An Introduction
Copyright © 2011, 2012 by Anthony Coore
Introduction
If the Bible is true, one would expect it to be coherent, at least certainly when it comes to the fundamental and basic issues that it addresses. The matter of who and what God is, is perhaps the most basic and fundamental of them all. Yet when we examine the Scriptures with respect to this subject, we encounter a glaring problem that without resolution stands to undermine the veracity of its content. So significant is this matter, that many have refused to accept the Bible, or to become Christians because of this seemingly incoherent issue. There have even been many who have abandoned the Christian faith to become Muslims or Jews, or even atheists because of this conundrum.
The Problem
So what is the particular problem? Simply that the Bible gives seemingly conflicting messages of how many beings or persons there are, who are considered God. There are several places where the Bible states emphatically that God is one or that there is one God. The Shema for instance, considered by Jews and Christians to be foundational to true worship, begins with:
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4)
Other passages which reinforce this stance include:
“Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him” (Deut. 4:35)
“Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? …” (Mal. 2:10)
“Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isa. 44:8)
Yet there are some texts which seem just as clear that there are at least two persons or beings who are ascribed to be God. For example, it would appear that Jesus is referred to as God in John 1:1 (“the Word was God”), John 20:28 (Thomas calls Jesus, “my Lord and my God”), Heb 1:8 (the Father calls the Son God). But Jesus is also said to be the son of God, and calls the Father His God. So without even considering the matter of the Holy Spirit, already we see texts that seem to pose a challenge to the numerous affirmations that God is one, or that there is one God.
How can such texts be reconciled? What does the Bible really teach about this aspect of the nature of God? This is most definitely an important matter that needs to be addressed, as it can lead to people rejecting the true faith, as mentioned before. But also, the issue has implications for the depth of God’s love, the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, and even for the destiny of man.
The issues pertaining to the particular dilemma at hand are quite vast. They involve questions pertaining to Jesus’ nature: Was He created? Did he preexist his human birth? Was He somehow simultaneously God and man? What is He now? Is He to be worshiped? Is He a distinct person or being from the one referred to as the Father in scripture? Also relevant is the nature of the Holy Spirit: Is the Spirit a person like the Father and the Son? Or is the Spirit merely a force? Is the Spirit God? These questions highlighted are not meant to be exhaustive, but to demonstrate how much there is to this subject.
This study will seek to provide a basic but solid understanding of what the Bible really teaches about just who and what God is. It will be done in three parts, where the first will review the main ways advanced to explain the apparent dilemma. Part two will look at what the Bible says about the Father and the Son. Part three will then focus on the Holy Spirit.
Before looking at what the Bible really shows, it is instructive to survey the various ways that have been advanced to resolve the apparent conflicting declarations of scripture highlighted above. Four such views will be examined. While a thorough refutation of each is beyond the scope of this study, problems will be pointed out to show why each one is less than satisfactory. Then when we compare these views to what the scriptures actually teach, it will become even more evident why they should be rejected.
Proposed Solutions and Their Problems
Arianism
The first view we will consider is the Arian. It is named after Arius, a 4th century deacon. Arius taught that Jesus is a created being, particularly, the first of all the creation. He was then used by God to create everything else. In this view, Jesus is not God. Rather, He is an inferior being not only in authority, but also ontologically (ie. in nature or essence). The group most known to propagate this doctrine in modern times is the Jehovah Witnesses.
Those who subscribe to this perspective cite texts such as Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 to prove that Jesus is the first of God’s creation which would imply He is not God, and so there is no conflict with Deuteronomy 6 and other similar texts. When combined with the fact that Jesus is called the son of God, and He Himself refers to the Father as the only true God, it does appear that this is a quite reasonable position to take. In response to John 1:1 where the Word, who became Jesus, is called God, it is argued that the text should really say the Word was a god, or simply, the Word was divine. Hebrews 1, where it would appear the Father is calling the Son God, is explained that the text can legitimately be translated, “God is your throne”.
So there does seem to be a case for this Arian doctrine. However, one should not be too hasty in embracing it, for there are indeed some serious problems with it. Let us consider the two foundational proof-texts mentioned above.
