A Critique of "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound," by Anthony

Buzzard and Charles Hunting

To get this book review in PDF format, send me your e-mail.
For years I have heard critics make the claim that the term "trinity" does not appear in the New
Testament and that the concept of the trinity was lacking in the primitive church. This was an
objection I faced some 25 years ago as a new believer, one I have been consistently asked about over
the course of my time as a university pastor, but only now, after all these years have I taken the time
to examine the issue carefully. I must thank Mr. Buzzard for providing the impetus to spend what has
become a fair amount of time on this project. It has not been a waste of my time and I hope reading
this review will not be considered a waste of time.
Throughout his book, Mr. Buzzard makes some good observations, but he approaches each biblical
text straining for ways to use it to support his position. This straining quickly becomes apparent. My
plan is take each chapter, one at a time, and address his various arguments, one at a time.
Chapter One
The God of the Jews
Although I have numerous specific points of disagreement with Buzzard, I basically agree with the
thesis of this chapter - the Jews strongly held to a monotheistic faith. This separated them from all
other cultures. [Since writing this paper I have become aware of and read Larry Hurtado's work on
this very topic, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans 2003). You can
find this listing on Amazon.]
Chapter Two
Jesus and the God of the Jews
Again, I have no fundamental disagreement with Buzzard here. Jesus was a first century Jew speaking
to monotheistic Jews. Buzzard, by necessity, takes a strong Ebionitic (an emphasis on the humanity of
Christ) position - Jesus is only a man, anointed to be Messiah, and not (as the Council of Chalcedon
affirms) two coexistent natures. Although I mostly agree that Jesus was a man while he walked the
earth, I cannot apply OT monotheism to the NT - I will explain this point a bit later.
Again and again in this chapter Buzzard rhetorically asks "Why would Jesus consistently speak in
monotheistic terms if he knew himself to be coequal with God?" This is a strong argument to face for
anyone who claims omniscience for Jesus while he walked the earth. For me it makes no difference
since I agree with Buzzard on this point - I do not assume Jesus to have divine knowledge in his
earthly existence. Whenever the text indicates that he knew something extraordinary it can be
attributed to what would be called a spiritual gift rather than inherent knowledge.
Buzzard points to two texts where John records the Pharisees attacking Jesus by accusing him of
claiming to be equal with God,
"This fellow blasphemes. Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Mark 2:5,7 (p.43)
"For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make
yourself out to be God."
John 10:32-36 (p.45)
Jesus does not defend himself by arguing for divinity, but rather in the second text actually answers
the attack in a way that seems to argue against his divinity. Buzzard minimizes the attack, but no
matter how Jesus answered them, the attack speaks volumes. The gospel writers did not make up the
charges and if they had been concerned that a non-divinity message be heard they would have clearly
stated it as they do with other topics on several other occasions. Mark is especially fond of giving
explanations (see 4:33,34). These accusations against Jesus were not trivial.

On page 46, Buzzard uses another anachronistic argument, "Moses would have been shocked to learn
that the prophet...preexisted as God." This argument is quite simplistic. Indeed, Moses would have
been utterly shocked to know that Messiah would be born of a virgin and be himself raised from the
dead! The entire section beginning on page 46, "Old Testament Expectations about the Messiah," is
based on a faulty premise, yet one that continually appears in Buzzard's presentation: that the people
in the OT correctly understood the promised Messiah and that the apostles correctly understood it as
well. This is an overly optimistic view, an argument which I will address more fully later.
Buzzard consistently falls back to the Hebrew OT for background and his historical/literary critical
observations. Parsing the Hebrew text is not typically helpful when attempting to discern literary
meaning in NT writings. Though Jesus spoke Aramaic and according to the gospels, could read the
Hebrew OT, Mark and Luke write in Greek and used the LXX in their OT citations. Matthew and John
may have been familiar with the Hebrew text, but their citations reference the LXX as well. The point
is, all of Buzzard's discussion of OT Adonai and Adoni have little merit except to give historical
background to the first century Jewish understanding of the Hebrew OT. The only exception would be
to the reference of Psalms 110:1 where Buzzard places his focus. Though his analysis of this text
appears sound, it continues to give unmerited emphasis on the Hebrew OT understanding of
distinctions with reference to God, not relevant to NT discussion. Quite simply, if the NT writers
understood this distinction between Adonai and Adoni, they would have been more careful with their
usage of "Lord." They would have given some explanation, yet this never happens. [Hurtado should
also be consulted on this point. As will be seen below, he gives convincing arguments for an openness
in first century Jewish monotheism for a "binitarian" worship of kurios Jesus with YHWH.]
His comments on Paul's simple creedal formula in 1 Cor 8 is an interesting example of how Buzzard
deals with textual criticism. He first states that Paul has the Hebrew Bible in his mind (we can only
assume he thinks Paul has Psalm 110 in view since this is Buzzard's favorite OT text), "Paul carefully
distinguishes... between the 'one God, the Father,' and the 'one Lord Jesus Christ'." Yet he fails to
inform the reader of two very critical points:
1. Paul never cites Psalm 110 in any of his writings, making it difficult to ever assume that he has this
text in mind or is being guided by it; and
2. Paul uses the same construction in this text to describe God and Christ, "but to us God is one the
Father, from whom all things [come] and in whom we [are], and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
all things [come] and in whom we [are]."
[The Greek construction of this text is given in the PDF version of this review.]
So when Buzzard says that Paul "carefully" distinguishes between the two I partially agree. Paul has
carefully used the same wording for both which indicates that God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ
are seen and related to us identically. In the next chapter Buzzard states, "the New Testament
applies the word God - in its Greek form ho theos - to God, the Father alone some 1350 times. The
words ho theos (i.e., the one God), used absolutely, are nowhere with certainly applied to Jesus." p.87
Here in 1 Cor 8, in this carefully crafted creed, Paul does not use the article ho with God, thus
according to Buzzard's strictly enforced Greek grammar, Paul is saying "a God." Perhaps Paul is
actually referring here to the Greek understanding of the demiurge God, the evil "god" that created
the world. Of course not, but this is how we could use Buzzard's strict grammatical logic to
misrepresent the text. Buzzard tells the reader only what will agree with his already presupposed
thesis and ignores all other evidence.
Hurtado deals extensively with the early usage of kurios in his comprehensive work and gives a good
account of how Paul uses "Lord" as a designation for Jesus to clearly identify him with YHWH in the
Old Testament (see pages 108-118 where he specifically deals with 1 Cor 8:6 and the Philippians 2
text mentioned below). Hurtado reminds us that in the LXX YHWH is translated kurios,
In this astonishingly bold association of Jesus with God, Paul adapts wording from the traditional
Jewish confession of God's uniqueness, known as the Shema, from Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear O Israel:
The Lord our God is one Lord" (Kyrios heis estin [LXX], translating Heb. Yahweh 'echad). Hurtado,
p.114

Finally, in this chapter Buzzard cites Bart Ehrman as a scholar who "records extensive evidence of
deliberate alteration of the New Testament manuscripts...by which Jesus is called God instead of
Christ." (p.57) Ehrman, a well known NT scholar at UNC and author of Lost Christianities: The Battles
for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, has the same tendency to cite only the evidence that
agrees with him. I have not read the volume cited by Buzzard, but I have read Ehrman's "Lost
Christianities," hailed by the liberals of our day as revealing and honest scholarship, yet replete with
examples of cleverly stated half truths. Ehrman rarely says anything I can completely disagree with,
but he consistently ignores contrary data commonly known among early church historians. It should
be noted that after making this bold claim for Ehrman's work of "extensive evidence," the only
example Buzzard cites from Ehrman is a reference to a Persian harmony of the Gospels. Surely
Buzzard could have found more examples, or a better one, from Ehrman's "extensive" evidence. Well,
maybe not.
Chapter Three
Did Jesus' Followers Think He was God?
The only item I want to comment on in this chapter is Buzzard's analysis of the Thomas confession in
John 20.
As mentioned in the discussion in the previous section, it rarely works when a person builds a theology
or doctrine on a particular linguistic thread. The reason for this is that no writer or body of literature is
100% consistent if the corpus is of any significant size. Once a position is established based mainly on
a linguistic phrase, any deviant text must be explained. Buzzard's explanation of the Thomas
confession strains credulity. Thomas realized that after his resurrection Jesus was to be "God" for the
Coming Age. (p.89) This makes even less sense when you take into account the fact that John uses
the article ho when Thomas confesses, "My Lord and my God" (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou).
Interesting that the gospel writers, recording the history some 30-60 years later fail to clearly reflect
this knowledge that Jesus was only to be the "God" of the coming age. Throughout this chapter
Buzzard sarcastically asks why the apostles did not openly speak of the divinity of Jesus if it had been
so. Would this not also apply to this realization of Jesus being the "God" of the Coming Age? Much of
his rationale is based on the assumption that the Lord wants us to know and understand - that the
gospel writers tell us exactly what we need to know. Yet only John gives us this glimpse of the
important role and title (god of the coming age) of the resurrected Christ and he gives this message in
a most encrypted fashion. This is an absurd argument.
Chapter Four
Paul and the Trinity
Buzzard opens this chapter stating the obvious: that Saul was a monotheistic first century Jew. Then
he states that Saul's opposition to the early Christians was due to his rejection of the Messianic claim
of Jesus and the threat to the established religion of Israel.
Buzzard again exegetes 1 Cor 8:6, but really adds nothing new to his argument. For the most part his
argument is based on rhetoric: Paul was a monotheist and why, if he had become a Trinitarian, does
he not explain this change. Notice in this creed that Paul does not say, "there is only one God, Adonai
and Jesus the Messiah who is Adoni." Buzzard used this rubric as his foundation for the OT
understanding and wants the reader to believe that this was the guiding principle for the gospel
writers. While I have serious doubts that most of the NT writers knew the Hebrew text, Paul certainly
did, yet he makes no overt effort to guard the sacred Name of YHWH. If Paul is so guided by his
Hebrew understanding, why does he only use Greek terms to designate theos, kurios and christos? He
uses Hebrew terms at other times (as do other NT writers) but nowhere does he make the kind of
reference to the sacred name. Buzzard fails again to address the internal construction of this creed in
which Paul uses identical phrases to describe the believer's relationship with both the Father (not
Adonai) and kurios Jesus.
Buzzard deals with the Philippians 2 text (pp.99-104) in the same way. He outlines what he has
already stated concerning Paul's belief of one God - the bulk of his argument goes over the same old
ground. Only in the last paragraph does he address the key factor of this text, "every knee will bow

