The Trinity Doctrine

[epistemaniac]

BTW Cam… thanks for bringing up all these great verses that prove the deity of Christ…..

re “PHILIPPIANS 2:6–11
What we may actually have preserved for us in this famous pericope is portions of two early Christian hymns—the first comprising 2:6–8 and based on Genesis and Isaianic material, the second comprising 2:9–11 and based mainly on Isaianic material. I would submit the following structural arrangement of the two roposed hymns, which arrangement leaves the text as it comes to us in Paul’s letter intact and allows the content of the material to govern the strophic arrangement and division.

The “first hymn” I would arrange as follows:

Who [refers antecedently to “Christ Jesus” in 2:5],

Strophe 1:

though in the form of God existing,

did not regard equality with God a thing to be seized,

but himself he poured out,

having taken the form of a servant.

It should be noted that there are four lines in this strophe, the first and the fourth being participial clauses, separated by the second and third lines (“did not regard …” and “but poured out …”). That the first and fourth lines appear to belong together strophically is evident from the occurrence of µορφή, morphē (“form”) in both, and the occurrence of participles in both, suggesting also that they are to be viewed as “bracketing” clauses, tying these lines together.

Strophe 2:
In the precise likeness of men having been born,

and having been found by external appearance to be a man, he humbled himself,

having become obedient unto death—

Climactic addendum:

even the death of the cross.”

Postponing for the moment any discussion of the climactic addendum, which may have been an original short choral refrain at the end of the hymn or Paul’s own addendum intended to highlight the shameful character of the death which our Lord died, I would point out that again we have a strophic arrangement of four lines, and again the first and the fourth are participial clauses separated by the second and third lines (“and having been found …” and “he humbled …”). That these four lines appear to form a natural and single strophe is evident from the fact that the participles in the first and fourth lines are the same in both (γενόµενος, genomenos), though it is true that their nuance of meaning is different and that they appear in inverted word order—in last place in the first line, in first place in the last line. Again, I would suggest that these participial clauses serve as “brackets” to set the strophe apart from the preceding
strophe and those which follow. Further evidence that these lines are to be construed together strophically is the climactic parallelism of thought between the first and second lines and the occurrences of the word for “man” in the first and second lines (though it is true that they differ in number, being plural in the first line and singular in the second line).

Note now the parallels between the two strophes that suggest that they form a single hymn:
1. The two strophes have the same number of lines.
2. Both first lines begin with the preposition ἐν (en, “in”), which is then
followed in each case with a dative noun, then a genitive noun, concluding
with a participle.
3. The first lines of the two strophes contain an antithetic parallelism: “form of
God” and “likeness of men.”
4. The third line in both strophes ascribes to Christ a reflexive action, the
relation of the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτόν (heauton, “himself”) to the verb
appearing in inverted order—in the former, “himself he poured out,” in the
latter, “he humbled himself.” This striking similarity suggests that the two
actions mean essentially the same thing, a possibility that receives further
support from the likelihood that the former phrase has Isaiah 53:12 as its
background while the latter phrase echoes the thought of Isaiah 53:8 (LXX),
which is quoted in Acts 8:33 (“In his humiliation he was deprived of justice”),
both Isaianic statements, of course, describing the suffering Servant.
5. Postponing the reason for my interpretation until later, but assuming its
validity here for the sake of grouping together the several parallels between the strophes, the hymn moves from the idea of “death” (“poured himself out”)
in strophe 1, line 3, to “servitude” (“he humbled himself”) in strophe 2, line 3;
but it moves in reverse order from the idea of “servitude” (“the form of
servant”) in strophe 1, line 4, to “death” (“obedient unto death”) in strophe 2,
line 4.
6. In strophe 1 the word “God” occurs in the first and second lines; in strophe 2
the word “man” occurs in the first and second lines, suggesting an antithetic
parallel between these lines of the two strophes.
7. Both strophes deal with the same subject, namely, Jesus’ state of humiliation.

The “second hymn” is to be arranged as follows:

Therefore [in light of Christ’s “servant work” depicted in the first hymn],

Strophe 1

God has highly exalted him,

and he has given to him the name,

the “above everything” name,

These lines are separated both from the preceding hymn by the “therefore” preceding them and from the lines that follow them by the following purpose particle “in order that,” which introduces the purpose behind the divine action of this strophe.

Further evidence that these lines are to be distinguished from the preceding strophes is the shift in the subject of the actions from Christ in the earlier strophes to the Father here. But the most obvious indication that these lines may be hymnically distinguished from the previous two strophes is the fact that in this strophe we find only three lines, as over against four in the previous strophes. The three lines here follow the pattern of “independent line, independent line, dependent (or modifying) line.”

As evidence that these lines are to be construed together strophically, we may cite the undeniable synonymous parallelism in thought between the first two lines, and the three internal lexical parallels, namely, the repeated “him” (αὐτόν, auton, and αὐτῷ, autM) in lines 1 and 2 (in both cases in the emphatic position), the repeated preposition ὑπέρ (hyper, “above”) in lines 1 and 3, and the repeated reference to “the name” in lines 2 and 3.

in order that

Strophe 2

at the name of Jesus

every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord—

Climactic addendum

to the glory of God the Father!”

Postponing again for the time being any discussion of the climactic addendum, we are immediately conscious that we have again only three lines to consider. But it is also immediately apparent that in strophe 2 the structural arrangement is the precise reverse of strophe 1: where earlier we had the arrangement “independent line, independent line, dependent line,” here we find the arrangement dependent (or qualifying) line, independent line, independent line.” Within the strophe itself, again we have an undeniable synonymous parallelism in thought between lines 2 and 3.

This parallelism is underscored by the presence of the word “every” in both lines, the aorist subjunctive verb form in both lines, and the adverbial modifying phrase in both lines, the former anticipating the question “where?” or “whose?” and the latter anticipating the question “what?” There is also a lexical connection between lines 1 and 3 through the repetition of the proper name “Jesus,
” found here and nowhere else in the hymn.

Having distinguished between the two strophes, we may now note the following parallels between them:
1. The phrase “the name” is found in the dependent line of both strophes.
2. The word “every” is found in line 3 of both strophes.
3. Both strophes are concerned with the same subject, namely, Jesus’ state of
exaltation, the former stating the fact itself, and the latter stating the Father’s
design behind the fact.