Revelation 3:14
“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God”
This text is far from conclusive that Jesus is a created being. Jesus being the beginning of the creation does not have to mean that He is the first one created. It could easily mean that it started in Him. Since the Father created all things by Jesus, then He can truly be said to be the beginning. The text can actually be translated as,
“And to the angel of the church of Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation” (NRSV)
In this version, rather than show that Jesus is created, it does just the opposite, and shows that the creation came through Him. Furthermore, the word used for beginning in the text is the Greek word arche, which can mean chief. For this reason, the NIV renders the verse as:
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.” (NIV)
With these facts in view, one must concede that this verse hardly provides any substance to the notion that Jesus was created.
Colossians 1:15
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (KJV)
At first glance this could appear to really be saying that Jesus is the first one created. However, the term firstborn in Scripture is often used to designate preeminence. It does not automatically signify the first in a sequential order. For eg. Although we know David was the youngest in his family, God said He would make him His firstborn.
“Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27).
We know this refers to David, because verse 20 specifies who the subject is. Notice that God speaks of making David firstborn. Now if we think of firstborn in the literal sense, one either is the firstborn or not. One would not speak of making an already born person the firstborn. But the term is not being used here in the literal sense, but rather in the sense of preeminence. The context makes that plain, as the point of being made firstborn, is to be in a position “higher than the kings of the earth”.
One can also consider that God calls Ephraim His firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9), even though Ephraim was born after his brother Manasseh (Gen 41:50-52).
Now if one goes on to read the verses which follow Colossians 1:15, the sense of vs. 15 becomes abundantly clear.
“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. ” (vs. 16-18)
These verses show that Paul calls Jesus the firstborn over all creation because of His preeminence over all. It is not even remotely suggesting that He is the first one created, as nowhere is such a thought supported. On the contrary, He is before all things, and by Him and for Him were all things created.
The book of John also makes it clear that it was by Jesus that all creation came into being. Notice how John puts it:
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3)
Stating it like this seems to preclude the possibility that Jesus could be the exception. The implication is that Jesus was not created.
At this point the Arian view no longer appears so strong. In fact, it would seem to be quite shaky. Consider too that just because Jesus is called the son of God, does not mean He is a creation of God, nor that He is inferior in anything but authority. There are ways to understand why He is designated as such without having to conclude that He came into being. One could very well argue that the title son of God is only properly attributed to Him at the incarnation or some point thereafter. One could also make a case for His eternal sonship1. Yet even if one were to concede that Jesus came into being, it would not imply that it was by creation. For example, when a man and woman have a child, it is by procreation. From a technical stand point, one would not say that the man and woman created the child. It is not as if they sketched a blueprint of what they wanted and then brought it into being. They simply initiated a process that brought forth a being from themselves who is equal to themselves. So even if one were to allow the possibility that Jesus came into being, then one must also allow that it could be by some means that is more akin to procreation than creation.
Arianism which posits that Jesus is not only subordinate to the Father positionally (or in authority), but also by nature (since He is of the created order), runs counter to what the apostle Paul apparently understood. For in Philippians 2 he writes:
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (vs. 6 KJV)
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” (vs. 6 NIV)
(We will revisit this matter in part 2 of this study.)
When we assess the Arian view with respect to the death of Christ, we can acknowledge that it was indeed a sacrifice. Jesus gave up His special angelic existence to become a man, and then ultimately die. The Father would have given up the presence of His first creation who was obviously very special to Him and existed with Him for ages. It is useful to keep this in mind as we compare the various views with each other, and especially when we compare with what the Bible actually teaches. We will eventually see that the Bible provides a view of the sacrifice that makes all others pale in comparison.
Socinianism
The Socinian doctrine on the nature of Christ is named after Lelio Sozzini (1525-62) and his nephew Fausto Sozzini (1539-1604) who did much to popularise the teaching. Like Arianism, it is argued that Jesus came into existence as part of the creation. However, it does not accept the preexistence of Christ before His conception. In the Socinian view, Jesus came into existence at the time of His being formed in the womb of Mary. Prior to this, He was only a thought in the mind of the Father. This is a minority view within the Christian world, but groups such as the Christadelphians subscribe to it.
