain6" Catthias runewald-Lerlag, %&&&, %@A-%@(, translated by 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting. =hoever knows the development of the history of dogma knows that the image of od in the primitive 3hurch was unitary, and only in the second century did it gradually, against the doctrine of subordinationism, become binary. 5or the 3hurch 5athers such as >ustin Cartyr, #renaeus, and +ertullian, >esus is subordinate to the 5ather in everything, and 8rigen hesitated to direct his prayer to 3hrist, for as he wrote, that should properly be to the 5ather alone.01 #n the first century od is still monotheistic in good >ewish fashion. #n the second century od becomes two-in-oneH from the third century the one od gradually becomes threefold.0+here were1 bloody intra-3hristian religious wars of the fourth and fifth centuries, when thousands upon thousands of 3hristians slaughtered other 3hristians for the sake of the +rinity. -->ewish theologian $inchas Eapide, 8e$ish /onotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine, A&, :<. 8ur task has once again been the crucial but difficult one of trying to attune our twentieth-century ears to the concepts and overtones of the (<s and B<s of the first century 2D in the eastern Cediterranean. -->ames Dunn, Christology in the /a,ing, %@(. 2cross the pages of the 8ld and ;ew +estament the clear waters of revealed truth flow like a ma-estic river. #t is od who only has immortality, offering to men and communicating to men 7is divine imperishable life. .ut paralleling this stream flows the muddy river of pagan philosophy, which is that of human soul, of divine essence, eternal, pree*isting the body and surviving it. 2fter the death of the 2postles the two streams merged to make unity of the troubled philosophy mi*ed with divine teaching. ;ow the task of evangelical theology is to disengage the two incompatible elements, to dissociate

'B

them, to eliminate the pagan element which has installed itself as a usurper in the center of traditional theologyH to restore in value the biblical element, which only is true, and which alone conforms to the nature of od and of man, 7is creature. --2lfred Laucher, 9e -ro+leme de lImmortalite (n.p., %&('), B. Concluding .emar>s +he developed concept of three coequal persons in the odhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. --7%ford Companion to the *i+le 04ubordinationism (the belief that the 4on is not coequal with the 5ather)1 was in fact characteristic of pre-;icene 3hristology. 8rigen, for e*ample, had thought in terms of a hierarchy of being in which od the 5ather was the ultimate one and the Eogos was the mediating link between the ultimate and created essences. --5rances Goung, 4ubordinationism, in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. !ichardson and .owden ($hiladelphia" =estminster $ress, %&9A), ((A. the doctrine of a +riune od 01 is not mentioned at all in 4cripture. --!oman 3atholic theologian 3ardinal 7osier, Confession 0idei Christiana (%((A), ch. @'. the demand for a complete reappraisal of the 3hurch/s belief in 0the divinity of1 3hrist right up to the present day is an urgent one. --!oman 3atholic theologian 2loys rillmeier, 4.>., Christ in Christian Tradition (2tlanta" >ohn Jno* $ress, %&'(), %"(('. +hat the 4on is of the same essence as the 5ather or consubstantial with 7im is not manifest in any part of 4acred 4cripture, either by e*press words or by certain and immutable deduction. --!oman 3atholic theologian >ames Casenius, Apud Sandium, &-%%, cited by =ilson, Concessions of Trinitarians (.oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:(), :<. +he early 3hristian 5athers, foremost #renaeus and +ertullian, strove hard to find forms which make intelligible in a non-gnostic sense the prevailing division of the one >esus 3hrist. 2lready 7arnack was forced to say" ,=ho can maintain that the 3hurch ever overcame the gnostic doctrine of the two natures or the Lalentinian docetism?/ Fven the later councils of the 3hurch which discussed the 3hristological problems in complicated, and nowadays hardly intelligible, definitions did not manage to do thisH the unity of the 3hurch foundered precisely on this#t has often been forgotten that gnostic theologians saw 3hrist as ,consubstantial/ with the 5ather, before ecclesiastical theology established this as a principle, in order to preserve his full divinity. --Jurt !udolph, (nosis: The nature and istory of (nosticism (7arper I !ow, %&9A), A'@.

''

#f we have any remaining respect for what we too often and too glibly profess to be the normative role of 4cripture, we simply may not pretend that 4cripture gives us any substantial information about a second divine ,$erson/ -->ames Cackey, The Christian E%perience of (od as Trinity (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&9A), B:. # dislike this vulgar prayer, ,7oly +rinity, one odO 7ave mercy on usO/ as altogether savoring of barbarism. =e repudiate such e*pressions as being not only insipid, but profane. -->ohn 3alvin, cited by =ilson, Concessions of Trinitarians (.oston" Cunroe I 3o., %9:(), :<. =hen we look back through the long ages of the reign of the +rinity we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmi*ed evil. --2ndrews ;orton, A Statement of "easons for #ot *elieving the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the #ature of (od and the -erson of Christ (7illiard, ray I 3o., %9AA), @9' +he 5athers of the first two centuries, or thereabouts, when the -udgments of 3hristians were yet free, and not enslaved with the determinations of 3ouncils, asserted the 5ather only to be the one od.01 0+he +rinity was1 first hatched by the subtlety of 4atan in the heads of $latonists, to pervert the worship of the true od.01 0+he +rinity introduces1 three gods, and so subverts the Mnity of od, so frequently inculcated in 4cripture.01 5or who is there (if at least he dare make use of reason in his religion) who seeth not this is as ridiculous as if one should say, $eter is an 2postle, >ames an 2postle, >ohn an 2postleH yet there are not three 2postles by one 2postle? -->ohn .iddle, headmaster of 3rypt 4chool, c. %B((. $arliament ordered the burning of .iddle/s works and .iddle was imprisoned in ;ewgate $rison under charges of publicly denying that >esus 3hrist was the 2lmighty or the Cost 7igh od. 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 not od. --2nonymous supporter of >ohn .iddle, c. %B((. 0.iddle had1 great 6eal for promoting holiness of life and mannersH for this was always his end and design in what he taught. 7e valued not his doctrines for speculation but for practice. --2nonymous supporter of >ohn .iddle, c. %B((. a man, though differing from most of us in many great matters of faith, yet by reason of his diligent study of the 7oly 4cripture, sober and peaceable conversation, which some of us have intimate and good knowledge of, we cannot but -udge every way capable of the liberty promised in the overnment.