Concerning now the climactic addenda, “even the death of the cross” and “to the glory of God the Father,” which may have been either original to both hymns or Pauline additions to both: it is apparent that a marked antithesis lies between them, each of them capturing the mood of its respective hymn. The former, by designating the particular kind of death Christ died, underscores the depth of the humiliation that Christ voluntarily underwent. The latter highlights the Father’s glory that Christ’s exaltation entailed. The former concentrates our attention on the death of Jesus; the latter focuses our attention on the glory of the Father. The former brings the first hymn to a close by focusing on the cross; the latter brings the second hymn to a close by focusing on the glory that followed. These addenda neatly summarize for us the essential flow of the apostle’s thought: from humiliation to exaltation, from cross to crown.

The very first line of the first strophe is directly related to the concern of this present study. What does Paul mean when he declares that Christ Jesus was “existing in the form of God”? Those who are advocates of what is called Adam Christology insist that this is the equivalent to the Genesis description of Adam as created in the image of God—meaning that Christ, like Adam, was truly a man. Now it is true that the two Greek words εἰκών (eikōn, “image”) and µορφή (morphē, “form”) are both employed to translate the same Semitic root in the Septuagint, εἰκών, eikōn, translating the Hebrew noun in Genesis 1:26 and translating the Aramaic noun….. in Daniel 3:19. But this is hardly sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that they are interchangeable or synonymous, and morpha, is not the word used in the Septuagint to render either…. Moreover, this ignores the occurrence of morpha, three lines later, for clearly Jesus did not assume the mere image of a servant but became in very fact the Servant of Yahweh. Thus the denotative connection between Adam as the image of God and Christ as the form of God cannot be made on the basis of such slim linguistic evidence.

Others urge that the meaning of morpha, should be established on the basis of its usage in the Septuagint, but the problem here is that it is only used four times in the Septuagint, and each time as the translation of a different Hebrew word (see Judg. 8:18; Job 4:16; Isa. 44:13; and Dan. 3:19). At best, taken together, the idea of morpha, in the Septuagint seems to be that of visible form, but the number of samples is just too small and too diverse to draw any hard and fast conclusions.

Besides, if it means visible form, it is questionable whether this meets the conditions of the first occurrence in Philippians 2:6, for there Christ is not said to be morpha of God but morpha, of God. But in the visible form of God would be scripturally inappropriate inasmuch as God is invisible, as Colossians 1:15 reminds us.

Still others maintain that morpha in 2:6a is equivalent in meaning to doxa, glory. but it can hardly be argued that this same equivalency is appropriate in the phrase form of a servant three lines later.

In light of these problems, it appears that the weight of linguistic evidence is still on the side of J. B. Lightfoot, who demonstrated from a study of both its usage throughout the history of Greek thought and the occurrences of the root in the New Testament that morpha refers to the essential attributes of a thing, and that Christ’s being in the form of God, while not the linguistic equivalent, is the connotative equivalent to the Pauline description of Christ in 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15 as the essential image of the [invisible] God. 69 Warfield concurs:

Form is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is. Thus, the form of a sword (in this case mostly matters of external configuration) is all that makes a given piece of metal specifically a sword, rather than, say, a spade. And the form of God is the sum of the characteristics which make the being we call God specifically God, rather than some other being, an angel, say, or a man. When our Lord is said to be in the form of God, therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fulness of attributes which make God God. 70

Murray agrees, 71 and David F. Wells declares that it appears inescapable that by form e are to understand that Paul meant the essence or essential characteristics of a thing. 72 This understanding of the term fits both occurrences in 2:6: form of God and form of servant. When then the force of the present participle is also taken into account which conveys the idea of continually subsisting, which in turn excludes the idea that this mode of subsistence came to an end when he assumed the form of servant, we have here a bold and unqualified assertion of both the preexistence and the full and unabridged deity of Jesus Christ.

The classical evangelical interpretation of the entire pericope contends that these verses depict a great parabola, starting with God the Son in the glory of his preexistent condition of sharing the divine essence with God the Father (in the form of God existing), then tracing his downward movement by means of the Incarnation (himself he emptied) to his cross work as the Father’s Servant, and then recording his upward movement by means of the Father’s exaltation through resurrection and ascension to his present session at his Father’s right hand as Lord. No evangelical will take exception either to the sentiment behind or to the high Christology itself which is thus extracted from these verses by such an exposition. Certainly I do not.

Nor do I for a moment have an intention of denying to our Lord in the slightest degree his rightful claim to full unqualified deity or to equality with the Father in power and glory. This I have already shown from my exposition of 2:6a. Nor do I dispute the fact that the New Testament does set forth the work of Christ ecisely in terms of descent-ascent (katabasis-anabasis) in some contexts. But it is precisely this descent-ascent motif that has created for evangelical scholars in this particular context a major difficulty, or rather two difficulties.

The first difficulty is this: if we understand the beginning point of the flow of the passage, as the classical view does, to be the preincarnational state of the Son of God (in the form of God being) and take the phrases, himself he emptied, taking the form of a servant, as the metaphorical allusion to the downward event of the Incarnation, it is only with the greatest difficulty, because of the intervening clause, that the conclusion can be avoided that the emptying involved his surrender of the form (every nature NIV) of God. I grant that the verb kenoa may have a metaphorical meaning, as in its other occurrences in the New Testament (Rom. 4:14; 1 Cor. 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor. 9:3), and that it need not be literally rendered emptied in Philippians 2:6. (I too in the end attach a nonliteral meaning to it.) But even a metaphor has a literal meaning when it is divested of its metaphorical wrapping.

What does this metaphor mean literally when it is unpacked in the interest of interpretation? The ready answer of those who hold the classical view is that it refers to the event of the Incarnation (He made himself of no reputation, by means of t
aking the form of a servant). But it is just here that the difficulty arises. For according to the classical view, the intervening clause (He did not regard ), in the flow of the hymn, has to mirror an attitude in the preexistent Son that prevailed on the prior side of the event of Incarnation. But if this clause describes what the preexistent Son of God as God the Son thought (sato) of his equality with God, it does not matter, I would suggest, whether harpagmon (from the root harpaz, meaning to seize) is construed res rapta, that is, a thing to be held onto, or res rapienda, that is, a thing to be seized neither is appropriate as a description of what the Son thought with regard to his equality with God.