and every tongue confess." Of course, Buzzard opens this paragraph with the key Messianic Psalm
110:1 [which Paul never uses] and states that rather than at the name of Jesus, the text should read
in the name. (p.104) Paul is citing Isaiah 45:23, part of a text that is clearly a "one God" text. Yet Paul
is using it in reference to Jesus. He does this in Rom 14:11 as well, but in Romans he more
accurately cites "every tongue" confessing to God (tw thew, omega ending with iota subscript). In the
Philippians text his use of this text is, "...every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of
God the Father." Even if this confession is to the Father, the confession is about Jesus as kurios. In this
text Paul has just said that God has "exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name above
every name." "Well," (I am sure Buzzard would say) "we know Paul does not mean every name, being
a law abiding, first century Jew he would never think Jesus would be above YHWH." Yet, this is
exactly what Paul is saying.
There are two very important points here:
1. Paul (and some other NT writers) consistently uses very similar, or exact wordings referring to Jesus
that are used in the OT in reference to God.
2. Buzzard consistently overlooks key aspects of textual criticism in his arguments. He does, however,
end this particular presentation with his tenth reminder of what seems like his only real textual
evidence, "The lord at God's right hand, it must remembered, is adoni ("lord"), which is never the title
of Deity." p.104
Chapter Five
The Hebrew World and Greek Philosophy
Buzzard has an easy target when it comes to criticizing the Platonism of the early church. The church
fathers, many of them trained in the classics, did allow their Christian faith to be influenced by
Platonism. Blaming this Platonism, Buzzard consistently says the trinity and deity issues did not come
up in Christianity until Nicea (325 AD) and then "Christians were forced to accept belief in a
preexistent, second person of the Godhead..." p.37. He is either ignorant of early second century
Christian writers, or dismissive of these writings, or would offer some strange interpretation of them
as he does with NT texts. In any case, the divinity of Jesus had been established long before the time
of Justin Martyr. Here we have Ignatius of Antioch (circa 112-128AD) affirming Jesus as God in the
flesh, the Word - and to keep anyone from misunderstanding that he might be speaking of Jesus as
some kind of intermediary spirit, "both made and not made,"
There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God
existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even
Jesus Christ our Lord. - Ignatius to the Ephesians 7 (short version)
...our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father
and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the
Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of
Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh." - Ignatius to the Ephesians 7 (long version)
While it is true that we have two versions of Ignatius (a short and a longer, more "orthodox" version),
one can see a strong pre-existence Christology even in the shorter version. The Roberts-Donaldson
introduction on this issue is sound and can be found on the internet:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/ignatius.html.
Buzzard attacked Justin Martyr as embracing Greek philosophy so we will skip his testimony. Irenaeus
represents another strain in the early church that spoke against what he called "heretics" and against
philosophy. Here he is arguing against one of the Gnostic views of Jesus (making this text somewhat
difficult to follow), and in the midst of this he interjects the contemporary view of Christ. Note that
Irenaeus is fairly consistent with Ignatius, but also further elaborates the divinity of Jesus,
Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the
Word of God. For if any other of the AEons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been
probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same
also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good

pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak
regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to
them, the Word did not originally become flesh. For they maintain that the Saviour assumed an animal
body, formed in accordance with a special dispensation by an unspeakable providence, so as to
become visible and palpable. But flesh is that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the
dust, and it is this that John has declared the Word of God became. Thus is their primary and firstbegotten Ogdoad brought to nought. For, since Logos, and Monogenes, and Zoe, and Phos, and Sorer,
and Christus, and the Son of God, and He who became incarnate for us, have been proved to be one
and the same, the Ogdoad which they have built up at once falls to pieces. - Irenaeus, Against the
Heresies 9.3
The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has
received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of
God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the
prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and
the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus,
our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in
one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord,
and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father... - Against the Heresies
10.1
Buzzard knows enough about what he calls neo-Platonism (p.117) to point to Philo and his city of
Alexandria, but his analysis falls woefully short. The movement he refers to is now known as Middle
Platonism, and indeed, Philo of Alexandria is a source. Philo does make reference to the Eternal Logos,
but his position is much more nuanced than Buzzard makes out. He maintains that John is actually
disputing the Philonian influence that had infiltrated the Church via Apollos in Acts 18:24-28 (p.133).
Yet according to Luke, Apollos was well received by the saints. By the time Paul writes to the
Corinthians he acknowledges that the Alexandrian Apollos, a man skilled in rhetoric, had left a positive
mark on the church, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gives the increase." (1 Cor.3:6) Buzzard
says that the Alexandrians (this would include Apollos) "opposed the Truth with their speculation."
(p.133) Yet the biblical text reads that Apollos "vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving
from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ." There are numerous signs of Alexandrian (and perhaps
Platonic) influence in the NT (John, 1 Corinthians and Hebrews), making it difficult to denigrate it
completely.
In his attempt to prove that Jesus is not worshipped in the NT, Buzzard tells the reader, The Greek
verb proskuneo is used both of worship to God and doing obeisance to human persons.It is highly
significant that another Greek word, latreuo, which is used of religious service only, is applied in all of
its 21 occurrences exclusively to the Father in the New Testament. p.139
Buzzard is only partially correct here. He is correct that proskuneo is used with both humans and God
as the object in the NT, but there are three critical texts ignored by Buzzard (Acts 10:25, Rev 19:10,
22:8) - all three speak of someone falling on the ground (proskuneo) in front of a person or an angel
and being rebuked for doing so. Yet in Matthew 28:9 and 17 we read, "Suddenly Jesus met them,
'Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped (proskuneo) him." In three NT
texts when this is done the "worshipper" is rebuked, the object of the "worship" states that the
worship is inappropriate. In the Acts text Peter actually says, "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man
myself." Yet Jesus does not rebuke his worshippers. Buzzard (p.139) wants us to believe that Jesus is
here being worshipped appropriately as the Messiah, but the contrast of this text with the other three
makes this a weak argument. It is also never stated that Jesus is being worshipped as Messiah. When
Thomas confesses, "My Lord and my God," (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou) how is the reader to
know that Thomas is really worshipping Jesus as Messiah? He could have simply said, "My Messiah!"
As many times as the gospel writers explain pericopes to make sure the reader gets the point, this is
one text that either reads simply and plainly (which I believe it does) or needs some explanation.
Next I want to point out Buzzard's error in his comment on latreuo. For the most part he is correct latreuo is mainly used in reference to the Father, but Buzzard says this word is used exclusively in

reference to the Father. In Acts 7:42 this word is used to refer to "the worship (latreuo) of heavenly
bodies." This is not just an error with respect to the evidence, but reveals a weakness in Buzzard's
methodology. Buzzard bases many of his arguments on word usage. Using his logic, Jesus is not
worshipped as God (since proskuneo is used at times in reference to humans) and the Father is not
worshipped either since latreuo was used once pointing to idolatry. Buzzard's methodology fails in one
argument after the next because ancient authors do not tend to use particular words in the same
fashion all the time.
Buzzard's position on pantokrator at the end of this chapter is another example of his strained
methodology. He states that the "title, pantokrator, is nowhere given to Jesus." He then continues
with a very cumbersome reading of the two critical pantokrator texts, Revelation 1:8 and 22:6, trying
to assign speaking roles to the angel of the Lord. While Buzzard does make his case with a
subjunctive, "it may well be" - his argument takes his assumption for granted. There are, however, a
few items in these two texts that point to Jesus and pantokrator as one and the same.
Buzzard maintains that the Father is the one coming on the clouds in power rather than Jesus. How he
comes to this decision is not clear, but that he is incorrect is exceedingly clear. The text quoted in Rev.
1:7 says that "he is coming with the clouds" and everyone will see him, "even those who pierced him,"
an obvious allusion to Jesus. The Lord Jesus says he is coming in Rev. 2:25 and in 3:11. Then 22:20
says, "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." Paul
writes of the returning of the Lord in both Thessalonian letters, clearly referencing Jesus in 2 Thess.
1:7, "This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful
angels." Finally, the words of Jesus himself make it clear, "...the Son of Man will appear in the sky...the
Son of Man coming on the clouds." (Matt. 24:30) Add to all of these instances the fact that Buzzard (in
chapter 8, p.206) refers to the "Son of Man" vision in Daniel 7:13,14 as the historical backdrop for the
Messianic ascension texts, and his argument is frustrated all the more.
Once it is admitted that Jesus is the One coming on the clouds with powerful angels, Rev. 22:12,13
shows him (Jesus) to be the Alpha and Omega. Jesus is also the pantokrator. This, of course, is why
Buzzard must have an alternative explanation for who is coming. But there are more soft spots in his
argument. If it is the Father speaking in Rev. 22:13, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the
Last, the Beginning and the End," (all three of these have the same meaning) then Jesus refers to
himself in the same way. In Rev. 1:17 and 2:8 Jesus says "I am the First and the Last," (ego eimi ho
protos kai ho escatos) - the exact phrase used in Rev. 22:13.
With an accidental caveat, Buzzard admits that his entire logos argument is dubious when he ends this
chapter saying, "In John's Gospel the logos (word), being a somewhat ambiguous term, might be
liable to misunderstanding." (p.140) Buzzard's explanations are obtuse enough to warrant such an
admission.
Chapter Six
The Trinity and Politics
It is not my place to defend 2,000 years of Christian history, but Buzzard makes no attempt to present
this history with an objective voice. He skips the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists
of the second century. He completely overlooks the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (circa 112-128 AD)
which affirm the pre-existent Logos of John 1:1. Buzzard paints the most negative picture of
Constantine possible without any effort to give the positive evidence that comes from the admittedly
biased writings of Eusebius. Because Buzzard has concluded that Constantine is the great Trinitarian
heretic, he refers to his "supposed vision" that helped lead him to victory in the Battle of the Milvian
bridge. While we are certain that Constantine held to many of his pagan views, there are also
numerous indications that he had some kind of genuine faith.
When he recounts the story of Arius (pp.149-153) he implies that only the Arians suffered
persecution. He fails to report how many times Athanasius was driven into hiding to escape possible
execution at the hands of the dominant Arians in the Alexandrian region.
Chapter Seven
The Nature of Preexistence in the New Testament