'9

--Description of >ohn .iddle in a petition for his release from prison, c. %B((. .iddle was imprisoned for not believing in the +rinity. +en years later .iddle died in prison at the age of forty-seven. #f we avoid reading the ;ew +estament with spectacles colored by later dogma, we find emerging a 3hristological picture K or rather pictures K quite different from later orthodo*y.01 0>esus1 was the embodiment of all od/s promises brought to fruition. 4uch a 3hristology, # suggest, represents ;ew +estament 3hristology better than the idea of incarnation, and it was in fact the germ of more and more 3hristological ideas as the whole of the 8ld +estament was seen as fulfilled in 3hrist. --5rances Goung, 2 3loud of =itnesses, The /yth of (od Incarnate, %:, %&. 0#1 communicate the result of my inquiries to the world at largeH if, as od is my witness, it be with a friendly and benignant feeling towards mankind, that # readily give as wide a circulation as possible to what # esteem my best and richest possession, # hope t meet with a candid reception from all parties, even though many things should be brought to light which will at once be seen to differ from certain received opinions.01 5or my own part, # adhere to the 7oly 4criptures alone - # follow no other heresy or sect. # had no even read of the works of the heretics, so called, when the mistakes of those who are reckoned for orthodo*, and their incautious handling of 4cripture, first taught me to agree with their opponents whenever these opponents agreed with 4cripture.01 #t is wonderful with what futile subtleties, or rather with what -uggling artifices, certain individuals have endeavored to elude or obscure the plain meaning of these passages 0the writings of $aul1. -->ohn Cilton, Treatise on Christian Doctrine (Eondon" .ritish and 5oreign Mnitarian 2ssociation, %&<9), *, *i, @<. +he 3halcedonian formula makes genuine humanity impossible. +he conciliar definition says that >esus is true man. .ut if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. 2nd >esus becomes immediately very different from us. >esus is tempted but cannot sin because he is od. =hat kind of temptation is this? #t has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are familiar with. --!oman 3atholic theologian +homas 7art, To Gno$ and 0ollo$ 8esus ($aulist $ress, %&9:), :B. +he 3hristological concept of the pree*istent divine 4on reduces the real, social and culturally conditioned personality of >esus to the metaphysical abstraction ,human nature/ 7uman nature, according to the classical 2le*andrine tradition, was enhypostati6ed in the divine $erson of the 4onH it became the human nature of a divine personal sub-ect2ccording tot his 3hristology, the eternal 4on assumes a timeless human nature, or makes it timeless by making it his ownH it is a human nature which owes nothing essential to geographical circumstances it corresponds to nothing in the actual concrete worldH 0thus, according to the doctrine of the +rinity1, >esus has not, aftr all, really ,come in the flesh./ --Eampe, (od as Spirit, %::.

'&

the assertion of 3hrist/s pree*istence, placed a strain, so to speak, upon the humanity of >esus which it was unable to bear.01 #t is simply incredible that a divine person should have become a fully and normally human person K that is, if he was also to continue to be, in his essential identity, the same person.01 0+he +rinity is1 half story and half dogma, a compound of mythology and philosophy, of poetry and logic, as difficult to define as to defend+his is true of the patristic 3hristology generally (and therefore of the formal 3hristology we have inherited). -->ohn Jno*, The umanity and Divinity of Christ (3ambridge Mniversity $ress, %&9'), (A, &9, &&. #n my -udgment a fundamental difficulty with the 3hristology of the patristic age is that while in word it asserted the reality of the humanity of >esus 3hrist, in fact it did not take that humanity with sufficient seriousness +he tendency of 3hristological thinking in the mainstream of what was believed to be ,orthodo*/ was far more heavily weighted on the side of the divinity than the humanity of >esus 03p. +homas 7art, To Gno$ and 0ollo$ 8esus, especially ::-:9.1. 8rthodo* 3hristology, even when the e*cesses of 2le*andrine teaching were somewhat restrained at 3halcedon in 2D :(%, has tended toward an impersonal humanity which is, # believe, no genuine humanity at all. --;orman $ittenger, The Word Incarnate (;isbet, %&(&), 9&. 0+here are1 shortcomings that many theologians find today in the 3halcedonian model... %. Divine nature and human nature cannot be set side by side and numbered as if they were similar quantities. @. +he 3halcedonian formula makes a genuine humanity impossible. 0+his difficulty1 flows from the divinity overshadowing the humanity and from >esus not having a human personal center A. +he 3halcedonian formula has a meager basis in 4cripture. +he 3ouncil calls >esus true od. +he ;ew +estament shies away from calling >esus od. --!oman 3atholic theologian +homas 7art, To Gno$ and 0ollo$ 8esus, ::-:9. 3halcedon failed to prevent a modified 2pollinarianism from becoming the orthodo*y of the Ciddle 2ges.01 #f we affirm that >esus was a human person, we are driven either into an impossible conception of a double personality in the incarnate 4on of od, or else into the 3hristology of liberal $rotestantism which we have found to be inadequate. #f we deny that >esus was a human person, we deny by implication the completeness of his manhood and stand convicted of 2pollinarianism. Dr. !even urges (see his book, Apollinarianism) that most of those whom he 3atholic tradition has honored as doctors of orthodo*y were in fact 2pollinarian, though they condemned 2pollinarius. --8liver Suick, Doctrines of the Creed (;isbet, %&A9), %<@, %'9. Cany people today, even believing people, are far from understanding the basis of their faithSuite unwittingly they depend upon the philosophy of the reeks rather than upon the =ord of od for an understanding of the world they live in. -- .2.+. Jnight, 9a$ and (race ($hiladelphia" =estminster $ress, %&B@), '9, '&.