The former is theologically heretical for it implies that the Son was willing to and did in fact divest himself of his deity (the form of God) when he took the form of a servant, for that is what equality with God means lexically, contextually, and according to John 5:18 and 10:28 33. The latter is also theologically suspect for it suggests that the Son did not already possess equality with God. But this introduces confusion into the passage in light of the fact that it is clearly affirmed in the first clause of 2:6, as we have seen, that the Son was God and was thus as such cœqual with God.

If one should reply that the reason it is said that the Son did not grasp after equality with God is because he already had it as the first clause affirms, I would respond that this now introduces a certain theological barrenness, if not an exegetical inanity, into the text at the very point where, obviously, a highly significant insight is intended, for one does not need to be informed of the obvious that the Son did not seek after something which was already in his possession. Accordingly, I would submit, from the perspective of the classical interpretation of the pericope, that it is only the res rapta interpretation of harpagmon, that circumvents this barrenness of meaning, but then it is only with the greatest difficulty that the evangelical scholar can escape, if escape at all, the conclusion that the Son is represented, by the implication of his willingness to forego his equality with God, that is, his essential divine attributes, as having divested himself of his very nature character of God when he became a man. (We are not debating at this moment what all admit is the impossibility of One who is God doing such a thing. We are only concerned here with interpreting the text in a grammatical fashion.) One has only to peruse the evangelical literature on these verses to see what hermeneutical contortions are resorted to affirm, on the one hand, that the Son did not regard equality with God (the form of God) a thing to be held onto, and that he accordingly emptied himself (or, made himself nothing) by becoming a man, and yet, on the other hand, that he still retained all that he essentially is and was from the beginning. For example, it is said: He did not divest Himself of His divine attributes, but only the independent use of His attributes. But when did the Son ever exercise his attributes independently from the Trinity? Or, He did not divest Himself of His deity, but only the glory of His deity. But is not his divine glory just the sum and substance of his deity? And how does one square this interpretation with John 1:14 and 2:11? Or, He did not divest Himself of His deity, but only His rights as deity.73 But what rights did he forego as God when he became a man? While I do not agree with the kenotic theologians who teach that the Son, according to the teaching of this passage, divested himself of at least something that was essentially his as God when he became a man, I can understand, if it is assumed that the passage begins with the preexistent Son, how they come to this conclusion.

The second difficulty is this: if the flow of the passage commences with God the Son in his preexistent state, what meaning can his later exaltation possibly have had for him? Exaltation must involve elevation to a state not in one’s prior possession. But such an elevated state is simply nonexistent with regard to God the Son as God. If one should reply that his later exalted state involved his being elevated, as the second hymn declares, to the position of lordship over all things, I must ask whether the Scripture will permit us to believe that God the Son, often identified by Scripture itself as the God and Yahweh of the Old Testament, was not already de jure and de facto Lord over creation, nature, religious institutions such as the Law and the Sabbath, and, most significantly, over the lives of men, prior to the exaltation spoken about in Philippians 2:9-11. Does not careful reflection on simply what is entailed in being God the Son force one to conclude that the Son as God the Son continued ever, even during the days of his earthly ministry, to be the same Lord he was from the beginning? So what meaning can be attached to an exaltation of One who cannot be exalted more highly than he already is? It is only with the greatest difficulty that the evangelical scholar can escape the conclusion, if he insists that the exaltation was indeed the exaltation of the preexistent Son of God per se, that the Son’s former state was lower in dignity than his latter state, and that the Son’s latter state elevated him to a state which was above the state which he enjoyed when existing in the form of God prior to his incarnation. But Scripture and right reason simply will not permit such a conclusion.

These two difficulties ought to make us willing to consider another interpretation that avoids both problems and at the same time affirms the vere deus vere homo (truly God, truly man) doctrine of classical Christology.

The key to the solution of both of these difficulties and to the proper interpretation of these verses is to recognize that it is not God the Son in his preincarnate state as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who is the subject of the first two strophes and to whom reference is made by the him in verse 9 of the third strophe, but rather Christ Jesus (see 2:5 and references to Jesus and Jesus Christ in 2:10-11 respectively) God the Son certainly, for this is the meaning of though in the form of God existing, but God the Son already incarnately present with men as himself the God-man. 74 The hymn begins with Christ Jesus and affirms that, as the God-man, he refused to follow an alternative path to glory to the one which his Father had charted for him. Nor does it refer to the downward movement (katabasis) of the Incarnation event itself, so vital a part of the classical view, save as an event that had already taken place, presupposing it in its affirmation that he though existing as God, had taken the form of servant. By this construction, all that is said of him is said of him as the Messiah, the Son-already-dispatched-on-his-mission. It is possible, and this is only a conjecture, that the first hymn has been decapitated, and that a previous strophe dealt with his pure preexistent state as God the Son and eternal Son of the eternal Father.

How does this elimination of the Son’s preexistent state and his incarnational descent from the hymns flow circumvent the two difficulties just mentioned?

The answer is that now we are no longer interacting at the point of Philippians 2:6 with the Incarnation as a future event, but with the Incarnation as from the outset the God-man’s existing state of being. Accordingly, the clauses under discussion may now be interpreted within the context of the Incarnation as a fait accompli and not within the context of the Incarnation as a fait anticipa. But are meaningful interpretations ready at hand? To this I would reply in the affirmative. With respect to the clause, He did not regard equality, I would urge that it may now be construed res rapienda, that is, “He did not regard equality with God a thing to be seized, and that it should be interpreted against the background of his temptation recorded in Matthew 4. We know that Paul is willing to contras
t Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, actually referring to Christ in the latter passage as the Last Adam and the Second Man. Here the Philippians hymn draws a further contrast between the respective temptations of Adam and Christ. Unlike Adam, the first man, who did regard equality with God…. a thing to be seized, 75 Christ, the Last Adam and Second Man, when urged to demonstrate his equality with God (see Matt. 4:3, 6: Since you are the Son of God) refused to take matters into his own hands and assert his rights as the Son. He steadfastly resisted the Tempter’s suggestion to seize equality, that is, to walk no longer in the path of the Servant of the Lord and to achieve lordship over all the kingdoms of this world (Matt. 4:8) by a route not charted for the Servant in the economy of salvation.