I do not know enough about this topic to make an abundance of comment, but I do have a few
observations. First, on page 160, Buzzard makes the following citation, "When the Jew wished to
designate something as predestined, he spoke of it as already 'existing' in heaven." He is quoting
Selwyn's work on 1 Peter. I am not familiar with Selwyn or his work, but regardless, Buzzard uses this
citation to state a somewhat arcane position. In over 20 years of reading and study I do not
remember ever having heard any substantial discussion on this topic. Because this topic is not a
common one, a good scholarly treatment would have done far more than what Buzzard has done - he
simply gives the reader the work and the page number. I am supposed to believe this statement
because Selwyn (who may be a good scholar) says it is so? Even the best scholar will sometimes
present a position with weak evidence. Nonetheless, Buzzard should give us more of Selwyn's
evidence if he is resting his position on Selwyn's work.
Buzzard goes on to discuss predestination and foreknowledge, two complicated concepts, and
problematic from a human standpoint no matter which position is taken. Yet Buzzard is able to explain
these difficult concepts in 3-4 pages. After further discussion on "the 'preexistence' of Jesus" he makes
this statement,
There is a perfectly good word for "real" preexistence in the Greek language (prouparchon). It is very
significant that it appears nowhere in Scripture with reference to Jesus, but it does in the writings of
Greek Church Fathers of the second century. - pp.166,167
Buzzard selectively cites the use of Greek without proper explanation - he tells you only what he
wants you to know. When he says that prouparchon is never used to refer to the preexistence Jesus,
yet is a "perfectly good word for 'real' preexistence" he simply obfuscates the NT usage of this word.
He is correct when he says that prouparchon is never used to describe Jesus - this word is only used
twice in the NT and neither time is it used for preexistence.
That day Herod and Pilate became friends - before this (prouparchon) they had been enemies.
Luke 23:12

Now for some time (prouparchon) a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed
all the people of Samaria... - Acts 8:9
[Other translations render "had previously practiced" here.]
Both times this word is used in the NT it is clearly used for a past event "in space and time." If the
Greek fathers used this word for preexistence it only shows how the Greek language changed from
first century NT usage to second century (mainly) non-Jewish usage. Buzzard's use of this Greek word
is a red herring. He uses it because he knows that most of his audience either will not know how to
check Greek usage, will not have the tools to do so, or will simply believe his representation.
Chapter Eight
John, Preexistence and the Trinity
Buzzard states (pp.182-83) that William Tyndale had translated autos in John 1:1-4 as "it" - "All things
were made by it" and says the use of this pronoun is ambiguous (p.191). The translation of the
pronouns autos and outos is always dependent on context and John uses both in the context of an
aforementioned person. For clear examples of autos translated for a person, see (John 1:27; 2:12,25;
7:10; 9:21; 14:10; 18:1). For clear examples of outos translated for a person, see (John 1:7; 3:2;
4:47; 5:26; 6:46; 7:40,41).
There are several reasons that justify a translation of autos and outos as personal pronouns. Buzzard
says (p.192) that the original reader would not have thought of "word" as the pre-existent Son until
verse 14 when the "word" becomes "flesh." Yes! And this is context. The original OT reader would not
think the snake lifted up on the staff in the desert was supposed to foreshadow the Messiah, but it did.
Verse 14 has a great deal to do with the translation of John 1:1-4. But there's more.
Buzzard correctly attempts to use other Johannine writings to help interpret/translate John 1:1-4.

However, his exegesis of 1 John 1:2 (p. 191) is grossly inadequate. He tells us that John gives his own
commentary of John 1:1 in 1 John 1:2 where the writer uses a similar construction. Buzzard's
exegesis of this verse in 1 John is one sentence in length, then he moves on to show supposed
parallels in 1 Peter. As we are consistently finding with Buzzard, he flings sand in the eyes of the
reader while failing to touch on the most salient points of evidence. Indeed, he hopes nobody will
notice!
Buzzard fails to point out that in 1 John the writer is speaking of "That which was from the beginning"
(very similar to the opening of John). What is this "something?" Should ho be translated "it"
throughout this passage? I doubt it since John says this "it" was heard, seen with the eyes, and
touched by their hands. Buzzard would respond, "Yes, and what does John say they are proclaiming the Word (logos) of life. So you see that word is not at all the preexistent person of Jesus." The text
obviously speaks of Jesus who was heard, seen, and touched by the disciples. But John goes on to say
that this "life appeared" - the same word used in 1 Timothy, "he appeared in the flesh" (3:16).
There is another literary critical argument that would lead to a translation of the masculine article in
front of logos - John uses logos in Revelation in the same way,
I saw...a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True....His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his
head are many crowns....and his name is the Word [logos] of God....Out of his mouth comes a sharp
sword..." (Rev 19:11-15)
The name of this rider is "the Word of God". This person is also called "Faithful and True," a title Jesus
uses to refer to himself in Rev 3:14. His eyes are like blazing fire, the same description used of Jesus
(Rev 1:14; 2:18). This rider has a sharp sword coming out of his mouth, almost exactly like the
description of Jesus (Rev 1:16; 2:12,16).
It is certainly true that John is the only NT writer to clearly refer to Jesus as the "word," or logos, but
he does so in his gospel, the Revelation, and at least the subtle reference in 1 John 1:1. This fact
alone allows for the translation of logos as a masculine noun. Buzzard insists that the gospels all stand
in harmony and that to use John's gospel as the Trinitarians do would put that gospel in contradiction
with the synoptics (p.190). As I will clearly point out in the conclusion, there are distinct differences in
the way the synoptics and John present Jesus. For example, the synoptic gospels refer to Jesus as
"Son of Man" significantly more often than "Son of God," 3-4 times more often. John uses these two
appellations equally, yet refers to Jesus most often (more than twice as much) as "Lord." Paul differs
from all four gospels. He never uses "Son of Man" and rarely uses "Son of God," but refers to "our
Lord Jesus Christ" quite often. Do these differences represent a contradiction? I do not think so. As I
will discuss more fully in the conclusion, I think it does point to a developing Christology in the
primitive church.
Buzzard makes the same claim in the previous chapter (p.168) using another weak Greek argument,
"Not only do they [the synoptics, Acts and Peter] not hint at a pre-human Son of God, they contradict
the idea by talking of the origin (genesis) of Jesus (Matt. 1:18)." The problem here is that genesis is
never translated "origin" in the NT. This word occurs twice (Matt. 1:18; Lk 1:14) and both times is
translated as "birth." Genesis comes from the root verb, gennao which means "to beget" (Liddell and
Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1989, p.140). This is a lexicon for all Greek usage, from
Homeric Greek to Classical and NT Greek. There is a preferred NT word for "origin" - arche, the same
word used by John to indicate the origin of the logos. Again, Liddell and Scott defines arche, "a
beginning, first cause, origin," (p.106). In fact, when Jesus refers to OT Genesis he uses arche, "...at
the beginning (ap arches) the Creator 'made them male and female'." (Matt 19:4; Mk 10:6) I am no
longer surprised when I read Buzzard's inaccurate and patently false statements concerning Greek.
One last comment on the biblical use of logos - I believe there is a precedent for John's use of logos in
Luke's gospel, "...the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by
those who from the beginning (ap arches) were eyewitnesses and servants of the word (tou logou)"
(Lk 1:2). There are several points to note in this verse:
1. It occurs at the beginning of Luke's gospel as does John's logos text;
2. Luke uses arche, though admittedly not as a reference to creation;

3. The text says that they were eyewitnesses to the word. An eyewitness, implying something
physical, and a servant of the word (in the genitive). Luke is referring to Jesus, but John takes the
logos to the next level.
On pages 193-194 Buzzard argues that "no occurrence of the Hebrew word davar (word)
corresponding to John's Greek word logos provides any evidence that the 'word from the beginning'
means a person..." First, I am unconvinced that the usage of the Hebrew davar informs us of the
Greek logos at all. There is a similar word usage in John 1:9 that, I believe, can inform us, "The true
light that gives light to every man was coming into the world." Is there any doubt that John is here
referring to Jesus? There is probably not a corresponding usage in the OT - "light" coming into the
world as a person - but in the Johannine corpus, Jesus is the Light (John 8:12). This does not mean
that every occurrence of phos is a reference to Jesus, but John 1:7-9 certainly is one. It is no surprise
that John also says "God is light," (ho theos phos esti).
Buzzard's commentary on John 3:13 and 6:62 (pp.205-210) are inadequately based on the underlying
concept that John's gospel is in complete harmony with the synoptics. He rightly points to "Son of
Man" vision in Daniel 7:13,14 as the historical backdrop for these ascension texts, but his logic is
strained. Twelve times in these five pages, Buzzard refers to these "ascended" passages as
"enigmatic," "difficult," and "challenging." His explanation is that "things may be said to have already
happened in God's intention, while they await actual fulfillment in history in the future." (p.209) These
certainly are difficult passages if you cannot accept preexistence - Buzzard comes up with the only
way to explain it otherwise. Yet, does Jesus speak this way on any other subject? And why would he
speak this way on such an important topic? A simple reading of these texts gives the plain meaning Jesus somehow came from heaven.
Buzzard's presentation and argument of the "I am" (ego eimi) texts (pp.218-221) is weak and
continues to reveal weaknesses in his overall argument. Buzzard wants to insert the personal pronoun
"he" into these texts, thus "Before Abraham was, I am [he]," John 8:58. This would be beyond belief
except that the reader, by page 218, has become accustomed to these anemic arguments. In his
arguments on John 1:1-2 he goes to great lengths to argue against the use of a personal pronoun
(although, as I documented, John uses both autos and outos as a personal pronoun), and now he
wants to insert "he" where absolutely no pronoun exists.
The famous "I AM" text of Exodus is rendered ego eimi in the Septuagint. It is important to remember
that Jesus almost certainly did not speak these words in Greek, but rather in Aramaic. This, of course,
would put more emphasis on the declaration than ego eimi can convey. The fact that John records
these pericopes with ego eimi in Greek seems to indicate his intention of showing the claim of Jesus,
or at least the view the church had of Jesus at the end of the first century.
Against the suggestion that we insert the personal pronoun after "I am," it also needs to be pointed
out that the construction of the John 8:58 text is unusual. Either the statement ends as most
translations render it, "I am," or it must read "I am before Abraham was born." Either reading is
unusual and points to the intentionality of John to make a point of showing a claim of Jesus to divine
equality. Other "I am" texts just make no sense if John is not making this point (John 6:20; 13:19;
18:5). Buzzard explains the "I am" texts this way, "Before Abraham was, I am [he, the Messiah]."
(p.220) This reading makes some sense in John 4:26, but not John 8.
Chapter Ten
The Conflict Over The Trinity in Church History
Buzzard's mistrust of the early church fathers seems to begin with Justin Martyr. He singled out Justin
in chapter five, and now he does it again saying that Martyr "was one of the first of the post-biblical
writers to develop the doctrine of the preexistence of Christ." (p.241) From Justin moving forward,
Buzzard tries to show that the "Logos" presented in John's gospel was highly disputed. While it is true
that the Christology of the primitive and the early church was not static, it is also true that most of the
early writers erred on the side of doceticism. But it is also true that these early writers were struggling
to understand and explain how John's presentation of Jesus fit together with the synoptics. Unlike
Buzzard, these writers were not in denial - they openly addressed the apparent preexistence in John's
Christ. As was documented in the chapter five discussion above, the first early writer we can point to