9<

+here have always been >ews who have sought to make terms with the entle world, and it has in time meant the death of >udaism for all such. +here have been 3hristians from the beginning who have sought to do this. 8ften it has been done unconsciously, but whether consciously or unconsciously, the question needs to be faced as to whether it is right. 8ur position is that the reinterpretation of biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the reek philosophers has been both widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of 3hristian faith+he whole .ible, the ;ew +estament as well as the 8ld +estament, is based on the 7ebrew attitude and approach. =e are of the firm opinion that this ought to be recogni6ed on all hands to a greater e*tent. #t is clear to us, and we hope that we have made it clear in these pages to others, that there is often a great difference between 3hristian theology and biblical theology ;either 3atholic nor $rotestant theology is biblical theology. #n each case we have a dominion of 3hristian theology by reek thought=e hold that there can be no right answer 0to the question ,=hat is 3hristianity?/1 until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both 8ld and ;ew +estaments and their difference from the pagan ideas which so largely have dominated church thought. --;orman 4naith, The Distinctive Ideas of the 7ld Testament (Eondon" Fpworth $ress, %&::), %9', %9(, %99. 5irst we have the 3hristology of the 4ynoptic ospels 0Cark, Catthew, Euke1, and here it cannot be contended on any sufficient ground that they give us even the slightest -ustification for advancing beyond the idea of a purely human Cessiah. +he idea of pree*istence lies completely outside the 4ynoptic sphere of view. ;othing can show this more clearly than the narrative of the supernatural birth of >esus. 2ll that raises him above humanity K though it does not take away the pure humanity of his person K is to be referred only to the pneuma hagion 07oly 4pirit1, which brought about his conception +he 4ynoptic 3hristology has for its substantial foundation the notion of the Cessiah, designated and conceived as the huios theou 04on of od1H and all the points of the working out of the notion rest on the same supposition of a nature essentially human. --5.3. .aur, Church istory of the 0irst Three Centuries (Eondnon" =illiams and ;orgate/s, %9'9), B(. +hat >esus, whose mind was steeped in the prophets, derived his Cessianic conception from the common 7ebrew source is patent=hilst his Cessianic mission is thus rooted in prophecy, to which >esus himself appeals in attestation of it, it does not appear that he assumed to ascribed to himself a pre-temporal e*istence2ccording to what Catthew and Euke relate of his origin, he is divinely generated. .ut he has not pree*isted. 7e is represented as coming into being in the womb of the Lirgin by the generation of the 7oly 4pirit;o one can reasonably maintain that, according to the versions of his supernatural generation given by Catthew and Euke, >esus e*isted before this creative divine act;or is there any e*plicit indication in his own utterance that he himself was conscious of personal pree*istence#t is thus not with a pree*istence, ethereal being, incarnate in human form, that we have to do in the 4ynoptic ospels 0Cark, Catthew, Euke1, but with one who, albeit divinely invested with an e*alted vocation and destiny, enters both in time, and is wholly sub-ect to the conditions of human e*perience from birth to death.

9%

-->ames CacJinnon, The istoric 8esus (Eongmans, reen and 3o., %&A%), A'(-A'&. Eyonnet, 9Annonciation 0E/2nnonciation et la Cariologie .iblique, /aria in Sacra Scriptura, :"B%.1 points out that this 0the fact that the synoptic gospels make no mention of the idea of 3hrist/s pree*istence1 has embarrassed many orthodo* theologians, since in pree*istence 3hristology a conception by the 7oly 4pirit in Cary/s womb does not bring about the e*istence of od/s 4on. Euke is seemingly unaware of such a 3hristologyH conception is casually related to divine sonship for him. --.rown, The *irth of the /essiah, @&%. +heologically considered, the +rinity grew out of a syncretism of >udaism and 3hristianity with 7ellenism and a resulting combination of >ewish and 3hristian monotheism with 7ellenistic monism=hat the theologian thus discovers poses a question to theology about the legitimacy of such a construct. =hen it is clear K and there is no way around this -that >esus himself knew only the od of #srael, whom he called 5ather, and knew nothing abut his own later ,being made od,/ what right have we to call the doctrine of the +rinity normative and binding on 3hristians?...7owever we interpret the various stages of the development of the +rinity, it is clear that this doctrine, which became ,dogma/ in the Fast and =est has no biblical basis and cannot be traced continuously back to the ;ew +estament radually, theology must face the facts. --Jarl-7ein6 8hlig, Ein (ott in drei -ersonen2 .om .ater 3um 4/yserium5 der Trinitat Cain6" Catthias runewald-Lerlag, %&&&, %@A-%@(, translated by 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting. od had not always been 5ather and >udge, merely on the ground of 7is having always been od. 5or he could not have been the 5ather previous to the 4on, nor a -udge previous to sin. +here was, however, a time when neither sin e*isted, nor the Son. --+ertullian, Against ermogenes, ch. A. +ertullian (c. %B<-@@() is considered by many +rinitarians to be one of the earliest founders of +rinitarian dogma. 7owever, this quotation proves that +ertullian did not believe in the eternal pree*istence of the 4on, and therefore he did not believe in the +rinity. the Eogos 0is1 surpassed by the od of the universe.01 +he 4on is in no respect to be compared with the fatherH for he is the image of his goodness, and the effulgence not of od, but of his glory and of his eternal light.01 +he 5ather who sent >esus is alone good and greater than h who was sent. --8rigen, Commentary on 8ohn, ii, A, A(, vi, @A. 8rigen (c. %9(-@(:) is considered by many +rinitarians to be one of the earliest founders of +rinitarian dogma. 7owever, this quotation proves that 8rigen did not believe that the 4on is coequal with the 5ather, and therefore 8rigen did not believe in the +rinity. +he doctrinal system of the ante-;icene church is irreconcilable with the letter and authority of the formularies of the 3onstantinian, and, in general of the .y6antine councils, and with the Cedieval systems built upon them. --3.3. .unsen, Christianity and /an,ind, %":B:, cited by 2lvan Eamson, The Church of the 0irst Three Centuries, %9%.