There is another Old Testament motif, beyond the Adam-Christ contrast that assists us when we address the meaning of himself he emptied, and that is the Servant motif of Isaiah’s Servant Songs. In what I have called the second hymn, clearly lines 1 and 2 of strophe 1 borrow a sentiment from Isaiah 42:1–8, and lines 2 and 3 of strophe 2 directly reflect the language of Isaiah 45:23. And in what I have called the first hymn, Paul’s references to the servant in strophe 1, line 4, and to Christ’s self-humbling and obedience unto death in lines 3 and 4 of strophe 2 are general allusions to the servant motif of Isaiah’s songs (see Isa. 53:8 [LXX] and Acts 8:33). (Paul also relates Christ to both Adam and the servant motif in Romans 5:12-19.) Some Old Testament scholars have therefore suggested that the phrase himself he emptied is Pau’s Greek dynamic equivalent to the Isaianic expression He poured his soul out unto death (which means, He voluntarily died) in Isaiah 53:12, climactically descriptive of the Suffering Servant’s self-sacrificing work so often referred to elsewhere in the New Testament (see, for example, Matt. 8:17; Luke 22:37; Acts 8:32–35; 1 Pet. 2:21–25). The phrase, thus interpreted, derives its meaning against the incarnational backdrop of the high-priestly ministry of our Lord rather than against the backdrop of his preexistence, referring to the sacrifice of his life and not to a self-emptying which occurred in and by his incarnation. I would suggest then that the aorist participle in the first hymn, strophe 1, line 4, is to be construed as a participle denoting antecedent action, 76 thus placing Christ’s self-emptying subsequent in time to the taking. That is to say, the participle does not explain the means of the self-emptying (emptied by taking) but rather denotes a prior action that was the necessary precondition to the self-emptying. The following paraphrase of the first strophe will assist the reader in understanding this suggestion:

Though Christ Jesus was and still is God [now, of course, God incarnate],

He did not regard equality with God a thing to be seized [at his temptation by a self-willed exercise of power],

But poured himself out [unto death],

Having taken the form of the Servant [of Isaiah 53].

By this construction we have both precluded at the outset a kenotic christological interpretation and the first difficulty I mentioned earlier, and have been able to give substantive meaning to 2:6–7b, something the classical view is able to do only with the greatest exegetical ingenuity.

But we are now also in a position to give substantive meaning to the act of exaltation asserted in the second hymn, for now we may refer it, not to God the Son per se but to God the Son in his incarnate state as the Messiah. It is, in other words, the divine-human Messiah, Christ Jesus, who is exalted. And because we are compelled by the historical fact itself to describe the Son, now incarnately existent in Jesus Christ, as the divine-human Messiah, we can boldly say, without fear of denigrating his divine honor, that the Father’s exaltation of Jesus Christ entailed for the Son, as the Messiah, a new and genuine experience of exaltation. Precisely because we must use the word human as part of our description of him now, we can also say that something truly new and unique occurred at the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ: the man Christ Jesus the Last Adam and Second Man assumed de facto sovereignty over the universe, over all of the principalities and powers in heavenly places, and over all other men, demanding that they submit to the authority of his scepter. That King’s name is Jesus, at the mention of whose office one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ the divine-human Messiah is Lord!

In conclusion, this pericope ascribes deity to Christ Jesus. It does so in three ways:

first, by its description of Jesus as in the form of God [continually] being;

second, by its tacit ascription to him of equality with God when it affirms that he did not seize this station in the sense that at the time of his temptation he did not assert himself in a self-willed show of power commensurate with his divine station;

and third, by the very nature of his delegated lordship, the entail of his exaltation. It is true that this lordship was delegated to him, in his role as Messiah, as the result of his labors (see the because of Isa. 53:12 and the therefore of Phil. 2:9).

But this lordship, described as it is in terms of Isaiah 45:23, where it is declared to be Yahweh’s prerogative alone, has a covenantal basis upon which it was determined that this One should receive this specific kind of lordship as the Messiah upon the completion of his suffering by right of his own divine Sonship, the antecedent condition to his messianic investiture. Said another way, it is because he was, as the Messiah, obedient unto death, even the death of the cross that he was exalted to lordship, but it is also because he is in the form of God and equal with God, as the divine Messiah, that the lordship he was delegated could assume the proportions which it does and involve the universal obligation upon men to worship him.

Ftnotes

69 J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians (1868; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1953), 110.
70 Warfield, The Person of Christ According to the New Testament, The Person and Work of Christ, 39.
71 John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth), 3:359.
72 Wells, Person of Christ, 64.
73 Even Larger Catechism, Question 46, teaches that the estate of Christ’s humiliation was that low condition, wherein, he, for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon him the form of a servant. The allusion to Philippians 2:7 here is clear on the face of it and in fact is one of the supporting references given by the Catechism for its assertion here.
The Catechism is not urging, of course, any divestiture of attributes on the Son’s part in His act of becoming incarnate as is evident from its explanation in Question 47, but I would counsel against using such language to describe the incarnational act itself for that is not what Paul intended by his term emptying, and it could be very misleading.
74 I do not deny that in other contexts, for example, 1 Timothy 1:15, Christ Jesus, as a titular description, does designate the Son of God in his preincarnate state.
75 See Genesis 3:5, where the Serpent’s temptation is framed in the words you will be like, ke, translated by isa in the LXX at Deut. 13:6; Job 5:14; 10:10; 13:28; 27:16; 29:14; 40:10; Isa. 51:23] God, knowing good and evil. Having taken. Contrary to what some grammarians urge, an aorist participle following a main verb in the aorist tense can express antecedent action, as Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, 1:132, acknowledges.” (RR)

blessings

[david]

Quote

“One verse in 1 John requires special notice, for in it John quite likely intends to employ θεός, theos, as he does in John 1:1, 18, and 20:28, as a christological title. Translated literally, 1 John 5:20 reads: And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding in order that we may know the True One. And we are in the True One in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Epistemaniac, have you noticed that by far, most of the verses that you believe speak of Jesus as being God are highly questionable and can be taken more than one way?
Doesn't it bother you that there are only 3 or 4 scriptures at the most that without question refer to Jesus as “God” or “god,” whereas there are a thousand scriptures that specifically refer to the Father as God? Doesn't that bother you?