was Ignatius of Antioch (112-128 AD), "both made and not made; God existing in flesh...even Jesus
Christ our Lord." (To the Ephesians 7, short version)
While it is true that Justin's logos theory expands the meaning in John's gospel, there are several
second century examples of logos that illustrate a closer connection. At the very least these writers
illustrate the early belief in the eternal nature of Jesus, taking John's presentation at face value.
Theophilus of Antioch (cir. 168-180 AD)
"...the Word of God, who is also His Son...'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God'...The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God..." Theophilus to Autolycus
II.22
Athenagoras (cir. 177 AD)
"But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him
and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one..." A Plea for the Christians 10
While this text does suggest the logos of Justin (logos being the mind and reason of the Father) the
point here is that the early fathers saw Logos in John 1:1 to be one and same with Jesus.
Clement of Alexandria (cir. 190-198)
"This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our wellbeing, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man..."
Exhortation to the Heathen 1
There are many places where Clement diverges from the standard orthodoxy of the day, but here we
see him giving a straightforward reading and interpretation of John 1. Here is where Buzzard's
presentation of early Christianity fails miserably. Early Christianity, like the primitive NT church, was
very diverse. Buzzard consistently refers to Nicea (325 AD) and the approved creed of that council as
the place and time of a major theological shift. While it is true that Nicea is the first "formal"
declaration of the divinity of Christ, we have demonstrated the divinity of Christ from documents (cir.
110-200 AD) prior to Nicea. Those in attendance at Nicea were quite familiar with these early writings.
In fact, the opinions of the church fathers held great influence on each succeeding generation. This
can be illustrated by highlighting a portion of the Letter of Ignatius To the Trallians where we find an
early witness to what later becomes The Apostle's Creed and The Nicean Creed.
Jesus Christ....descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the
Virgin, but not after the same manner....He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate....He
descended, indeed, into Hades alone....He also rose again in three days, the Father raising Him up;
and after spending forty days with the apostles, He was received up to the Father, and "sat down at
His right hand, expecting till His enemies are placed under His feet... Trallians 9
While the Arian controversy was the main reason for the historic council (only around 230 bishops
attended with almost none coming from the western region), Arius' views were soundly rejected. It is
important to understand that the various councils and creeds were called to make attempts at
doctrinal harmony. Just as Paul's writings were typically didactic or correctional in nature, so too the
numerous early church writings. Buzzard points out that traditional Christology has always suffered
from a latent docetism (p.128). This is true, but there were also attacks from ebionitic error. This is
exactly why councils were called and creeds written. Buzzard picks out various characters who
diverged from traditional Christology, but one can find dissenting opinions and controversies
throughout church history. This only shows that there could not have been some conspiracy or
doctrine posited solely for political expediency. More often than not one finds the fathers openly
struggling with the difficulties presented in the biblical text.
Finally in this chapter, Buzzard points to several more recent critics. I am compelled to pull a comment
from one of the citations Buzzard uses. Commenting on orthodox Christology, John Knox says it is "as
difficult to define as to defend." (The Humanity and Divinity of Christ, 1987, pp.98-99) Buzzard, like
many fundamentalists and literalists, believes that the text answers all questions - he does not seem
to see any tension or gray areas. As mentioned above, many of the fathers realized that the biblical

text is the very best attempt at the impossible - to define and explain the eternal and infinite God.
Chapter Eleven
The Challenge Facing Trinitarianism Today
The first thing I want to address in this chapter is another example of Buzzard's lack of good
scholarship. On page 283, while discussing Romans 9:5, Buzzard cites F.F. Bruce as a conservative
who "warns against charging" as "unorthodox" those who treat the words ['who is over all, forever
praised'] "as applicable to the Father." Bruce does say this, but only after a full page of affirming the
reading as one that applies to the divinity of Christ (all references, Romans, Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries, F.F. Bruce, [Eerdmans 1990, 3rd edition] p. 176):
They may be taken, on the other hand, as in apposition to 'the Christ'; so RSV margin: 'who is God
over all, blessed for ever' (similarly AV, RV, NIV). The latter construction is more in keeping with the
general structure of the sentence.
Yet for Paul Christ is the one in whom, through whom and for whom all things were created (Col.
1:16), in whom 'the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily' (Col. 2:9).
Moreover, when Paul gives Jesus the title 'Lord', he does so because God the Father has bestowed this
title on him as 'the name which is above every name' (Phil. 2:9). This title 'Lord' is given to Jesus by
Paul as the equivalent of Yahweh; his application of Isaiah 45:23 (cf. Rom. 14:11) to Jesus in
Philippians 2:10-11 indicates that to him the confession 'Jesus Christ is Lord' is equivalent to 'Jesus
Christ is Yahweh.'.
It is only after making these statements that Bruce concedes the other reading is plausible, but
"involves a delicate assessment of the balance of probability this way and that." (pp.176-77) F.F. Bruce
uses his British humor here to say that these arguments are strained, and failed attempts. Bruce also
points the reader to five scholars for further research who at least give a valid rationale to disagree
with him.
This is just another example of how Buzzard uses secondary scholarship. He cites Bruce in a way that
implies Bruce's agreement with him on the particular issue. Because I have used several works by
Bruce in my research through the years, I doubted Buzzard's representation of him, and I was correct.
Buzzard's comments on Mark 13:32 (pp. 288-89) also need to be addressed. His basic point is to take
issue with the Chalcedon creedal statement that both human and divine natures resided equally in
Jesus. Buzzard rightly states that this formula cannot be found within the biblical text. He is also
correct in his critique of the difficulties of this position: how can Jesus be both fully human and fully
divine at the same time? It strains logic. The focus in the Markan text is the knowledge, or limited
knowledge, of Jesus. "The theory by which Jesus did and did not know the day of his future coming
would render all of his sayings unintelligible." (p.288) The Chalcedon creed is problematic. The fathers
of this council (and in every age) were struggling to comprehend and explain the God of the universe,
while at the same time protect biblical concepts from error. But this is the same critique made against
the omniscience of the Father. How can Yahweh know the future without impinging on man's freewill?
Being omniscient, Yahweh is necessarily directly responsible for evil. I know the kind of straining used
to explain these points - I present these arguments of logic to illustrate the difficulties faced when
trying to explain the infinite God.
The easy way to refute Buzzard's critique is to affirm the full humanity of Jesus while he walked this
earth as a man (per Philippians 2) and that he did not know all - the past, the future, nor everything
happening concurrently with him while he lived on the earth.
Buzzard maintains (p.140) that it is the Father speaking in Rev. 22:13, "I am the Alpha and the
Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End," (all three of these have the same
meaning). We have already shown that Jesus refers to himself in the same way in Rev. 1:17 and 2:8
by saying "I am the First and the Last, who died and came to life again." I agree with Buzzard that

God cannot die, and therefore Jesus could not have been God since he died. But these logical and
theological difficulties are exactly the kind that lead to difficult creeds...like Chalcedon.
See the evidence of the trinity in the New Testament and my conclusions.
R.A. Baker
Ph.D. Ecclesiastical History

John 10
<< Previous Verse

Next Verse >>

34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I

SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?

35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and

the Scripture cannot be broken),

36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into

34 - 39

the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, ' I am the Son
of God'?
37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the

works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is
in Me, and I in the Father."
39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He

eluded their grasp.

C
O
M
M
E
N
T
A
R
Y

This passage has been the object of much discussion, commentary, and debate among those
with differing views about the Deity of Christ. Some claim that Jesus denies that He is God,
taking for Himself the lesser title "Son of God." Others argue that Jesus is asserting that He
is God, co-equal with His Father. Still others say that Jesus is neither affirming nor denying
His Deity, but rather is answering the specific charge of blasphemy (v. 33). Which of these
views, if any, is correct?
To answer this question, there are several rather complex issues to unravel.
First, we must look to the context. What has Jesus just asserted that roused the Jews to such
anger that they would accuse Him of blasphemy? What does He say following this
passage? Next, we must determine the meaning of the Old Testament verse Jesus is quoting
in His defense. Then we must understand why Jesus quotes this passage - what is it about
this passage that counters the accusation of blasphemy? Finally, we must put these pieces
together to reconstruct Jesus' argument and place it in context with what precedes and
follows.
Context
This pericope begins with the Jews gathering around Jesus in the Temple portico, asking
Him to tell them in plain terms if He is the Messiah (v. 24). Jesus answers by giving two
reasons they should already know the answer to this question: His words and His works (v.
25). Jesus says that the reason they do not know He is the Messiah is not because He has
failed to speak clearly or to manifest who He truly is through His miracles, but because they
lack faith (vv. 25 - 26). Jesus says that His sheep know Him and hear His voice, but the
Jews are not His sheep (vv. 26 - 27). To this point, while Jesus may well have provoked his
listeners to anger, there is nothing in what He has said that warrants the charge of
blasphemy. But then Jesus says, "I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish" (v.
28). Here Jesus claims for Himself the Divine prerogative of granting life to His sheep. The
Jews knew that only YHWH gives life (Deut. 32:39), let alone eternal life. Then Jesus
equates His power to keep His sheep firmly in hand with His Father's power to do the same
thing (vv. 28 - 29). The Jews knew that the Father was "greater than all," but when Jesus
said that He had the same power to preserve His sheep as His Father has, this was a clear
claim to equality with God. Jesus further drives the point home with His assertion that He
and His Father are "one" (v. 30). It is at this point - and with good reason, from their
perspective as unbelievers - that the Jews prepare to stone Jesus. Jesus immediately
challenges them by returning to one of the two reasons He has given for making clear that
He is the Messiah - His works: "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which
of them are you stoning me?" (v. 32). This is not an evasive response - and it does not
follow that Jesus' subsequent response will be evasive, either. The Jews reply that they are
not stoning Him for His works, but for claiming to be God, which is blasphemy, according to
their Law (v. 33).
Some have argued that the Jews are accusing Jesus of nothing more than being "a god," on
the basis that the Greek word theos ("God") lacks the article in this verse and on Jesus' use of
Psalm 82 (see below). While many nouns without the article in Greek are indefinite, many