9@

#t must be owned that the doctrine of the +rinity, as it is proposed in our 2rticles, our Eiturgy, our 3reeds, is not in so many words taught us in the 7oly 4criptures. =hat we profess in our prayers we nowhere read in 4cripture K that the 8ne od, the one Eord, is not only one person but three persons in one substance. +here is no such te*t in the 4cripture as this, that ,the Mnity in +rinity and the +rinity in Mnity is to be worshipped./ ;one of the inspired writers have e*pressly affirmed that in the +rinity none is before or after the other, none is greater or less than the other, but the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal. --3hurch of Fngland .ishop eorge 4malridge, Si%ty Sermons -rechd on Several 7ccasions, no. AA, A:9, cited by =ilson in !nitarian -rinciples Confirmed +y Trinitarian Testimonies, AB'. 2 sympathetic study of traditional >ewish religion can reveal the e*tent to which the modern Fnglish 3hristian gives a meaning of the words of the ;ew +estament different from that $hich $as in the minds of the 8e$ish $riters. reek was the language they used to convey the universal 3hristian message, but their mode of thinking was to a large e*tent 7ebraic. 5or a full understanding it is necessary for the modern 3hristian not only to study the reek te*t, but to sense the 7ebraic idea which the >ewish writers sought to convey in reek words. # cannot claim to have become very skilled in this, but made enough progress to discover ho$ greatly I had misinterpreted the *i+le in the past. Eike all ordained 3hristian ministers # had spoken dogmatically, authoritatively from the pulpit, which no one may occupy without a license from a .ishopH and much of what # had said had been misleading, because my own mind was incapable of giving a correct interpretation of the book # was authori6ed to e*pound. 5or me the reali6ation of this fact made nonsense of the distinction between clergy and laity, and was the main cause of my relinquishment of my orders. #n describing my own intellectual deficiencies, and the process by which # discovered my inability to grasp the meaning of the .ible across the vast linguistic gulf separating me from its >ewish writers, # can surely claim to write with first-hand knowledge. 5rom what # know of the clergy in general # see no reason for supposing that # was peculiar in suffering from this particular deficiency. #n fact, the authority of the $rotestant ministry as a whole, the claim to be able to understand the .ible and e*pound it as the word of od, is in my view a vast confidence trick. # am not accusing the clergy of being fraudulent, or even insincere. +he confidence trick is collectiveH individually those who engage in it are deceived by it, -ust as when # began to e*pound the .ible from pulpits, # was fully confident that # was able to give a correct interpretation. 4ome may believe that the rite of ordination itself bestows divine grace sufficient to overcome any liability to mislead a congregation through an incorrect interpretation. #f this view is held, however, it must be reconciled with the indisputable fact that the 3hristian ministry as a whole has produced a large number of different, and often irreconcilable versions of the 3hristian faith, all supposed to have been derived from the same biblical record2ny claim that training and ordination produce the only authentic 3hristian teaching is fraudulent. +he thirty-nine 2rticles of the 3hurch of Fngland state specifically in no uncertain terms that true 3hristian doctrine is derived not from the 3hurch/s councils and traditions, but from the .ible alone. 2nglo-catholics 0members of the 3hurch of Fngland1 believe the very oppositeH consequently when one

9A

of them after induction to a benefice reads the 2rticles publicly, and declares his assent to them, he virtually commits per-ury. #t is, however, legali6ed per-ury. --5ormer 3hurch of Fngland clergyman David =atson, Christian /yth and Spiritual "eality (Eondon" Lictor ollan6 %&B') @9-A<. most biblical $rotestants adhere to post-biblical +rinitarianism, though they act as if those teachings were self-evidently biblical. --Eindbeck, The #ature and Doctrine of "eligion: Theology in a -ostli+eral Age ($hiladelphia" =estminster $ress, %&9:), ':. $eople who adhere to belief in the .ible only (as they believe) often adhere in fact to a traditional school of interpretation of sola scriptura. Fvangelical $rotestants can be as much servants of tradition as !oman 3atholics or reek 8rthodo*, only they don/t reali6e that it is tradition. --5.5. .ruce, %&9%. the history of the 3hristology of >ewish 3hristianityneeds urgent investigation not only for the cause of historical -ustice but also for the cause of ecumenical understanding. --Jarl->osef Juschel, *orn *efore All Time2 The Dispute over Christs 7rigin, A&:, A&(. #n the 4ynoptic 0Cark, Catthew, Euke1 there is no direct statement of the pree*istence of 3hrist+hey do not anywhere declare his prescence. --..5. =estcott, The (ospel of 8ohn ( rand !apids" Ferdmans, %&9%), l***iv, l***vii. #ncarnation, in its full and proper sense, is not something directly presented in 4cripture. --Caurice =iles, The "ema,ing of Christian Doctrine (Eondon" 43C $ress, %&':), A. od is only one. --2postle $aul, Epistle to the (alatians, A"@< 5or there is one od and one mediator also between od and man, the man >esus 3hrist. --2postle $aul, 0irst 9etter to Timothy, @"( +here is but one od, the 5ather. --2postle $aul, 0irst Epistle to the Corinthians, 9"B. 2nd this is eternal life, that they may know Gou, the only true od, and >esus 3hrist, whom you have sent. -->esus 3hrist, cited by the 2postle >ohn in The (ospel of 8ohn, %'"A. ;ot only did >esus and his first disciples accept >ewish monotheism without questionH 7e e*pressly reaffirmed it (4t. Cark %@"@&ff.).

9:

--!.>.=. .evan, Steps to Christian !nderstanding (8*ford Mniversity $ress, %&(9), %:<, %B'. 2 claim to be Deity in the +rinitarian sense would actually be blasphemous by >esus/ own standards, since he repeatedly affirmed that the 5ather was the only true od.01 8ut of respect and honor for >esus the Cessiah, 3hristians should adopt his >ewish creed in Cark %@"@&" ,7ear, 8 #srael, the Eord our od is one 9ord./ od is one Eord 0the ,Eord od/1. >esus is another Eord 0the ,Eord Cessiah/1. +hat makes t$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 that creed and align ourselves with the >esus Cessiah of history.01 #t seems strange that >ohn %"%-:, a handful of verses on >ohn, and a few other ;ew +estament passages should be allowed to overthrow the constant and massive biblical evidence for unitary monotheism. +he oneness of od as strenuously defended by priest and prophet and by >esus, who was as ardent an e*ponent of this part of his >ewish heritage as any of his compatriots.01 +here are no te*ts advanced in support of the orthodo* understanding of the odhead which have not been assigned another interpretation by +rinitarians themselves. 3an the biblical doctrine of od really be so obscure? #t may be simpler to accept the Shema of #srael and its belief in a unipersonal od. 4ince this was the creed spoken by >esus himself, it would seem to have an absolute claim to be the 3hristian creed. ;othing of the glory of the 4on is lost if he is recogni6ed as the unique human representative of od, for whom od created the whole universe and whom the 5ather resurrected to immortality. 7is position as -udge of mankind reflects the e*alted status of his Cessiahship, yet he derives all authority from the 5ather.01 Fven the suggestion that >esus is not od in the same sense as the 5ather appears to some as an unpardonable attack on 4cripture. Get >esus himself made it clear that here is only one true (od, and he named that one od as the 5ather. 7e always distinguished himself from od by claiming to be 7is messenger. 7e protested that he was not od but the 4on of od (>ohn %<"A:-AB). >esus was continually referred to as a man by ;ew testament writers even after his resurrection. ;ot one writer ever refers to >esus as ,the one true od/ or includes him in the phrase ,one true od./ >esus and od are e*pressly distinguished whenever they are mentioned together. +hey are two separate and distinct persons. +here are some %A(< unitarian 0proof1 te*ts in the ;ew +estament, besides the thousands in the 8ld +estament. +hese occur every time the 5ather is called od. >esus is called od (but in a different sense) for certain, only twice (>ohn @<"@9H 7eb. %"9). >ohn %"%, %: state that the ,word/ which (not who) was fully e*pressive of od K theos C became a man, the man >esus. +he constant use of , od/ for the 5ather hardly suggests that 7e and >esus are to be thought of as ,coequally od./ #n the 8ld +estament references to od with personal pronouns in the singular occur some %%,<<< times, informing us that od is a single individual. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9), ::, %'&, %9A, @&9. #f >esus was evidently not a +rinitarian, why should his followers be?