Like the Arian view, this belief starts with the premise that Deuteronomy 6 and other explicit monotheistic statements in scripture, do not allow for more than one being or Person who can be regarded as truly God. Therefore any apparent reference to Jesus as God must mean something else. The Socinian view however, sees no reason to allow for the preexistence of Christ, as that only invites problems for the one God texts. Apart from this fear, it is not so much based on any specific scripture reference, as it is a declaration that there is no text that warrants that belief. Of course, for every passage that would indicate Jesus did live with the Father as a distinct centre of consciousness before His birth, reasons are given as to why these verses should not or need not be viewed in such a way. It is also pointed out that nowhere in the Old Testament where there is reference to the Messiah, is there any indication that He already existed except in the mind of the Father. Instead the prophecies say that He would be of the seed of Abraham, and of David, and also that God would raise Him up from among the people of Israel and will be like Moses. So then why try to make the case that the Messiah lived before His conception?
For adherents of this doctrine, John 1 is not viewed as referring to two distinct persons, God and the Word. Rather, this is speaking of God and His thought. When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am”, He didn’t mean to imply that he existed before Abraham was born. It is asserted that He was merely saying that God had Him,the Messiah, in mind as the principal person in His plan, before Abraham was conceived or even thought of. References such as Col 1:16 and Heb 1:10 that would seem to indicate that Jesus was the one used to create all things, are argued to be referring to Him being the agent through which the new creation (the Messianic Kingdom) begins, and not a reference to the past physical creation.
It almost seems as though it matters not how clear and explicit a text is that speaks to the preexistence of Christ, for the Socinian will argue that it cannot mean that. While one might think this characterisation is unfair, this is one natural outworking of interpreting the monotheistic texts of Scripture in such a way that make them incompatible for a second person to also be God. The problem is that the texts which are generally cited to demonstrate the preexistence of Christ, tend to also imply that He is God. Therefore to avoid infringing upon the clear monotheistic statements, a bias is adopted against the notion of preexistence. Therefore, when such texts come to the fore, then obviously the surface reading must be rejected. But what if the passages like Deuteronomy 6 and others which say that there is one God, are actually being misunderstood? If that is so, then maybe statements that seem to say God used Jesus to create all things mean exactly that; maybe Jesus actually meant to imply that He existed before Abraham; maybe Jesus really was God in some sense before His birth. We will later take a closer look at the “one God” texts.
Like Arianism, Socinianism does involve a sacrifice both of Jesus and the Father, when Jesus died. But it is arguably of an inferior order. For in the Arian view, the sacrifice is not only in the suffering and death of Christ, but even from the time that Jesus would have been made flesh. Jesus would have given up a higher form of life to become human, and the Father would have given up the presence of His special creation at His side. Also, Jesus’ death from the Arian standpoint could be considered a greater loss since He did not only come into being at his human birth. A Socinian apologist may beg to differ. But in end we will see that both these views are objectively inferior to what the Bible reveals.
Sabellianism/Modalism/Jesus Only
The third view to consider is the Sabellian. It is named after Sabellius who lived in the 3rd century AD. He promoted the idea that God is one person who has revealed Himself at different times and occasions as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These are three modes, not three persons. This doctrine is also called Modalism. In modern times it is more commonly called Jesus Only, and is propagated primarily by Oneness Pentecostals.
Modalism begins with the same premise as the two previous views discussed. That is, the declarations throughout scripture of there being only one God leaves no room for multiple persons or beings that should be regarded as fully God. With this foundation, as it becomes apparent that Jesus is attested to be God by various passages of Scripture, then it must mean that He is the one God, and therefore the same person identified as Yahweh, and the Father. A number of texts are also adduced to support this view. Perhaps the most potent is Isaiah 9:6 where the Messiah is called Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Counselor. The argument is that the Son is the same person as the Father, and the same person as the Counselor (which is the title Jesus used to refer to the Holy Spirit). It is also pointed out that Jesus said, “if you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9), and on another occasion, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30).
Where it might come across as though Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons, it is explained by appealing to the distinct natures of the one person2. The idea is that God took on human nature to become the son. So the Son properly refers to the human nature, and not God in His spirit form. It is maintained that it is one person but with two natures and different modes of operating. So when Jesus prayed to the Father, it was simply the communication of the human nature with the eternal Spirit. When Jesus said His Father is greater, that only indicates that He as Spirit is greater than He as flesh.