others are not. Context, once again, is our sure guide for determining meaning. If the Jews
believed that "a god" could grant eternal life or was equal to the Father in the power to
preserve the Sheep, there might be some warrant for theos in this verse being rendered "a
god." But this is manifestly not the case; while some might be called "gods," in the OT,
none were ever said to have Divine powers such as these. Further, the Law against
blasphemy did not pertain to those claiming to be 'a god,' but was specific to defaming the
name of YHWH (Lev. 24:16), which any man did who claimed to be God or equated his
power with YHWH's power. The Jews would be risking their lives if they were to stone
Jesus on the grounds of the Temple for anything other than a Law clearly defined in the
Hebrew Scriptures.
Immediately after quoting Psalm 82 in His defense, Jesus again returns to the testimony of
His works (vv. 37 - 38). Jesus then repeats what He has previously asserted in slightly
different words: "The Father is in Me and I in the Father." This further appeal to an intimate
relationship in which the Father's intimacy with the Son is no less than the Son's intimacy
with the Father incites the Jews beyond talking and Jesus must elude them and flee. It may
be said here that if Jesus' appeal to Psalm 82 is meant as nothing more than an answer to the
charge of blasphemy, as some commentators allege, He has completely undermined His
defense with new claims of unity and equality with His Father. It would seem untenable,
given that He knew the hearts of his accusers, that Jesus would provoke the Jews with such a
statement, unless it was a logical extension of what He has just said.
The Meaning of Psalm 82
The words quoted by Jesus in John 10:34 are from Psalm 82:6. The pertinent section reads
as follows:
I said, "You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High.
Nevertheless you will die like men
And fall like any one of the princes."
There has been much debate about whom "you" refers. There are three common
suggestions: 1) Angelic beings; 2) the Children of Israel at Sinai when they received the
Law; 3) human judges or rulers who have judged unjustly. Many who argue that ancient
Israel practiced a form of polytheism or henotheism argue for option #1. They see this verse
preserving an old tradition in which the pagan gods are judged by YHWH. The problem
with this view is that Jesus' appeal to this verse presupposes that it refers to human beings; if
it refers to angels, the Jews could rightly ignore Jesus' defense, for He is not an angel
claiming the title "God," but a man (v. 33). Jerome Neyrey makes an interesting case for
option #2 ("I Said Ye Are Gods:" Psalm 82:6 and John 10). Neyrey argues that extraBiblical Jewish literature from shortly after the time of Christ indicates that the Jews thought
that the Children of Israel had, in a sense, become "gods" when they received the Law.
However, they almost immediately fell into idolatry and lost their divine status. The chief

problem I see with Neyrey's otherwise provocative article is that there is simply no example
of the Israelites being called "gods" in the Bible, and Jesus' argument is based specifically on
Scripture which "cannot be broken." In my view, Jesus' reference is unlikely, on the one
hand, to rely on Psalm 82, and on the other, on a Midrashic interpretation of it. Option #3 is,
on the whole, the most likely. In the immediate context, the "sons of the Most High" are said
to judge, albeit unjustly (v. 2). There is probable Biblical precedent for calling human
judges "gods" (Exodus 22:8, 9; Judges 5:8,9). The judges were "gods" in the sense that the
"word of God came" to them as a Divine commission to perform a duty on earth that
ultimately belongs only to God. The judges, then, parallel Jesus - though to a lesser degree;
for He received a Divine commission par excellence and every work He does is that of the
Father (cf., 5:19ff).
Jesus' Use of Psalm 821
There are two important points to raise when considering why Jesus quotes this particular
Psalm in His defense: 1) The Jews base their charge of blasphemy on what they see as
Jesus' self-proclamation of Deity: "You being a man make yourself out to be God" (v. 33);
and 2) Jesus' use of Psalm 82 must be consistent with the overall answer that Jesus is giving
the Jews to their challenge to say "plainly" whether He is the Messiah (v. 24).
Regarding the first point, we may say that Jesus' use of Psalm 82 refutes the foundation of
the Jews' accusation. The judges in Psalm 82 do not "make themselves" gods, but rather the
divine title is given to them by God, on the basis of their commission ("to whom the Word of
God came."). In affirming that He is the Messiah, Jesus uses this general principle to declare
that His divine title ("the Son of God") was not of His own proclamation, but comes as the
result of the Father's commission ("sanctified and sent into the World;" cf., Mark 1:11;
Luke3:22).
Regarding the second point, Jesus cannot be simply using an ad hominem argument to evade
the charge of blasphemy2 because both before and after verses 34 - 36, He is claiming far
more than merely being "a god" in the sense the Judges were "gods." The judges in Psalm
82 are not said to grant eternal life to their followers, nor to be equal to the Father in their
power to hold them fast. If Jesus were making an ad hominem argument, He would be
essentially saying, "You don't know your own Scriptures - I am simply calling myself 'the
Son of God' in the same way God calls the judges in Psalm 82 'gods' and 'sons of the Most
High.'" The Jews could simply respond, "We know what God called the judges - but you are
not claiming to be 'a god' like the judges - you are claiming to be far more than they! You
have claimed a blasphemous unity with God unlike any exampled in our Scriptures, let alone
Psalm 82!"
The same can be said of Jesus' title, "Son of God." If Jesus meant to say that His divine title
is less than the judges' title (that is, that 'Son of God' is a less exalted title than "a god"), the
Jews could rightly reject His answer as equivocation. Jesus is defending His statements
prior to verse 34. Thus, "Son of God" must be viewed as meaning the same thing as One
who grants eternal life, who holds His sheep in a grip as powerful as His Father's, and who is
One with the Father. Indeed, Jesus knew well what the Jews would make of this title - the

Jews had accused Him before of using this title to make Himself "equal" with God (5:18).
Jesus' subsequent statement, which again repeats His claim to profound unity with His
Father, and which the Jews understand as confirming their accusation, makes clear that Jesus
is using Psalm 82 to establish the Biblical basis for the exclusive claims He is making.
There is, of course, no "Biblical basis" in the OT for the specific divine title, "The Son of
God," nor for the specific claims Jesus is making for Himself. The judges of Psalm 82 are
called "gods" on far less merit than Jesus. Jesus is using Psalm 82 to establish a general
principle - namely, that it is not blasphemous for one with a divine commission to be called
by a divine title. Having established this point beyond dispute ("the Scripture cannot be
broken"), He then establishes the basis for His unique divine title in His correspondingly
higher divine commission ("whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world"). Jesus'
title and claims are, therefore, included within the general principle, and He cannot
legitimately be accused of blasphemy.
The Argument in Context
The Jews have asked Jesus to plainly say if He is the Messiah. We may summarize His
response as follows:"You should already know the answer to this question: My words and
my works tell you plainly who I am. The reason you don't know who I am is because you do
not believe. My sheep hear my voice and know me, but you are not my sheep. I grant
eternal life to my sheep, and no one can snatch from my hand those that the Father gives
me. My Father is greater than all and no one can snatch my sheep from my Father's hand my Father and I are One!"At this point, the Jews understand that Jesus is making exclusive
claims of equality with God, which (unless true!) are blasphemous. Jesus asks which works
He has done that warrant the charge of blasphemy. The Jews reply that they are not stoning
Him for His works, but for the words He has just spoken. Jesus replies as follows:
"The Scripture says that God calls the judges in Psalm 82 'gods' on the basis of their divine
commission. Thus, since the Scripture cannot be wrong, it is not blasphemy for one with a
divine commission to have a divine title. I do not have a commission like the judges; I have
an exclusive commission from my Father, for He set me apart and sent me into the world - to
do the works you have seen, to say the words I have said, to grant eternal life to my sheep, to
hold them fast in the same way my Father does, for He and I are One. Therefore, I have not
committed blasphemy! But even if you persist in denying my words, you should believe on
the basis of my works, for they prove that the Father is in Me in the same way I am in Him:
we are One!"
The Jews, of course, do not believe Jesus - not because they misunderstand Him (such would
suggest that Jesus was ineffective in communicating His identity, or was being consciously
deceptive) - but because they lack faith. They are not Jesus' sheep, as He has said. Thus,
their rejection of Him lies in denial and self-deception, the root cause of all who reject God
and His Christ (Romans 1:18 - 19).

G

R
A hOTI EG EIPA THEOI ESTE
M
M I said gods you are.
A
T
I said (hoti ego eipa). Recitative hoti before a direct quotation like our quotation
I
marks. Eipa is a late second aorist form of indicative with -a instead of -on. (RWP)
C
A
Ye are gods (theoi este). Another direct quotation after eipa but without hoti. The
L
judges of Israel abused their office and God is represented in Ps 82:6 as calling them
gods (theoi, elohim) because they were Gods representatives. See the same use of

A
elohim in Ex 21:6; Ex 22:9, Ex 22:28. Jesus meets the rabbis on their own ground in
a thoroughly Jewish way. (RWP)
N
A
L
Y
S PROS hOUS hO LOGOS TOU THEOU EGENETO
I
S With whom the word of God was

To whom the word of God came (pros hous ho logos tou theou egeneto).
The relative points to ekeinous, before. These judges had no other claim to the
term theoi (elohim). (RWP)

KAI OU DUNATAI LUTHNAI h GRAPH

And cannot be broken the scripture

O
T
H
E

And the scripture cannot be broken (kai ou dunatai luthenai he graphe). A

parenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appeal, one that the Pharisees had
to accept. Luthenai is first aorist passive infinitive of luo, to loosen, to break.
(RWP)

Jehovah's Witnesses
OBJECTION:

The New World Translation renders John 10:33 as follows:

The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even
V because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.