9(

--4idney 2. 7atch, ..2. (M3E2), C. Div. (2merican .aptist 4eminary of the =est), +h. C. (Dallas +heological 4eminary) " Trinitarian tatement of @aith 2 statement of faith by +rinitarian .ishop .everage, followed by theological commentary on the nature of the +rinity. =e are to consider the order of those persons in the +rinity described in the words before us in Catthew @9"%&. 5irst the 5ather and then the 4on and then the 7oly hostH everyone one of which is truly od 0yet why there is a ,first person,/ a ,second person,/ and a ,third person,/ in the odhead if they are all coequal and coeternal, none having come before the others, is a mystery1. +his is a mystery which we are bound to believe, but yet must e*ercise great care in how we speak of it, it being both easy and dangerous to err in e*pressing so great a truth as this is. #f we think of it, how hard it is to imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person. 8r three divine persons in no more than one and the same divine nature. #f we speak of it, how hard it is to find out words to e*press it. #f # say, the 5ather, 4on, and 7oly host be three, and every one distinctly od, it is true. .ut if # say, they be three, and everyone a distinct od, it is false. # may say, od the 5ather is one od, and the son is one od, and the 7oly 4pirit is one od, but # cannot say that the 5ather is one od and the 4on is another od and the 7oly host is a third od. # may say that the 5ather begat another who is odH yet # cannot say 7e begat another od. # may say that from the 5ather and 4on there proceeds another who is odH yet # cannot say that from the 5ather and 4on there proceeds another od. 5or though their nature be the same their persons are distinctH and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. 4o that, though the 5ather be the first person in the odhead, the 4on the second and the 7oly host the third, yet the 5ather is not the first, the son the second and the 7oly host a third od. 4o hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery arightH or to fit so high a truth with e*pressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it. --.ishop .everage, -rivate Thoughts, $art @, :9, :&, cited by 3harles Corgridge, The True *elievers Defence Against Charges -referred +y Trinitarians for #ot *elievin+g in the Deity of Christ (.oston" .. reene, %9A'), %B. # never had sense enough to comprehend the +rinity, and it appeared to me that comprehension must precede assent. --+homas >efferson, cited by 3... 4anford in The "eligious 9ife of Thomas 8efferson (Mniversity $ress of Lirginia, %&9'), 99. # should inform you, reader, concerning the origin of the +rinitarian doctrine" +hou mayest assure thyself, it is not from the 4criptures nor reason. --=illiam $enn 4ome of the arguments 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

9B

an e*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 %A<< times. 7e is also designated ,the only od/ (!om. %B"@'H >ude @(), ,the one who alone is od/ (>ohn (H::) and ,the only true od/ (>ohn %'"A). +here is one called the 4on, >esus 3hrist, who is given the title od (theos) twice for certain (>ohn @<"@9H 7eb. %"9), but is never called ho theos (used absolutely), the ,only od,/ ,the one who alone is od,/ or ,the only true od./ +he data hardly suggests that there are two who are to be ranked equally as od, both being the one od. 2dd to this the fact that od in the 8ld +estament is said to be a single individual thousands of times, and it should be clear that +rinitarianism does not do -ustice to the biblical data. Coreover, the titles ,only god,/ ,one who alone is od/ ,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 is coequal with the 5ather. $aul believed that the 4on would be for all time sub-ected 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 verse somewhere 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.01 Cany +rinitarians seem content to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time without trying to harmoni6e them" od is one and yet 7e is three. +his is what the official creeds appear to ask of them. .ut the .ible requires no such mental feat. 4ome +rinitarians attempt to escape the charge that belief in three persons, each of whom is od, must involve belief in three ods. +hey respond that od and >esus are not persons in the way we customarily use that term. +he obvious fact, however, is that every ;ew +estament writer describes >esus as being self-consciously different from the 5ather. +here is no mystification about the term 4on and no word about ,eternal generation./ +he contradictory proposition embodied in the +rinity is unnecessary, as well as unbiblical. #t tends to undermine both the cardinal biblical tenet that od is one and the foundation of all truth that >esus is the Cessiah, 4on of od and son of David (Catt. %B"%BH @ 4am. '"%:H 7eb. %"().01 #t seems quite ama6ing to us that there is no single case in 4cripture of the word , od,/ in thousands of references to the supreme 3reator, which can be shown to mean ,the +riune od./ #f , od/ nowhere carries the meaning , od in three persons,/ the case for the +rinity collapses. +he evidence strongly suggests that the +riune od is foreign to the biblical revelation. #ntelligent .ible study must search for a revised 3hristology which allows for the obvious and persistent subordination of >esus to the 8ne od 0>ohn '"%B1. +he category of Cessiah, the supremely elevated divine agent of od, will be found adequate to account for everything the ;ew +estament has to say about >esus.

9'

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

" Call to .eturn to !esus the 9essiah +he ospel was addressed to plain and honest minds, and plain and honest minds can understand its important and practical lessons. +he great principles of natural religion are so simple that our 4avior thought men could gather them from the birds of the air, the flowers of the field, and the clouds of heavenH and he demanded of those who stood around him, why they did not of themselves -udge what is right. +he ospel was addressed to the poor, the uneducatedH and it was committed to unlettered men to teach it to others. #t would be most strange, therefore, if only the learned could understand or 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 of uncompromising, pre-udiced, bigoted, infuriate polemicsH and enveloped in all the mystery and metaphysical abstruseness of theological controversy --.aledictory, from sermons of 7enry 3olman (n.p., %9@<), A@@, A@A. #t is a very natural concept for one reared in a modern 3hristian environment to accept the idea of a two- or three- person od, though no one has been able to give a logical e*planation of how three who are each called , od/ can in fact be ,one od./ #t stands as part of our religious heritage. +o believe otherwise is to run the risk of being stamped a dangerous heretic. +o the first 3hristians, however, the idea of a second, pree*istent person in the odhead was unthinkable.01 5or reasons best known to himself, this largely biblically illiterate emperor 03onstantine1, who did not fully understand the theological issues at hand, presided over one of the most significant debates 0the 3ouncil of ;icea1 ever to be conducted by the 3hurch. +he resolution adopted by the council was to have dramatically important long-term effects on the entire body of believers. 3onstantine/s -udgment favored the minority opinion at the council. +he decision taken is accepted by the vast ma-ority of 3hristians to this day K that >esus was coequal and coeternal with od, ,very od of very od./ +hus the second leg of the triangle of the +rinity became dogma. #t was to be completed in the ne*t century by the declaration that the 7oly 4pirit was the third $erson of the odhead.01 2 whole new theology was formally canoni6ed into the 3hurch. 4ince that time numberless devoted 3hristians who have disagreed wit the emperor/s enforced edict have faced torture and death at the hands of the 4tate and often other 3hristians.01 #n the early part of the %%th century 2D, 3hristian 3rusaders warmed to the prospect of liberating the 7oly Eand by force of arms. 2fter slaughtering Furopean >ews, they proceeded to wreak havoc on the monotheistic, ,infidel/ Cuslims who controlled the 7oly 3ity of >erusalem. +his carnage was instigated under the bloody banner of a +riune od. 4ome have suggested that #slam might never have found a place in the world of the single-person Deity of the >ews had