It is not hard to understand how one can come to a Modalist view point. The texts which supposedly demonstrate its veracity however, are not conclusive. For eg. the reference to everlasting Father in Isaiah 9, is not necessarily identifying the Messiah with the Father. For the tranlsation “Father of eternity” is just as valid a reading as the former. The reference could therefore signify the Messiah as the one through whom the world to come is brought forth. (Other texts used to argue Modalism, such as John 10:30 and John 14:9 will be addressed in part 2).
Furthermore, although the view provides a framework to understand the seeming allusion to two distinct persons (Father and Son), as one person with two natures, there are still some texts that are not satisfactorily addressed. For eg. Jesus explicitly counted Himself and His Father as two persons, when He said “it is written in your law, the testimony of two men is true” (John 8:17-18). The explanation that this is speaking to the two natures leaves much to be desired, as if that were the case, then it would be one person, and therefore one witness.
Another problematic text to the doctrine is John 14:23
“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him”
Here Jesus speaks of Himself and the Father as “we”, when referring to their being present in Spirit. Appealing to two distinct natures here is not reasonable, since it is the Spirit form that is in view.
There is also Philippians 2:7 which is a major obstacle to this doctrine. For Paul says Jesus emptied Himself to become a man, which goes against the concept of Jesus merely adding human nature to Himself.
Aside from the specific scriptures that would challenge the Jesus Only doctrine, there is a serious issue that it raises. That is, did Jesus really die? Since the incarnation is explained as God adding a human nature to Himself, then when Jesus died, it was the removal of this human nature. In other words, He died as a man, but was still alive as God. Can this even be called a sacrifice? While that might be debatable, it seems clear that in this framework, the person did not die. We can also ask, just what did the Father give up? He certainly did not give up the presence of another person, as in the case of Arianism and Socinianism. One might have thought that Modalism offered a higher view of the sacrifice than the two previous views discussed, since in this case, the being is supposed to be God Himself who is offered, while for the other two, it was a created life being given up. It turns out however, to probably be even worse.
Trinitarianism
The belief that God is a Trinity is the most professed of the views. It is purported to be solidly biblical though it is acknowledged to have formally developed over a period of a few centuries. It varies from Modalism in that it maintains that the Father, the Son and the Spirt are three distinct persons.
Explaining what the Trinity entails is somewhat tricky, as its proponents have not always been clear as to what the doctrine is. It is also shrouded in terminology far removed from general speech (eg. hypostasis, ousia, consubstantial) that exacerbates the problem.
Oftentimes one will hear that the Trinity is the teaching that God is one, and three in one. The Father, Son and Spirit are supposed to be three distinct persons, who are the One God, and the One God is the Father, Son and Spirit. Apart from making it clear that the doctrine holds the Spirit to be a person in the same sense as the Father and Son, and distinct from them, such statements only seem to restate the problem at hand. They do not help to explain in what sense Jesus and the Father are one. (We will look at the matter of the Spirit in part 3 of this study).
Depending on who is doing the explaining, sometimes the impression is given that it is one being in view. Other times, the Father and Son are explained as two beings who share the same nature and are in total agreement. If we include the Spirit, the latter is sometimes condemned as Tritheism (the belief in three Gods) by those who affirm the former. This means it is quite possible that two persons who profess belief in the Trinity could actually have different concepts in mind which could even be incompatible with each other.
So while it is a given that there is a divergence of views among those who consider themselves Trinitarian with respect to the Trinity, let us look at what some Trinitarian scholars have said on the matter. James White in an essay defending the Trinity against Oneness theology (Modalism), quotes Trinitarian scholar Berkhoff, who defined the Trinity as follows3:
“There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man”
You will be pardoned if the above fails to clarify anything for you, as even Berkhoff stated upfront that it is not something human beings can understand.
Reknowned Trinitarian apologist, Robert Bowman had this to say about the Trinity4:
“The doctrine is simply a formal way of systematizing the following six propositions, which may be viewed as premises of the doctrine:
1. There is one God (i.e., one proper object of religious devotion).
2. This one God is a single divine being, called Jehovah or Yahweh in the Old Testament (the LORD).
3. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the LORD.