You quote 1 John 5:20 as a possible scripture that may or may not show that Jesus is God.

Yet, we have numerous scriptures that are very clear.

JOHN 17:3
“This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”

A definite distinction is made between “the only true God,” and Jesus, the one that the only true God sent forth.

“Jehovah is God.” (Ps 100:3)
Expressions we find in the Bible:
Jehovah God–50 times
the [true] God Jehovah–4 times
Jehovah their God–39 times
Jehovah the [true] God–8 times.
Jehovah is in truth God–1 time
Jehovah is God–1 time
Jehovah is my God–1 time
Jehovah is our God–1 time
Jehovah your God–455 times
Jehovah our God–105 times
Jehovah my God–40 times
Jehovah his God–29 times
Jehovah is a God–7 times
Jehovah the God of–204 times
Jehovah a God–1 time

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
Is Christ a deity?
I thought there was only one deity and that is God.

[epistemaniac]

re Col. 2:8-10 etc… of course not, but it is also never said of us that we possess the “fullness” of the godhead bodily. Can you show me a Scripture that does describe believers in this way? I didn't think so.

“In Colossians 1:19, Paul wrote: “In him [God] willed all the fullness to dwell.”

Here in 2:9 Paul says virtually the same thing, but he specifies the nature of the “fullness” and the manner in which the “fullness” dwells in Jesus. To see this, let us follow his thought. In the last verses of Colossians 1 Paul discussed the “mystery” of God, which, he says, is “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (1:27). A few verses later, Paul affirmed again that God’s “mystery,” only recently fully revealed (it had been anticipated in the Old Testament revelation), is Christ (2:2) “in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited” (2:3). This highlights the uniqueness of Christ as the sole true repository and integrating point of all knowledge. Paul then gives the reason why his readers are to “walk” in Christ and to “be on guard” that no one should take them captive through the pursuit of the knowledge that springs from human philosophy and tradition. Translated literally, 2:9 reads: “because in him [Christ] dwells all the fullness of deity bodily.”

To assess Paul’s intention here, it will be necessary to give some attention to three of his words. By “fullness” (πλήρωµα, plērōma), which is perhaps an example of his employment of his (pre-Gnostic?) opponents’ terminology, Paul means plainly and simply “completeness,” “totality,” or “sum-total.” To insure that no one would miss his intention, Paul qualifies this noun with “all,” that is, “all [not just some of] the fullness.”

If it is an allusion to his opponents’ language, this phrase already carries overtones of “fullness of deity,” but Paul clarifies his intention by the following defining genitive “of deity.” The word for “deity” here is θεότης, theotēs, the abstract noun from θεός, theos, meaning “the being as God,” or “the being of the very essence of deity.” Putting these two words together, Paul is speaking of the “totality of all that is essential to the divine nature.” Concerning this “totality of divine essence” Paul affirms that it “dwells [permanently]” (for this is the force of the preposition κατά, kata, prefixed to the verb and the present tense of the verb κατοικέω, katoikeM) in Jesus.

Precisely how it is that this “totality of the very essence of deity” permanently “dwells” in him, Paul specifies by the Greek adverb σωµατικῶς, sōmatikōs. Some scholars suggest that the word means “essentially” or “really” (as over against “symbolically”; see the contrast in 2:17 between “shadow” and “reality” [σῶµα, sōma]), but much more likely it means “bodily,” that is, “in bodily form,” indicating that the mode or manner in which the permanent abode of the full plenitude of deity in Jesus is to be understood is in incarnational terms. In short, Paul intends to say that in Jesus we have to do with the very “embodiment” or incarnation of deity. Christ is God “manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). Here we have the Pauline equivalent to the Johannine “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). Finally, to underscore Jesus’ uniqueness as such, Paul throws the “in him” forward in the sentence to the position of emphasis, implying by this, against his opponents’ claim that “fullness” could be found elsewhere, that “in him [and nowhere else]” permanently resides in bodily form the very essence of deity!

To interpret Paul so is clearly in keeping with his earlier “hymn” to Christ in 1:15–20, as virtually every commentator acknowledges. This view alone coincides with the rich language of the hymn where, as we have seen, Christ is described as the “Image of the invisible God,” who was “before all things” and by, through, and for whom God created all things, and in whom all things “hold together.”

Some modern scholars believe that Paul’s language should be construed, both in 1:15–20 and in 2:9, as functional language, but such an interpretation fails to take seriously the nature of the salvation envisioned in 2:10, its import only being meaningful if the Savior who effects it is the One in whom resides the fullness of deity. Here, then, is another context in which Paul asserts Christ’s full divine status.” (ibid)

blessings

[epistemaniac]

COLOSSIANS 1:15–20
In this hymnic pericope, beginning in 1:15 with the words “who is,” the antecedent of which is “the Son of his [that is, “the Father’s”; see 1:12] love” in 1:13, Paul gives us a magnificent description of the person of our Lord:

Lord of the Natural Creation:

Who is the Image of the invisible God,

the Firstborn of all creation,

because by him were created all things in heaven and earth,

things visible and things invisible—

whether thrones or dominions,

whether rulers or authorities—

[because] all things through him and for him have been created,

and he is before all things, and all things by him endure.

Lord of the Spiritual Creation:

And he is Head of the body, the church,

who is the Beginning,

the Firstborn from the dead, in order that he might come to have first place in all
things,

because in him he [the Father] willed all the fullness to dwell, and

[because] through him [the Father willed] to reconcile all things for him, by making peace through the blood of his cross— through him, whether things upon earth, or things in heaven. (author’s translation)

The first thing that Paul tells us is that Christ, as the Father’s Son, is “the Image of the invisible God.” What does he mean by this? In view of Paul’s equation of “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the Image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4) with “the light of the glory of God [imaged] in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6), it appears that he is saying that in Jesus Christ the glory of God, indeed God himself, becomes manifest. When one recalls, in addition, that the writer of Hebrews (Paul?) also described God’s Son as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3), and that James described “our Lord Jesus Christ” as “the Glory” of God (2:1; see Zech. 2:5), there can be little doubt that Paul, with the New Testament writers in general, intended to assert that Jesus Christ is the invisible God made visible.