99

remained the 3hristian od.01 2fter coming under the influence of the early !eformation, 4ervetus continued his energetic study of the .ible and became the first $rotestant to attack the doctrine of the +rinity. 7is writings leave little doubt that he was e*ceptionally well-educated, schooled in both 7ebrew and reek. 7e declared in a somewhat emotive, even abrasive manner that the 3atholic dogma of the three divine $ersons in the odhead was a construct of the imagination, a monster compounded of incongruous parts, metaphysical gods, and philosophical debates. +he accusation attacked the notice of 3alvin who responded that 4ervetus ,deserved to have his bowels ript out, and be torn to pieces./01 3alvin, true to the spirit of 3onstantine, vowed to kill him when it was in his power to do so.01 4ervetus was burned at the stake 0the last words he screamed were ,>esus, 4on of the Fternal od, have mercy upon meO/1 for his opposition to a religious doctrine K the +rinity. 7e suffered a cruel death for daring to publish his honest, well-studied disagreement with hallowed tradition whose supporter felt threatened. +ime has not succeeded in erasing this fearful blot from established 3hristianity/s record.01 2 serious difficulty for +rinitarianism is the fact that nothing is said in the earliest post-biblical times of the 4pirit as the third person in the odhead. ;o formal +rinitarian definition of the 7oly 4pirit appears until A%9 2D at the 3ouncil of 3onstantinople. 8nly then was it declared that there are ,three persons in one od./ Core than tree hundred years after the ministry of >esus, the leaders of the 3hurch were uncertain about the nature of the 7oly 4pirit. Fven then many of them did not think of the 7oly 4pirit as a person. +here is, therefore, no unbroken +rinitarian tradition linking us with the writings of the 2postles.01 Cost helpful is 5rances Goung/s criticism of the entrenched idea of that only od 7imself can secure salvation for us and that therefore >esus must be od. +he problem with the orthodo* view is that the immutable od is incapable of suffering, temptation, or death. 2thanasius/ treatment of >esus/ temptation falls into docetism and leads to his apparently nonsensical conclusion that >esus ,suffered without suffering/.01 +his essay 02 3loud of =itnesses by 5rances Goung1 provides a compelling refutation of the comfortable view that the 5athers faithfully transmitted the ;ew +estament portrait of 3hrist.01 +he correctness of this evaluation is confirmed by the startling fact that there is no te*t in the ;ew +estament in which the term ho theos ( od) means ,5ather, 4on, and 7oly 4pirit./ +he reasons appears to be that no writer thought that od was ,three-in-one./ #t ought to be a matter of concern for +rinitarians that when they say , od,/ they mean the +riune od, but when the ;ew +estament (or indeed the whole .ible) says , od,/ a +riune od is never meant. #t would be hard to find more conclusive evidence that the +riune od is not the od of 4cripture.01 +rinitarianism confuses the Eord od with the anointed or appointed lord, the king 0>esus1. +he category of Cessiah is entirely adequate to account for the ;ew +estament understanding of >esus. +he .ible does not need the ,help/ of further developments in 3hristology which go beyond the confession that >esus is the 3hrist, the 4on of od. 2s 3hrist, >esus is the perfect image of the 8ne od. +he character and work of >esus demonstrate the character and work of his 5ather, as an agent represents his sender.01 #t is quite impossible to demonstrate belief in three coequal, coeternal persons from the 3hristian writings before the end of the second century. +his fact is widely recogni6ed by +rinitarian scholars. !oman 3atholics frankly admit that their doctrine of the +rinity came to them not from the .ible but from post-biblical tradition.01 Mnder the leadership of 3onstantine and the reek theologians of the fourth century, belief in the

9&

consubstantial Deity of >esus became a main plank in the doctrinal system of the 3hurch, and so it has remained. .ut the emerging +rinitarian theory presented a considerable problem for the theologians. 7ow were they to e*plain a Deity of two (and later three) persons and at the same time maintain that there was only one od? +he unity which 3onstantine/s council tried to foster became mired in endless debates about the nature of 3hrist. #f 3hrist were od, and his 5ather was od, did that not make two ods?01 8thers reasoned that if the 5ather begat a 4on, there had to be a time when the 4on did not e*ist. +he decision at ;icea in A@( 2D, and later at the 3ouncil in :(%, was to declare >esus +oth ,very od of very od/ and completely man at the same time. +he technical term for this combination of natures was the ,hypostatic union,/ the doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in 3hrist, the two natures constituting a single person. +he idea that 3hrist was both fully od and fully man, however, was selfcontradictory to many. od, they ob-ected, is by 7is very nature an infinite being, while man is finite. 8ne person cannot at once be both infinite and finite. Coreover, the >esus presented by the ospels, especially in the records of Catthew, Cark, and Euke, is obviously a fully human person distinct from od, his 5ather. ;ot a word is said by these authors about his being od, nor of his having pree*isted his birth.01 +heology/s insistence that we must believe an unproved theory that three is one and one is three K a theory which it admits it cannot e*plain or understand K has imposed an intolerable burden on 3hristianity and has ta*ed the common sense of anyone who attempts to worship od with all the soundness that the mind can muster, as he is instructed to do. +o impose an aura of sanctity on an unprovable and unbiblical concept because fourthcentury theologians in league with a ,3hristian/ emperor 03onstantine was actually a sunworshipper, and only ,converted/ to 3hristianity after having a dream in which he saw the first two letters of the word ,3hrist/. 7e continued to worship the sun, build temples for sun-worship, and mint coins dedicated to 4ol #nvictus K the sun od K even after his socalled ,conversion/ to 3hristianity. Despite the historical facts, the orthodo* 3hristian church continues to pretend that he was a man of great 3hristian faith.1 dictated the terms of the creed, elevates blind acceptance of dogma over the honest quest for biblical truth.01 5ew seem to be aware of the 3hurch/s accommodation to paganism and the compromise of true reverence for the od of 2braham, #saac, and >acob. +he resurrected 4on of od has had to compete with the invincible sun god, 4ol #nvictus, the god of 3onstantine. 3hristianity closed its eyes to biblical reality and simplicity when it decided that two or three persons compose the one od. +he promotion of this multiple Deity has been one of the greatest ideological successes ever accomplished. #t was achieved with the help of coercion, the sword, torture and the massive weight of pressure from a coalition of clergy and the state -oined in an unholy alliance, and benefiting from a mysterious concept. 3alling itself the 7oly !oman Fmpire, however, scarcely reflected its real nature. 2t the 3ouncil of ;icea, not only did 3onstantine e*communicate and e*ile anyone who refused to conform, he took the precaution of burning any letters of complaint and dispute. +his was a tragic suppression of unwanted facts, and history is filled with parallel e*amples. $romoting >esus as od K another, in addition to the 5ather K 3hristianity indeed ,bartered for another od/ ($s. %B":, ;24L). #t was to its shame and sorrow that it traded in the historical man, >esus Cessiah, whose desire, as od/s unique human agent, was to lead men to the 8ne odH in his stead it elevated the odman. reek mythology triumphed over 7ebrew theology. +hus 3hristianity sold its