I
E Greg Stafford defends the translation "a god" in this verse as follows:
W The fact that Jesus answered the Jews by quoting Psalm 82:6 (where beings other than
S Jehovah are called "gods") shows that they had accused him of claiming to be "a god," not
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
E
D

"God" (Stafford, p. 116).

Mr. Stafford suggests that if the Jews had accused Jesus of being God, then his response in
citing a text where others are not called God would not refute their point and would be
essentially meaningless in
reply.
RESPONSE:

Mr. Stafford's argument seeks to prove that the Jews accused Jesus of making
Himself 'a god' solely on the basis of His reply to them. While Jesus' reply is essential in
understanding this passage, so is the surrounding context.
First, it is important to note that the Jews do not make their accusation on the basis of Jesus
calling Himself "God's Son." Instead, it arises from the following claims:
1. He has implicitly agreed that He is the Messiah (v. 25).
2. He has said that the Jews are not "His sheep," to whom He will give eternal life (v. 28).
3. He has said that no one can snatch His sheep from His hand (v. 28).
4. He has said that His Father is "greater than all" (v. 29).
5. He has said that no one can snatch His sheep from His Father's hand (v. 29).
6. He has said that He and His Father are one (v. 30).
Now, I could agree that the Jews might have thought Jesus was making Himself "a god" if
somewhere in their Scriptures there was 'a god' who had equated Himself to YHWH in this
manner. But nowhere do we find 'a god' saying anything like these claims. Jesus says that He
is the one who grants eternal life; He places Himself on equal footing with His Father - who
is "greater than all" - in claiming that He will keep His sheep firmly in hand; He has claimed
to be "one" with His Father. This last cannot be a mere claim to "unity of purpose," for even
the Jews would say that they are "one with God" in this regard.
For the Jews, Jesus' statements were claims to Divine prerogatives rightly belonging only to
YHWH. Furthermore, the specific accusation is blasphemy; I am unaware of any Biblical
definition of blasphemy that deals with claims about being 'a god.' Unless Mr. Stafford can
provide proof otherwise, this fact supports the traditional interpretation - that is, that the
Jews accused Jesus of making Himself God.
This interpretation is further supported by Jesus' subsequent remarks, in which He reaffirms
his Unity with His Father in slightly different terms (v. 38). Had the accusation been merely
that He was making Himself "a god," and if Jesus knew the hearts of His listeners, why does

Jesus further incite them with another provocative statement He knew they would
misunderstand? Is He trying to mislead them? On the other hand, if Jesus is answering their
challenge by asserting His Deity, his further statement in vv. 37ff simply amplifies the point;
knowing their hearts, He pushes the point home - "I'm answering your question directly: I
am the Messiah, and all that that title entails - but you do not believe because you are not of
my sheep."

OBJECTION:

In personal correspondence, Mr. Stafford has argued as follows:

Hence, Jesus replies [to] the accusation, telling them that if those against whom the word of
God came can be called gods, then surely the one sent by God can be called a god (per the
Jews' argument), or in parallel thought, God's Son:
Sons of the Most High (Psalm 82) = gods (plural)
God's Son (John 10) = a god (singular)
RESPONSE:

While I agree with the first statement, I do not believe the second is logically

sound.
I would rephrase his equations as follows:
sons of the Most High (Psalm 82) = gods (plural)
a son of the Most High/God = a god (singular)
It does not follow that "a son = the Son." Mr. Stafford's argument is, in fact, a logical fallacy
known as "affirming the consequent."3
The link Mr. Stafford forges between the 'sons of the most High' in Ps 82 and "God's Son" in
John 10 is not quite the one Jesus does. If Mr. Stafford were right, the Jews could simply
answer:
"Hey, no fair, Jesus! We know that in some contexts, beings other than God can be called
'gods," but you weren't claiming to be 'a god' or "a son of God" in that sense; you were
claiming the prerogatives of the true God just now! Don't just toss an ad hominem argument
our way - you are committing blasphemy, and Ps 82 doesn't get you off the hook!"
The title "God's Son" must mean essentially the same thing as "I and the Father are one" and
"no one can snatch them out of my hands / no one can snatch them out of my Father's
hands." In other words, it must be understood as making the same claim to Deity as the
statements to which the Jews are reacting. Mr. Stafford argues on the basis that Jesus'
argument must be a meaningful response to the Jews. I agree. Thus, Jesus cannot be
claiming something less than His previous statements, or less than those that follow - all of
which caused the Jews to accuse Him of blasphemy. Indeed, in John 5:19ff, we find the Jews

reacting in much the same way to Jesus' statement that God is "his own Father."
With this in mind, we may rephrase Mr. Stafford's equations as follows:
sons of the Most High (Psalm 82) = gods (plural)
God's Son (John 10) = equal with God (John 5:19) (singular)
Jesus cannot turn to an OT passage in which one who is commissioned by God is called the
Son of God. But He can point to a passage that establishes the general principle that it is not
blasphemous for one with a divine commission to be called by a divine title ("sons of the
Most High;" "gods"). Jesus' own title, the Son of God, is justified by His commission par
excellence, because it is included within the Scriptural principle He has just established.

Notes
1 For a detailed analysis of Jesus' use of Psalm 82, see W. Gary Phillips, "John 10:34-26: An
Apologetic Study," Bibliotheca Sacra, 584 (1989). I am indebted to Phillips' study
throughout this next section.
2. Robertson is typical of those advocating this view: "As Jews (and rabbis) they are shut
out from charging Jesus with blasphemy because of this usage in the O.T. It is a complete ad
hominem argument" (RWP). D.A. Carson argues: "Although it is ad hominem - i.e., it does
not require Jesus to subscribe to the same literal exegesis as his opponents - it is not for that
reason silly" (Carson, p. 399). In my view, if Jesus uses an exegesis contrary to the Jews,
He has not effectively answered them. It would allow the Jews to reject His answer on the
grounds of equivocation - that is, that He now claiming that "the Son of God" means no
more than "sons of the Most High" in Psalm 82. I think it better to understand Jesus as
establishing a general principle that the Jews would have to agree with, on the basis of their
acknowledgement that "the Scripture cannot be broken."
3. This fallacy may be illustrated as follows: If I am in Toledo, I am in Ohio. I am in Ohio,
therefore I am in Toledo (not necessarily; I might be in Cleveland). Similarly, if one is the
Son of God, one is a son of God. But that does not mean that "a son of God" is the same
thing as "the Son of God." The "gods" in Ps 82 are "sons of the Most High," but that does
not make them the Son of God.

John 17

<< Previous Verse

Next Verse >>

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Commentary Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this: Knowing the Father in an
intimate way as well as His Son. Salvation depends on knowing both Father and
Son. Jesus is the "way, the truth, and the life." No one comes to the Father but
through the Son, for it is the Son who "explains" the Father, the beloved and One
and Only Son who is in the heart of the Father. The Son does everything the
Father shows Him, is one with the Father, and assures us that when we have seen
Him, we have seen the Father as well. The Son is God in every sense the Father
is (1:1), does whatever the Father does (5:19); is to be honored equally with the
Father (5:23), and is confessed at Lord and God (20:28).
It would be strange, indeed, if a secondary god, a created being, sent to reveal the
Father, would equate knowing him with knowing the Father, in the context of
salvation. Unless, of course, He was essentially equal with the one true God,
who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him.
This Gospel is replete with assertions that life is in Christ: "In him was life, and
that life was the light of men" (1:4). "The Son of Man must be lifted up, that
everyone who believes in him may have eternal life" (3:15-16). "The water I give
him will become in him [who drinks it] a spring of water welling up to eternal
life" (4:14). See also 5:21, 26; 6:33, 54; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6. These words and
others like them emphatically express the central purpose of Jesus: to glorify the
Father by imparting life to men.
The second sentence (v. 3) defines the nature of eternal life. It is not described in
chronological terms but by a relationship. Life is active involvement with
environment; death is the cessation of involvement with the environment,
whether it be physical or personal. The highest kind of life is involvement with
the highest kind of environment. A worm is content to live in soil; we need not
only the wider environment of earth, sea, and sky but also contact with other
human beings. For the complete fulfillment of our being, we must know God.
This, said Jesus, constitutes eternal life. Not only is it endless, since the
knowledge of God would require an eternity to develop fully, but qualitatively it
must exist in an eternal dimension. As Jesus said farther on in this prayer,
eternal life would ultimately bring his disciples to a lasting association with him
in his divine glory (v. 24) (EBC).
Grammatical
Analysis
hINA GINSKSIN SE TON MONON ALTHINON THEON

so that they should [get to] know you, The only true God
GINSKSIN
Should know (ginsksin). Present active subjunctive with hina (subject
clause), "should keep on knowing" (RWP).
The word know (ginsksin) here in the present tense, is often used in the
Septuagint and sometimes in the Greek New Testament to describe the
intimacy of a sexual relationship (e.g., Gen 4:1, "lay"; Matt. 1:25, "had
union"). Thus a person who knows God has an intimate personal
relationship with Him (BKC).
ALTHINOS
Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real (BAGD).
Opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended
(Thayer).
Pertaining to being real and not imaginary ... 'that they may know you,
the only one who is really God' (Louw & Nida).
Other Views
Considered

Jehovah's Witnesses
This verse has become a favorite of Jehovah's Witnesses and others who deny the
Trinity. They claim that since Jesus says that the Father is the only true God,
Jesus cannot also be the only true God.
Jehovah's Witness Greg Stafford, for example, writes:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible presents us with a monotheistic view of
God, in that He is the only one who is God in the absolute (non-derived) sense.
The Father is the only true God, as Jesus said. (Joh 17:3) The description "true
God" is used only three times in the NT. In all three of these texts Jesus is
distinguished from the true God. In John 17:3 he prays to the "only" true
God....This is significant in that there is no clear indication of Jesus as this "true
God" in the Bible, which would stand to reason in view of the restriction he
himself places on this title in the NT (Stafford, pp. 119-120).
Trinitarians have often responded that if the Father is the only true God, and the
Watchtower is correct in saying that Jesus is "a god," then Jesus must be a false
God, for anything that is not true, must be false. Greg Stafford cites such an
argument presented by Ron Rhodes (Reasoning from the Scriptures with
Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. 227-228). Stafford responds:
The Greek word translated "true" (alethinos) can have one of several meanings,
depending on the context and usage of the author or speaker. According to
BAGD [the Baur, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker lexicon], alethinos can mean:
"genuine, real . . . Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real . . . true in
the sense of the reality possessed only by the archetype, not by its copies"

(Stafford, op. cit., p. 121).