This understanding—that Paul intended here to assert Jesus’ divine nature—
receives further support by the hymn’s accompanying descriptions of him. That the Son enjoyed preexistence with the Father, prior to the creation of the universe, Paul explicitly affirmed when he tells us that (1) the Son is (“exists”) “before all things” (1:17; see John 1:15, 30; 8:58), and (2) that God created “all things in heaven and on earth—things visible and things invisible—whether thrones or dominions, whether rulers or authorities” by (ἐν, en) him, through (διά, dia) him, and for (εἰς, eis) him (1:16). (3) The Son’s divine character is also apparent in Paul’s declaration that “all [created] things” are dependent upon him for their continuance in existence: “all things by him endure [or “hold together”]” (1:17; see Heb. 1:3). (4) Finally, Paul’s description of Christ as “the Firstborn of all creation,” in light of the entire context, is to be understood, as in Romans 8:29, in the Hebraic sense of an ascription of priority of rank to the firstborn son who enjoys a special place in the father’s love. 68

The recent attempts of some scholars to empty Paul’s description of all references to the Son’s personal preexistence and to make his words mean nothing more than that the power that God exercised in creation is now fully revealed and embodied in Christ fall far short of the passage’s full import. Furthermore, Paul’s intention behind his description of Jesus as “the Firstborn of all creation” is a universe away from the Arian interpretation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that would insist that the word shows that the Son was the “first” of all other created things; the entire context demands that the term is to be understood in the Hebraic sense as an ascription of that priority which the firstborn son enjoyed in the father’s love.

That the Son is also preeminent over the church is stated in Paul’s description of him as “the Head of the body, the church,” “the Beginning [of the new humanity],” “the Firstborn from the dead, that he might come to have first place [as the Father’s exalted Son] over all things” (1:18a, b, c; see Rom. 8:29) and the One through whose peacemaking cross work God is finally to reconcile all things for his (Christ’s) glory (1:20).

It is difficult to find any biblical passage that more forthrightly affirms the full and unabridged deity of Jesus Christ than Colossians 1:15–20, spelling out as it does on a scale of cosmic dimensions his role in creating and preserving all things and his divine preeminence over all created things as Creator and Redeemer. Here Paul explicitly declares that Jesus Christ, as God’s Son, was existing with the Father prior to the creation of the universe, was himself God’s Agent in creation, and as the Image of the invisible God, that is, as God himself, by his incarnation made the invisible God visible to men. Then, as the exalted “Firstborn from the dead,” his eschatological preeminence is implied in Paul’s assertion that God willed to reconcile all things for Christ’s glory (εἰς αὐτόν, eis auton) which is finally to be fulfilled in the “Eschaton.” (ibid)

blessings

[epistemaniac]

re Cam saying “Matthew 28:19: 1 Thessalonians 1:1, I suppose this makes Paul, Silias, and Timothy a trinity, too. 1 Ti 5:21, and this would make the angels the part of the trinity, too I suppose.

Not real swift….. One important difference betweent he 2 passages is that Matthew uses the singular “name” to speak of the the 3 members of the godhead, the Father, Son and Spirit, not baptism in the “name(s)”….. whereas Paul opens his letter to the Thess. clearly stating that the letter is from all 3 persons.

blessings

[NickHassan]

Quote (epistemaniac @ Aug. 09 2006,00:15)

re Col. 2:8-10 etc… of course not, but it is also never said of us that we possess the “fullness” of the godhead bodily. Can you show me a Scripture that does describe believers in this way? I didn't think so. “In Colossians 1:19, Paul wrote: “In him [God] willed all the fullness to dwell.”

Hi E,
Christ is like to us in all ways except sin as Hebrews shows. he was a vessel for the fullness of deity he was not but which DWELLED IN HIM. God was IN HIM reconciling the world to Himself.

We too can be sharers of that mighty Spirit of God in the body of Christ. In none of us is expressed the fullness of the powers of God, which are the gifts of that Spirit, but we should all be expressing the loving nature of God which is fruit

Look at Phil 2.13
“13for it is (A)God who is at work in you, both to will and to work (B)for His good pleasure. “

and now Eph 3.19

“19and to know (A)the love of Christ which (B)surpasses knowledge, that you may be Âfilled up to all the (D)fullness of God.”

The same.

God in us as
God was in Christ
that we may be sharers of the divine nature and that
God may be all in all.

[epistemaniac]

lastly Cam, as far as John 10ff is concerned, and your question “Why would he say “again” if he was never created and given life?”

Ah… so you do adhere to the heresy that Jesus is a created being? Too bad. Hopefully the many hours of research and answering each biblical passage will give you something to think about in this regard…. at any rate, your question is quite simple…. it has nothing to do with Jesus' prior existence at all. Clearly the context is speaking of Him laying His life down for His sheep on the Cross, and thus is a discussion pertaining to the real physical death Jesus the man would endure, the taking upon Himself all the sins of His people in order to propitiate and expiate these sins, because the Bible is quite clear; “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins”. In this sense then, Jesus lays down His life. Interestingly, something that totally trashes the anti trinitarians position, and again, let me thank you for bringing up all these very important passages, is that Jesus claims to have the ability and authority to lay down His life, and to ressurrect Himself from the dead. This is the perogative of deity alone, so not only does it prove Christ's divinity, it also dismantles the “soul sleep” heresy teachers, for Jesus had to be aware and conscious after His death in order to raise Himself from the dead in body. So yeah… once again, thanks for bringing all these crucial passages to discussion.

blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi E Jn 10.18
“18”(A)No one has taken it away from Me, but I (B)lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again ÂThis commandment I received from My Father.”

How can Jesus be God and yet have to decide to obey a greater being, God, who he told the jews in Jn 8.54 is the Father?
Surely no one tells God what to do?
God does not have to obey anyone.

More patchwork needed on the creaky old trinity theory.

[epistemaniac]

Nick, are you married? If so, are you a greater/superior being than your wife? According to your reasoning, she must be inferior… have you told her this yet? I doubt she would be too thrilled by the idea…..