&<

birthright. Fstablished religion had failed to accept 3hrist or his message during his brief so-ourn on earth. ;or has his ospel message of the Jingdom of od found wide acceptance among the clergy since that time. >esus has been transmuted into the odman, a figure less than human, a metaphysical construct of the reek speculative genius, not the man Cessiah, Jing of #srael, described by the 3hristian documents. Eost in the theological confusion was the reality of the human Cessiah who really died and was resurrected to immortality as an e*ample to mankind, bla6ing the trail for others who might follow him on the path to immortality through resurrection into the Jingdom of od on earth to be inaugurated at >esus/ return. =hen 3hristianity adopted a odhead of more than one person, it unwittingly flirted with idolatry. #t embarked on a course of lawlessness by embracing ,another od/ besides the only true od, the 5ather. 3hristianity thus broke the first commandment and has continued on the same troubled path, unaware of the source of its intractable problems. #t could be argued that the sheer weight of numbers agreeing on the +rinitarian concept is sufficient evidence for the correctness of the belief. 7ow could all these people be wrong? #n reply it can be asked, when has the ma-ority mentality been the -udge of right and wrong? #s the earth lat or the center of our universe? $rotestants allow that the whole 3hurch had gone wrong for a thousand years before Euther called it back to 4cripture. +here is reason to believe that the !eformation needs to continue.01 8ne of the leading spokesmen for fundamental 3hristian evangelism remarked on a nationwide television broadcast that no theologian had ever been able successfully to e*plain to him the doctrine of the +rinity. +his seems to imply that one must simply place one/s confidence in the decrees of fourth- and fifthcentury 3hurch 5athers that it is so. .ut we may ask the question" =ho gave those reek theologians the right to decide 3hristian theology for all time? =ho invested them with the power to declare infallibly that the odhead consists of three coeternal persons?01 +he early church fought and lost the battle for belief in the unipersonal od. .ut with a determination to take an ob-ective, fresh look at the hard evidence of the .ible we may find that the +riune od concept becomes little more than an adult theological myth. +rinitarians are at a loss to produce a single passage in the .ible in which the doctrine of the +rinity is clearly stated. #f we accept the words of the founder of 3hristianity at face value, belief in the +rinity challenges his teaching about the most important law and the focal point of all true religion K belief in the od who is a single, undivided being 0Cark %@"@&, >ohn %'"A1.01 $aul follows >esus when he states that there is no od but the 5ather (% 3or. 9":, B).01 =ith remarkable consistency the .ible insists on the unique personality of the 8ne od, creator and 5ather, and the necessity of knowing this 8ne od, the 5ather, and 7is 4on, the Cessiah. +hese strictly monotheistic te*ts dispel any idea that there can be more than one who is truly od. 4cripture opposes the idea that we are at liberty to accommodate our conception of od to cultural environment, however well-meaning our intentions. +o do so is to court paganism and inevitable polytheism, which is the ruin of true faith.01 #t is naTve to suppose that we can translate the biblical, 7ebraic concept of Deity, held as the foundation of true faith by >esus, into reek thought without the risk of disastrous damage. #t is fanciful to think that the +rinitarian and .initarian systems, which claim to have roots in the .ible, can really be harmoni6ed with the strict Mnitarianism of >esus and the 4criptures. +he persistent ob-ection of the >ews that 3hristianity has betrayed its origins by corrupting the cardinal doctrine of od must be acknowledged.01 .y quoting the ,4hema/ K ,Eisten #srael/ K >esus was