Are Jehovah's Witnesses right? Is Jesus really saying that only one Person - the
Father - is the true God? Are the Witnesses using sound exegetical principles in
defining alethinos the way they do? Let's examine this verse closely to find out.
The Only True God
Had Jesus said, "Only you, Father, are the true God," He would, indeed, be
proclaiming what the Watchtower says. However, that's not precisely what Jesus
said. He said to the Father, "you, the only true God." The word "only" does not
modify "Father," but rather "God." Does this fact change the meaning of the
what Jesus is saying? Stafford reasons:
While in certain contexts the word "only" might not mean only in the absolute
sense, there is no indication that we have such use here in John 17:3. Also, there
is no example that I am aware of where the person who makes the assertion that
another person is the "only" something, means to include him- or herself in the
description. (IBID, p. 120).
But is there a subtle presupposition in this line of reasoning? I would submit
there is: The presupposition is that the person in question is a unipersonal being.
That is, human nature is such that there is a one-to-one correspondence between
Person (or Identity, Consciousness, or Will) and Being (the essence or nature that
makes a human, human); therefore, any example of a human person saying that
that another person is the "only" something, indeed does not mean to include
him- or herself in the description. But what if there is Biblical evidence of a
Being that subsists in more that one person - a multi-personal being? If such a
Being exists (and Trinitarians believe the Bible teaches that God is such a Being),
it must be admitted that each Person of a multi-personal Being can be described
as the "only" something, without necessarily excluding other Persons of that
Being from that description. Put another way, Jesus includes the Father in the
identity of the True God. However, if Jesus is the same Being as the Father, He
does not logically exclude Himself from that category. Indeed, it is logically
fallacious to claim that He does (1).
Witnesses who argue as Stafford does deny the possibility of a multipersonal
God from the outset. They therefore place considerable emphasis on their
preferred definition of "true," for without it, they would be forced to concede that
the Son is a false god. However, we may ask how it is that John 17:3 excludes
Jesus from the category of "true" God, when Jude 4 does not exclude the Father
from the category of Lord? Indeed, here, there is not even the qualifying
adjective that provides the basis of the Witness interpretation of John 17:3.
Matthew 19:17 presents Witnesses with a similar problem, for here Jesus says
that there is only "One" who is good; Witnesses must interpret this to mean that
Jesus in His humility is denying His own goodness (or, at least, is not "as good as
God," though this distinction is not to be found in the context). In practice,
Witnesses acknowledge Jesus as "good," and Jehovah as their Lord. Their

exegetical methodology appears inconsistent and subject to their theology;

whereas Trinitarians are consistent in holding that an exclusive title may be given
to any member of the Trinity, without excluding other members from that
category.
More importantly, Stafford and the WT cannot interpret verses like John 5:44, 1
Timothy 1:17, or Jude 25, in which we find the phrase "[the] only God," without
introducing the concept "God in a non-derived sense" - that is, that Jehovah is the
"only God" in the sense that He is the only true or non-derived God. However,
this sense is foreign to the contexts of these verses and requires Witnesses to
bring other verse, such as John 17:3, into the discussion, which they interpret in
ways conducive to their theology. As we shall see, John 17:3 does not really
support the idea of a "non-derived" God, at least not in the view of most
lexicographers. When Scripture makes a clear declaration that there is only one
God, the burden lies with any who would argue otherwise.
Only if one assumes before hand that God is unipersonal can one conclude that
John 17:3 proves that only the Father is true God. Notice how the quoted
passage from Stafford, above, begins with the premise, "Jehovah's Witnesses
believe the Bible presents us with a monotheistic view of God, in that He is the
only one who is God in the absolute (non-derived) sense." He would no doubt
say that the WT derives this belief from the passages he cites; however, in each
case - and particularly John 17:3 - only by assuming a unipersonal God can one
conclude that the Father is the only Person who is that true God.
Thus, the Watchtower and its apologists are guilty of "begging the question" with
regard to John 17:3, for only by first assuming that God is one Person, can they
"prove" by this verse that Jesus calls the Father the only Person who is God.
Interestingly, Stafford accuses Trinitarians of this very fallacy: Trinitarians, he
says, "import their ideas into the Bible, making it practically impossible for them
to view theological or christological statements apart from Trinitarian concepts"
(IBID, p. 129). In the case of John 17:3, I believe the opposite is actually the
case. It is Jehovah's Witnesses who import their Unitarian view of God, while
Trinitarians draw no specific conclusions regarding God's nature from this verse.
Let's be clear: Trinitarians do not claim that John 17:3 "proves" the Trinity; we
simply maintain that scripturally and logically, it does not deny it.
The Meaning of "True"
We may first note that in English, the word "true" may mean "real, in the sense of
an archetype, as distinguished from a copy" or "true contrasted with false."
Althinos has the very much the same semantic range in Koine Greek, as BAGD
makes clear (p. 37). The question is, which connotation does Jesus intend here?
Extending the meaning of a word beyond that required by the context is not a
sound exegetical practice. After all, the word "true" has within its semantic range

the connotation of "straight," but Jesus is not saying the Father is the only
straight-line God!
Which connotation do the lexicons support for althinos in John 17:3? After all,
Watchtower apologists have used BAGD and Thayer to support their view,
haven't they? BAGD recognizes the semantic range of althinos as containing
"true in the sense of reality possessed only by an archetype, not its copies."
However, it references this shade of meaning for Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, not in
reference to John 17:3. When we consult the lexicon with regard John 17:3,
BAGD is quite clear: "of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real." Thus,
BAGD recognizes the context of John 17:3 as requiring the "true contrasted with
false" connotation.
Stafford notes: "While BAGD does not attribute the archetypal meaning to
alethinos in John 17:3, we believe this sense best fits the use of 'true' in this and
other passages" (IBID, p. 121). He then argues for this connotation in John 17:3
by citing John 1:9, John 6:32-33, Hebrews 8:5, and Hebrews 9:9 (sic; 9:24?). "In
all these texts, alethinos is not contrasted with something 'false,' but is used to
describe that which is the archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of the
original" (IBID).
Stafford is quite right about the verses he cites, and interestingly, BAGD
references these as well for the archetype connotation. This means that BAGD
was fully aware that the verses in question supported the archetypal connotation,
and yet believed the "true vs false" connotation applied to John 17:3. Stafford
offers no reason why we should consider the archetype connotation in this verse;
he merely asserts that Witnesses hold this view. Further, he considers BAGD
authoritative with regard to the connotation of althinos he prefers, but does not
tell us why he considers them unable to distinguish the proper connotation for
John 17:3. It is possible, of course, that the authors got it right in the first case
and wrong in the second, but without evidence to demonstrate why their
authority should be questioned, we must conclude that Greek scholars who are
capable of ascertaining the various connotations of a particular word must also be
capable of determining specific usage in a given context.
We may wonder why the authors of BAGD chose the particular connotation they
did in John 17:3. Let's take a look at the context of the verses in discussion. In
Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, the writer is clearly referring to the "true Tabernacle" in
heaven where Jesus is the High Priest, in contrast to the earthly (and less "real")
Tabernacle. However, in context, John 17:3 does not imply a contrast between
Jesus and God. Instead, the context is Jesus' concern that the disciples know the
Father in an intimate way, that they may thus obtain eternal life. For who gives
eternal life, but the true God (as contrasted with false gods)? Thus, context
argues for the connotation of "the true God" who give eternal life, as opposed to
"false gods," who cannot.

If BAGD is reliable in both their understanding of the various connotation of

althinos and their specific definition in John 17:3, we would expect that other
authorities would corroborate it. Similarly, if BAGD got it wrong with regard to
John 17:3, we would expect other authorities to disagree.
Grimm/Thayer defines althinos as "contrasts realities with their semblances" for
Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24, but "opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary,
simulated, pretended" for John 17:3 (p. 27). So, Grimm/Thayer, too, recognizes
the correct connotation of althinos in John 17:3 as "true contrasted with false."
In his Expository Dictionary, Vine recognizes Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 as requiring
the meaning: "the spiritual, archetypal tabernacle," but defines althinos in John
17:3 as: "'very God,' in distinction from all other gods, false gods" (p. 645).
Louw and Nida similarly recognize several connotations for althinos, including
those discussed. They define althinos in John 17:3 as: "pertaining to being real
and not imaginary ... 'that they may know you, the only one who is really God'"
(p. 667).
Moulton and Milligan list a number of contemporary extra-biblical examples of
althinos, including several by Christians in reference to God, and all carry the
meaning 'real'; 'genuine'; 'true, as opposed to false' (p. 22).
Finally, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) does not
specifically reference John 17:3 in its discussion of althinos, but says "As a
divine attribute it has the sense of 'reliable,' 'righteous,' or 'real,'" and cites 1 John
5:20, a verse Stafford relates to John 17:3 (IBID, p. 120). This meaning is
contrasted with the archetype connotation: "In Heb 8:2 the heavenly tabernacle
is 'true' in contrast to the earthly, and in Heb. 9:24 the human sanctuary is a copy
of the true one, which is genuine as divine" (Abridged edition, p. 39).
So, we see that the standard lexical works specify the connotation of althinos in
John 17:3 as "the only true God (as distinguished from all other gods, who are
false)." This definition of althinos presents serious problems for Watchtower
theology, for by saying "the only true God," Jesus states quite clearly that any
other who is termed "a god," must be a false god.
Origen's Understanding of the True God
Stafford cites Origen in support of his view that althinos in John 17:3 should be
read with the archetype connotation:
In his Commentary on John he wrote:

God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God

of Himself); and so the Savior says in His prayer to
the Father, "That they may know Thee the only
true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is
made God by participation in His divinity, and is
not to be called simply God (with the article), but
rather God (without the article). And thus the firstborn of all creation, who is the first to be with
God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of
more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him,
of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God
of gods, the Lord [Jehovah], hath spoken and
called the earth." [Ps. 136:2] It was by the offices
of the first-born that they became gods, for they
drew from God in generous measure that they
should be made gods, and He communicated it to
them according to His own bounty. The true God,
then is "The God," and those who are formed after
him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the
prototype [ANF 10, Book 2, p. 323. emphasis
added].