…. so just as in the economy of the family, the husband can be said to be the “head” of the family such that the wife is to be in subjection to him, yet this in no way tells us that her (or any kids for that matter) inherent being (ontology) is inferior to the husband; so too Jesus the Son can say that the Father is greater then He is in that Jesus, in the economy of the Trinity, agrees to do the Father's will. Its really that simple Nick, but somehow I doubt that you can see that this is true because you have you presuppositions that are blinding you to the truth. A concept this simple is beyond you because you have short circuited your brain by thinking that you don't have to think, and by failing to take into account the Bible's full testimony concerning the Son.

At any rate, though this simple “objection” (though I hesitate to even give that description to something so simplistic and easy to overcome from the Trinitarian perspective) has been answered so many times, perhaps the testimony of yet one more will help to open your blinded eyes….?

“JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of Himself as less than God?

PROBLEM: Orthodox Christianity confesses Jesus is both fully man and fully God.

Yet Jesus said in John 14:28, “My Father is greater than I.” How can the Father be greater if Jesus is equal to God?

SOLUTION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30). Just as an earthly father is equally human with, but holds a higher office than, his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. In like manner, we speak of the president of our country as being a greater man, not by virtue of his character, but by virtue of his position. Therefore, Jesus cannot ever be said to say that He considered Himself anything less than God by nature. The following summary helps to crystalize the differences:

JESUS IS EQUAL TO THE
FATHER
In essence
In nature
In character

THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN JESUS
In function
In office
In position”
(When Critics Ask, Norm Geisler)

and

“How can Jesus' statement “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) be reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?

In John 14:28 Jesus says, “If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (NIV). The Trinity is defined in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (No. 6) as follows: “There are three Persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.” How, then, can the Son affirm that the Father is greater ( meizon ) than He?

Our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking here, not in His divine nature as God the Son, but in His human nature, as the Son of Man. Christ came to suffer and die, not as God, who can do neither, but as the Second Adam, born of Mary. Only as the Son of Man could He serve as Messiah, or Christ (the Anointed One). Unless He could take to Himself a true and genuine human nature, He could never have represented Adam's race as Sin-Bearer at the Cross. But as the Son of Man, He certainly was lower in station than God the Father. As Isaiah 52:13-53:12 makes clear, He could only become our Savior by becoming the Servant of Yahweh. The servant by definition can never be as great as his master. Hence it was as the death- conquering Redeemer, the God-man, that Jesus would enter into the presence of the Father, who of course would be greater in dignity and station than the Son of Man.

But as for God the Son, apart from the Incarnation, Scripture never suggests any contrast in glory as between the Father and the Son. The following passages make this abundantly clear: John 1:1 , 18 ; 8:58 ; 10:30 ; 14:9 ; 17:5 ; Romans 9:5 (“Christ … who is God over all”); Colossians 2:2 ; Titus 2:13 ; Hebrews 1:8 ; 1 John 5:20 ; cf. also Isaiah 9:6 (which affirms that the Virgin-born Immanuel is also the Mighty God– 'el gibbor ).

As for 1 John 5:7 –which in KJV reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”–the only portion of this verse that appears in any Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth century is the first clause only: “For there are three who bear witness”–followed immediately by v.8: “the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement” (lit., “are unto one”). The rest of v.7 appears in Old Latin manuscripts as early as the fifth century but not in Greek until the very late miniscule 635, in the margin. It therefore seems best to omit this verse in the list of attestations of the Trinity, even though it seems to contain excellent theology.” (Gleason Archer, Ency. of Bible Difficulties)

and, as an added bonus, I have this for you:

“Does the Bible really teach that God is a Trinity?

Christian baptism commanded by Christ in the Great Commission (M att. 28:19) is to be “in the name of the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit” (NASB). Notice that it says “name,” not “names.” This suggests that the name of God is Father-Son-Holy Spirit. It is true that the term “Trinity” was not employed by the actual Hebrew or Greek text of the Bible; but neither is “soteriology”–yet there is a systematic doctrine of salvation found in Scripture–neither is “hamartiology” nor “transcendence” nor “immanence” nor “preexistence” nor “Christology.” Few people who discuss biblical teaching raise a red flag and object to the use of these terms when they discuss the nature of the gracious working of God. Such designations serve as convenient labels for concepts or complex teachings concerning subjects that belong together. It is impossible to discuss theology as a systematic, philosophical discipline without using these technical terms. None of them is found in the Bible text, to be sure; but all of the them sum up in a coherent, organized way the major concepts that are taught in Scripture. Therefore we must dismiss as irrelevant the objection that the precise word “Trinity” is not used in the Bible text.

On the other hand, we venture to insist that some of the most basic and fundamental teaching about God remains nearly incomprehensible without a grasp of the doctrine or the Trinity.

First, let us be very clear as to what is meant by “Trinity.” This implies that God is a Unity subsisting in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit–all three of whom are one God. That God is One is asserted in both the Old and New Testaments: Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh our God is one Yahweh”; Mark 12:29 : “Jesus answered, `The first [great commandment] is, “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord'”; Ephesians 4:6 : “[There is] one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” These are all clear, unequivocal affirmations of monotheism. God is One. There are no other gods besides Him. Isaiah 45:22 quotes God as saying, “Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other” (NASB). Or again, Psalm 96:4-5 reads: “For great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the people are idols [the Hebrew 'elilim connotes `weak, worthless ones'].” This is made very explicit in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 : “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father from whom are all things,…and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things” (NASB).

On the other hand, the Bible teaches that God is not a sterile monad but eternally exists in
three Persons. This is suggested by the Creation account in Genesis 1:1-3 : “In the beginning God [ 'elohim , plural in form, with the im ending] created [ bara' , a singular verb, not the plural bare'u ] the heavens and the earth [this plural for `God' is probably a `plural of majesty'; yet compare Gen. 1:26-27 , discussed below]. And the earth was formless and void…and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters [showing the involvement of the Third Person in the work of creation]. Then God [ 'elohim ] said , `Let there be light!'” (NASB). Here we have God speaking as the Creative Word, the same as the Logos ( John 1:3 ), who is the Second Person of the Trinity.

The Bible teaches that each Person of the Trinity has a special function, both in the work of creation and in the work of redemption.