&%

affirming with the greatest possible emphasis the bedrock tenet of true belief 0Cark %@"@&1. =e are asked only to believe that the creed of 3hrist is the 3hristian creed, binding therefore on all 3hristian churches. #f the Shema is incompatible with +rinitarianism, the creed of >esus will not match our orthodo* creed.01 +he first step towards the recovery of biblical 3hristianity would be an honest recognition that >esus was a >ew, and that as such he confirmed the theology of the prophets of #srael. +he story of #srael/s failure to know od lay precisely in their inability to cling to the unipersonal od, the 3reator of heaven and earth. =hereas #srael fell into the hands of 2ssyria and .abylon, the 3hristian 3hurch was captured by the alluring world of reek philosophy. #t abandoned the od of #srael. +he ,#srael of od/ ( al. B"%BH cp. $hil A"A), the new 3hristian people, most unreasonably forsook the creed of #srael. =hen 3hristianity modified its original creed and adopted belief in a od composed of three persons, it bartered for another od K to its multiplied grief 0$salm %B":1. 5rom that disaster, only a wholehearted recovery of biblical belief in 8ne od, the 5ather, in >esus as the Eord Cessiah, and in his ospel message about the coming Jingdom of od 0Catthew :"%', @AH &"A(H %A"%&H @:"%:H Cark %"%:, %(H Euke :":AH 9"%, %@H &"@, B, %H 2cts 9"%@H %&"9H @<"@(, A%H @ +imothy :"%, @1 can lead it to the glories of a new day.01 >esus did, of course, claim to function for od as 7is agent. 7is words are the words of od. 7is acts are the acts of odH and the 5ather has conferred on him the right to forgive sins, -udge the world, and even raise the dead. +hus it is that 8ld +estament verses which have Gahweh as their sub-ect can be applied in the ;ew +estament tot eh activity of the 4on who acts for Gahweh. +rinitarians fail to understand the 7ebrew principle of agency when they attempt to show from these verses that >esus is Gahweh. 7e is not Gahweh but 7is supremely elevated representative. >esus/ equality of function with his 5ather does not mean that >esus is od. 4uch an idea is an impossibility in >ohn/s ospel which insists that the 5ather is ,the only true od/ (%'"A) and ,the one who alone is od/ (("::).01 +he casualties in the dispute over the nature of od and >esus were the cardinal biblical truths about the unipersonal od and the real humanity of >esus 0>ohn %'"AH ("::H Deut. B":H Cark %@"@&ff. % 3or. 9":-BH Fp. :"BH % +im. @"(H >ude @(1. 4ince the way to eternal life begins with a proper appreciation of the 5ather as the only true od, and >esus as Cessiah (>ohn %'"A), .ible readers should be alerted to the possible serious damage done to the faith when philosophically-minded reeks read the ospel of >ohn without a sound basis in the 8ld +estament, and with too little regard for the 3hristology of Catthew, Cark, Euke, and 2cts, which was too hastily dismissed as ,primitive/.0..1. +he reestablishment of a Cessianic 3hristology and harmony between all four ospel writers would do much to reunite believers around the central ;ew +estament affirmation that >esus is the 3hrist, the 4on of od, herald of the coming Jingdom of od. +his, after all, is what >ohn set out to prove, declaring that life is to be found in the >esus who is 4on of od and Cessiah (>ohn @<"A%H cp. Catt. %B"%B). +he invitation to believe and obey that >esus remains as modern and as urgent as ever. 2 return to >esus, the Cessiah, will involve a rediscovery of the 4ynoptic ospels and the ospel about the Jingdom of od, the much-neglected saving message of the historical >esus and the 2postles.01 4ome of the arguments 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

&@

an e*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 %A<< times. 7e is also designated ,the only od/ (!om. %B"@'H >ude @(), ,the one who alone is od/ (>ohn (H::) and ,the only true od/ (>ohn %'"A). +here is one called the 4on, >esus 3hrist, who is given the title od (theos) twice for certain (>ohn @<"@9H 7eb. %"9), but is never called ho theos (used absolutely), the ,only od,/ ,the one who alone is od,/ or ,the only true od./ +he data hardly suggests that there are two who are to be ranked equally as od, both being the one od. 2dd to this the fact that od in the 8ld +estament is said to be a single individual thousands of times, and it should be clear that +rinitarianism does not do -ustice to the biblical data. Coreover, the titles ,only god,/ ,one who alone is od/ ,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 is coequal with the 5ather. $aul believed that the 4on would be for all time sub-ected 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 verse somewhere 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.01 Cany +rinitarians seem content to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time without trying to harmoni6e them" od is one and yet 7e is three. +his is what the official creeds appear to ask of them. .ut the .ible requires no such mental feat. 4ome +rinitarians attempt to escape the charge that belief in three persons, each of whom is od, must involve belief in three ods. +hey respond that od and >esus are not persons in the way we customarily use that term. +he obvious fact, however, is that every ;ew +estament writer describes >esus as being self-consciously different from the 5ather. +here is no mystification about the term 4on and no word about ,eternal generation./ +he contradictory proposition embodied in the +rinity is unnecessary, as well as unbiblical. #t tends to undermine both the cardinal biblical tenet that od is one and the foundation of all truth that >esus is the Cessiah, 4on of od and son of David (Catt. %B"%BH @ 4am. '"%:H 7eb. %"().01 #t seems quite ama6ing to us that there is no single case in 4cripture of the word , od,/ in thousands of references to the supreme 3reator, which can be shown to mean ,the +riune od./ #f , od/ nowhere carries the meaning , od in three persons,/ the case for the +rinity collapses. +he evidence strongly suggests that the +riune od is foreign to the biblical revelation. #ntelligent .ible study must search for a revised 3hristology which allows for the obvious and persistent subordination of >esus to the 8ne od 0>ohn '"%B1. +he category of Cessiah, the supremely elevated divine agent of od, will be found adequate to account for everything the ;ew +estament has to say about >esus. --4ir 2nthony 5. .u66ard and 3harles 5. 7unting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianitys Self-Inflicted Wound (8*ford" #nternational 4cholars $ublications, %&&9),

&A

B<, %(%, %(@, %(A, %(:, %((, %(B, %(', @A', @B%, @BA, @'(, @'B, @'', @&:, @&&, A<<, A<', A<9, A<&, A%A, A%B, A%', A@:, A@9, A@&, AA@, AAA, AA:, AA(, A:A. " Biblical Comparison of the @ather and the on od is 4pirit (>ohn :"@:) >esus is not spirit (Euke @:"A&) od is always perfect ($salm %9"A<) >esus was not always perfect (7ebrews ("&) od cannot be tempted by evil (>ames %"%A) >esus was tempted by evil (Catthew :"%, 7ebrews :"%() od is good ($salm 'A"%) >esus did not consider himself good (Cark %<"% od is immortal (% +imothy B"%B) >esus died (Catthew @'"(<) od does not sleep ($salm %@%":) >esus slept (Cark :"A od is omniscient (% >ohn A"@<, $salm %:'"() >esus is not omniscient (Euke @"(@, Cark %A"A@, 7ebrews ("9, Catthew @:"AB, Cark ("A<) od is omnipotent (>eremiah A@"%', >eremiah @A"@', !evelation %&"B, >ob :@"@) >esus is not omnipotent (>ohn ("A<) od is omnipresent (# Jings 9"@', $salm %A&" >esus is not omnipresent (>ohn %%"%() od is invisible (# >ohn :"%@, # +imothy %"%') >esus is visible (Euke @:"A&, !evelation %) od is greater than all (>ohn %<"@&) >esus is not greater than all (>ohn %:"@ od is not a man (;umbers @A"%&, 7osea %%"&, >ob AA"%@) >esus is a man (% +imothy @"(, see also here) 3learly, the 5ather and the 4on are not coequal. 2fter all, >esus said so. 2ccording to >esus, the 5ather is the Uonly true odU. U+his is eternal life, that they may know Gou, the only true od, and >esus 3hrist whom

&:

Gou have sent.U -->esus (>ohn %'"A) #f >esus is not a +rinitarian, why should his followers be?

&(