Origen evidently understood that the reference to the Word as

theos was not intended to make him equal to God the Father, for
he wrote: "Nor must we omit to mention the Word, who is God
after [hexes] the Father of all" (IBID, pp. 120-121).
Origen's theology is complex, to say the least. Drawing conclusions from a few
scattered passages does little justice to what Origen actually taught, and what his
terminology meant to his contemporaries, as opposed to what it may be thought
to signify today, looking back as it were through the lens of the Arian
controversy which raged some hundred years after Origen died.
Stafford is correct that Origen does appear to apply the archetype connotation to
althinos in his Commentary on John 1:1. But we may ask exactly what does
Origen mean by this usage? Is it the same as that expressed by Stafford and the
Watchtower? What may have led him to view the "true" God in an archetypal
way? Finally, we must also consider whether Origen bases his view of althinos
on grammar or on theology.
Let's first consider what Origen means by the "true God." It would be a mistake
to read a post-Arian meaning into Origen's use of autotheos or the distinction his

draws between theos with the article and without. In terming the Father
autotheos, Origen does not mean that the Father possesses a "true" divine nature,
and the Son a "lesser" divine nature. Origen taught that the "begetting" of the
Son by the Father cannot be compared to human begetting (First Principles
1:2:4), that the Son and Father share the same nature (Commentary on John
2:2:16; 2:10:76; 19:2:6;), and that there was never a time when the Son did not
exist (Commentary on Romans 1:5; First Principles 1:2:9; 4:4:1 in both Rufinus'
Latin translation and Athanasius' Greek). The begetting of the Son is a part of
the Divine Being and is from all eternity (First Principles, 1:2:9; 4:41, again in
both Rufinus and Athanasius) and is also continual (Homily on Jeremiah 9:4); the
Father is the "source" of divinity, and the Son "attracts" that same divinity to
Himself through his eternal contemplation of the Father (Commentary on John
2:2:18). (2)
It is true that for Origen, the Son's Deity is derivative, and at times speaks of the
Son as a "secondary God (Against Celsus 5:39; Commentary on John 6:39:202);
but it is also true that Origen was strongly influenced by Middle Platonism in this
regard, as numerous scholars have recognized:
"The parallel with Albinus, who believed in a supreme Father Who organized
matter through a second God (Whom he, however, identified with the World
Soul) is striking; as is the fact that both thinkers envisaged the generation of the
Son as the result of His contemplation of the Father" (Kelly, p. 128).
"In a more limited field the impact of Platonism reveals itself in the
thoroughgoing subordinationism which is is integral to Origen's Trinitarian
scheme. The Father, as we have seen, is alone , so S. John, he points
out, accurately describes the Son simple as , not " (Ibid., pp. 131 32).
"Thus, Origen understands that the Word is God by derivation....Here Origen is
directly indebted to the Platonism of his day" (Rusch, p. 14)
"This distinction also has its origin in Philo (quod a deo somnia, Mangey 1.655
line 20), and it is again Origen who takes it up and imports it into Christian
theology" (Prestige, p. 144).
Origen's apologetic arguments against Gnosticism and Modalism, in which he
sought forcefully to affirm the true Human nature of the Son and the distinction
between Father, Son, and Spirit, and his use of Platonic concepts and language,
have led some to conclude, as apparently has Stafford, that Origen taught that the
Son was different in nature from the Father, truly a "second god" in the sense
later argued by Arius. However, a careful reading of Origen leads one to
conclude that while complex and couched in philosophical terminology, Origen
taught the essential unity of Father and Son in categories not incompatible with
later creedal statements. Indeed, this can be seen in the passage from the

Commentary on John, which Stafford quotes, above.

Immediately preceding the quote provided by Stafford, we read:
Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall
here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two
Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.
Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the
Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or
they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own,
and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are
separable from each other (Commentary on John 2:2:10-13).
Thus, the Son is distinct in person, but of one "essence" with the Father. For
Origen, though he may speak at times of "a secondary God," he is also quite
comfortable speaking of Father, Son, and Spirit as One God. In his Dialog with
Heraclides, Origen refers to Scripture in order to show in what sense two can be
one:

Adam and Eve were two but one flesh (Gen. 2:24).

He (the just man) who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him (Cor.
6:17).

He introduces Christ himself as a witness because He said: "I and My

Father are one."

In the first example, the unity consisted of "flesh;" in the second of "spirit;" but
in the third of "God." Thus Origen states: "Our Lord and Savior is in His relation
to the Father and God of the universe not one flesh, nor one spirit, but what is
much higher than flesh and spirit, one God" (Dialog with Heraclides 2).
Thus, when Origen says that the "Word is God after the Father of all," he is not
teaching an inequality of nature or essence, as Stafford implies.
Immediately after Stafford's quote, we find:
But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was
in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing
that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God,
if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted
contemplation of the depths of the Father (Commentary on John 2:2:18).
For Origen, then, while the other 'gods' are "images" of the true God, the Son is
not in their category of being. He obtains His divine Nature by always being

with the Father, while the other 'gods' are "formed" - that is created - and they
derive their divinity from the Son. While some have argued that Origen refers to
the Son as a created being in his reference to Colossians 1:15 (First Principles
1:2), this language should not be pressed, since Origen used the term KTISIS to
refer to all the activities of God, including the eternal begetting of the Son, and
therefore is not to be construed as signifying that the Son is a created being.
Contrary to what Arianism was to say, the eternity of this generation is clearly
affirmed, for it is inconceivable that the Father ever existed without his Wisdom,
his Reason, his Word, all expressions which, as we have seen, denote the Son.
Nor did the Father begin to be Father, as if He had not been so before, since all
change in God is inconceivable (Crouzel, pp. 186-187).
While Origen uses the term althinos in a manner similar to that suggested by
Stafford, it is because he viewed God as the 'source' of Deity, while the Son
eternally partakes of that same Deity. Origen's use of middle Platonic thought
and language led him to express the relationship of Father to Son in such terms.
It must be emphasized the Origen's use of althinos is theological, not lexical.
Origen's language and philosophical constructs are other than those used by later
theologians to describe the Trinity (as they are from those preceding him), but his
theology is not far distant from them, certainly not as far as it is from the
theology later proposed by Arius and his followers. He taught plurality within
the unity of the Godhead; He perceived the Godhead to be Father, Son, and
Spirit, each of whom participated in creation and participate in salvation.
Conclusion
If God is unipersonal, this verse does not teach it. If a lesser "copy" of God is
not a false god, the context of this verse does not demonstrate it. Jesus says that
eternal life is an intimate personal knowledge of God (not "taking in knowledge
about God," as the Watchtower teaches), and of Jesus Christ, whom the Father
has sent. Our hope for eternal life, then, resides in knowing both the Father and
the Son in a personal way, and knowing them as they truly are: One God, One
Lord, One Savior.
___________________
Notes
1. In fact, the entire argument that Jesus cannot be the true God based on John 17:3 is an
example of a logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent." To illustrate this point, let's
rephrase John 17:3b in the form of a logical proposition:
If one is the Father, one is the only true God.
"If one is the Father" is the antecedent of the proposition. "One is the only true God" is the
consequent. In the terms of formal logic, it is not logically valid to deny the antecedent, and
conclude that the consequent is also denied. For example, consider the following proposition:
If one is a man, one is mortal.

Now, consider the denial of the antecedent:

Fido is not a man, therefore Fido is not mortal.
Clearly, since (sadly for dog lovers) dogs do not live forever, denying the antecedent does not
prove that the consequent must also be denied. Technically speaking, if one is a man, that is
sufficient cause for the conclusion that one is mortal. However, if one is mortal, that is not a
necessary cause that one is a man. There are numerous other mortal creatures, including man's
best friend.
From the standpoint of pure logic, then, it is not valid to argue that because Jesus is not the Father
(denying the antecedent in our paraphrased proposition) He cannot be the only true God. Being
the Father is sufficient cause for being the only true God; however, being the only true God is not
a necessary cause for being the Father.
Some may object at this point that in our canine example, we do not have the restricted language
of John 17:3b ("the only true God"). However, while placing "only" before the antecedent can
have the effect of making the antecedent both sufficient and necessary, placing "only" before the
consequent (as it is in John 17:3b) does not. That is, in logical terms, affirming that the Father is
the true God is the same as affirming that He is the only true God. The antecedent, in either case,
is sufficient, but not necessary.
2. Much has been made of the fact that large portions of Origen's writing is preserved only in
Latin translations by Rufinus and Jerome. Rufinus, in his preface to the Treatise of First
Principles, states that he suppressed some passages on the Trinity which he judged to be inserted
by heretics. Jehovah's Witness apologists, when confronted by the quotations I have provided
here often reply that we cannot be certain that they reflect Origen's beliefs, but rather are
interpolations by Rufinus. First, this objection cannot be raised with regard to the Commentary
on the Gospel of John or the Homily 9 on Jeremiah, since we possess the Greek text of the books
quoted. The passages quoted from First Principles exist both in Rufinus' Latin and Athanasius'
Greek. There is no evidence that these two witnesses are related; therefore, we have two
independent sources suggesting that these quotes accurately reflect Origen's original words. As
Henri Crouzel notes, Rufinus' translation suffers primarily from omissions, often arising from a
desire to abridge or avoid repetition: "Comparisons of the texts in the Philocalia [containing
about 1/7 of the Greek text of First Principles] with Rufinus' work yields on the whole a
favorable result" (Crouzel, pp. 46-47). Any discrepancies between Rufinus' Latin and Origen's
Greek would, then, seem to be in the area of omissions rather than interpolations, and the extent
to which Rufinus altered the text has, perhaps, been exaggerated by some. Thus, we have several
works, some preserved in Greek, others in Latin but corroborated by independent Greek
witnesses, which demonstrate that Origen held the belief that the Son was of the same essence as
the Father, co-eternal and uncreated.