4. The Son, Jesus Christ, is God, the LORD.
5. The Holy Spirit is God, the LORD.
6. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each someone distinct from the other two.”
This seems to be far more comprehensible than the previous statement cited. Yet, in reality, this merely restates the problem. Proposition 2 insists that God is a single diving being. Yet propositions 3 to 6 essentially say that this one God is three distinct persons. It is still left to be clarified how one being can be multiple persons. Normally we think of intelligent beings as persons and vice versa. So to the average person it may still be unclear just what is being communicated here.
Although the definition of the doctrine makes it hard to evaluate, there is sufficient reason to reject it. For when we look at the implications for the sacrifice of Christ, we see that it makes the same error of Modalism. Trinitarianism, like Modalism, posits that the Son of God added human nature at the incarnation in such a way as to be in union with His divine essence without altering it. When Jesus was here as a man, He was still very much omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God in heaven as part of the Trinity. In other words, the claim is that He was fully God and fully man. When Jesus died, it was merely the human nature that died, but Jesus was still alive as God.
The Online Catholic Encyclopedia quotes Origen’s pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus, as saying5,
“There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986)”
The implication of this is that the Trinity remained completely intact even when Jesus was dead.
The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM) website addresses explicitly the matter of what happened to the trinity when Jesus died. The following is given in response to someone who asked the very question6 :
“Unfortunately, this person fails to understand the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus has two natures: divine and human. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the word (which was God) and became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1,14). This is why it says in Colossians 2:9 that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form. Therefore, we can see that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures. We do not say that there are two persons, nor do we say that the two natures are mixed up, formed a new third thing, or are not related in the single person known as Jesus.
“When Jesus died on the cross, is[sic] human nature died. The divine nature did not die. Therefore, we see that the Trinity never ceased to exist…”
Such a view runs into problems with Philippians 2, since for Paul, Jesus did not merely add a nature to Himself, but instead, emptied Himself to become a lowly mortal being, and actually died. As with the Modalist position, the Trinitarian framework diminishes the sacrifice of both Christ and the Father. It is actually not quite clear what, if anything, Jesus gave up much less the Father. Recall that even in the Arian and Socinian views, where Jesus is held to be a creature, there is at least a clear discernible sacrifice on both the parts of the Father and the Son. From this vantage point, Trinitarianism leaves much to be desired.
A Different Solution Required
We have thus far surveyed 4 views of the nature of God that represent what the vast majority of those professing Christianity subscribe to, and we see that there are significant problems with each. In the next section, we will look at what the Bible actually teaches, and we will then see that there is even more reason to reject the aforementioned views.
1. The idea behind the eternal sonship of Jesus (the Word) is that the Son derives (or is generated) from the Father’s being, but from eternity, so is without beginning and would always have existed as a son. The concept of eternal generation may seem like a contradiction in terms, for in all our experiences, events take place in time, with causes preceding the effects, thereby making the cause older than the effect. It is therefore understandable why one would argue that if Jesus is in any sense generated from the Father’s being, then He must have had a beginning in time, and there would have been a time when He did not exist. But if time is a property of the created order, then it may not be possible to extrapolate this understanding to the realm of the eternal that may not be subject to time. This means that it may very well be possible for an eternal being such as the Father to have generated a Son from His own being, before the creation of time, which would mean the Son was always with the Father. Also, even if one were to assume that some kind of time applies to events before the creation of the universe, if the Son is a natural generation of the Father, then since the Father has eternally existed, then the Son would naturally have existed from eternity too.
2. David K. Bernard in his book defending the Jesus Only view, says, “From the Bible we see that Jesus Christ had two distinct natures in a way that no other human being has ever had. One nature is human or fleshly; the other nature is divine or Spirit. Jesus was both fully man and fully God. The name Jesus refers to the eternal Spirit of God (the Father) dwelling in the flesh. We can use the name Jesus to describe either one of His two natures or both. For example, when we say Jesus died on the cross, we mean His flesh died on the cross. When we say Jesus lives in our hearts, we mean His Spirit is there”. The Oneness of God, Volume 1, chapter 5 The Son of God, under the section, The Dual Nature of Christ
3. http://vintage.aomin.org/CHALC.html
4. http://www.irr.org/trinity-introduction.html