The Father is the Source of all things ( 1 Cor. 8:6 : “from whom are all things”). He is the one who planned and ordained redemption. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son” ( John 3:16 ). This incarnation was a fulfillment of His previously announced decree in Psalm 2:7 ; “I will surely tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said to Me, `Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.'” He also has given His messianic Servant as an atonement for our sins ( Isa. 53:6 , 10 ). He has likewise given the Holy Spirit to His people ( Acts 2:18 ; Eph. 1:17 ). He bestowed salvation on the redeemed ( Eph. 2:8-9 ) through the faith that is also His gift. And to His Son He has given the church ( John 6:37 ).

As for God the Son, it was through Him that all the work of creation was accomplished ( John 1:3 ; 1 Cor. 8:6 ), which means that He was also the Lord God addressed in Psalm 90 as the Creator who fashioned the mountains, hills, and all the earth. He is also the Sustainer and Preserver of the material universe that He created ( Heb. 1:2-3 ). Yet He is also the God who became ” flesh ” ( John 1:18 ), that is, a true human being– without ceasing to be God–in order to explain (“exegete”) God to mankind. He was the Light that came into the world to save men from the power of darkness ( John 1:9 ; 8:12 ) by means of His perfect obedience to the law and by His atoning death on the cross ( Heb. 1:3 ). He was also the one who overcame the power of death; and as the risen Savior, He established and commissioned His church as His living temple, His body and His bride.

The Holy Spirit is that Person of the Godhead who inspired the writing of Scripture ( 1 Cor. 2:13 ; 2 Peter 1:21 ), who manifests the gospel to God's redeemed ( John 16:14 ). He communicates the benefits of Calvary to all truly believe and receive Christ as Lord and Savior ( John 1:12-13 ); and He enters their souls to sanctify their bodies as living temples of God ( 1 Cor. 3:16 ; 6:19 ), after they have been born again by His transforming grace ( John 3:5-6 ). Then He teaches believers to understand and believe the words of Christ ( John 14:26 ; 1 Cor. 2:10 ), as He bears witness of Christ both by external signs and by inward conviction ( John 15:26 ; Acts 2:33 , 38 , 43 ). He sanctifies and brings together the members of Christ into a living organism that is the true temple of the Lord ( Eph. 2:18-22 ) and bestows on each member special gifts of grace and power ( charismata ) by which they may enrich and strengthen the church as a whole ( 1 Cor. 12:7-11 ).

The New Testament repeatedly and plainly affirms that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He is set forth as the all-creative Word of God who actually was God ( John 1:1-3 ). He was indeed the “only begotten God” ( John 1:18 , for according to the oldest and best manuscripts that was the original reading in this verse) rather than “only begotten Son.” In John 20:28 the affirmation or the no-longer-doubting Thomas, “My Lord and my God!” is accepted by Christ as His true identity; for He commented: “Have you believed because you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Believed what? Why, that which Thomas just acknowledged, that Christ is both Lord and God! !

In the Pauline and General epistles, we find the following clear affirmations of Christ's full and essential deity.

1. Speaking of the Israelites, Paul says, “Of whom [ on , the participle really demands this rendering; ho on (`he is') has to be a relative construction modifying ho Christos as its antecedent] was Christ according to the flesh , who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen” ( Rom. 9:5 ).

2. In Titus 2:13 Paul speaks of “looking forward to the glorious appearing [ epiphaneia is elsewhere used only of the appearance of Christ, never of God the Father] of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

3. Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6-7 as a proof of the deity of Christ, as taught in the Old Testament: “But to the Son he says, `Thy throne, O God [the Hebrew passage uses 'elohim here], is forever and ever.'”

4. Hebrews 1:10-11 , quoting from Psalm 102:25-26 , states; “In the beginning, O Lord [this entire psalm is addressed to Yahweh, and so the author inserts the vocative LORD here from the previous contest], Thou didst establish the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. They will perish, but Thou remainest.” Here Christ is addressed as the God who always existed, even before Creation, and who will always live, even after the heavens have passed away.

5. In 1 John 5:20 says, “We are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He [lit., `this one'] is the true God and eternal life.”

So far as Old Testament passages are concerned, the following have a definite bearing on the Trinity.

1. Genesis 1:26 quotes God ( 'elohim ) as saying, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness” (NASB). This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore we must face the question of who are included in this “us” and “our.” It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: “And God [ 'elohim ] created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male female He Created them” (NASB). God–the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural–now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together–without ceasing to be one God.

For us who have been created in God's image, this should not be too difficult to grasp; for there is a very definite sense in which we too are Trinitarian in nature. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 indicates this clearly enough; “Now may the God of peace sanctify you wholly, and may your entire spirit and soul and body be preserved without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” We often find ourselves engaged in a debate between our spirit, soul, and bodily nature as we grapple with a moral decision and are faced with a choice between the will of God and the desire of our self-seeking, flesh-pleasing nature.

2. Psalm 33:6 reads, “By word of Yahweh were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the Spirit [ ruah ] of His mouth.” Here again we have the same involvement of all three Persons of the Trinity in the work of creation: the Father decrees, the Son as the Logos brings the Father's decree into operation, and the Spirit imparts His life-giving dynamic to the whole process.

3. Psalm 45:6 has already been quoted in connection with Hebrews 1:8 : “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy Kingdom.” But Psalm 45:7 brings in the reference to a God who will bless this God who is perfect King: “Thou hast loved righteou
sness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee with the oil of joy above Thy fellows” (NASB). The concept of God blessing God can only be understood in a Trinitarian sense. A unitarian concept would make this passage unintelligible.

4. Isaiah 48:16 sets forth all three Persons in the work of redemptive revelation and action: “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret; from the time it took place , I was there. And now the Lord Yahweh has sent Me, and His Spirit.” Here we have the God-man Redeemer speaking (the one who has just described Himself in v.12 as “the First and Last,” and in v.13 as the one who “founded the earth and spread out the heavens.”) He now says here in v.16 that He has been sent by the Lord Yahweh (which in this case must refer to God the Father) and also by His Spirit (the Third Person of the Trinity). Conceivably “and His Spirit” could be linked up with “Me” as the object of “has sent,” but in the context of the Hebrew original here it gives the impression that His ruah (“Spirit”)is linked up with 'adonay YHWH (“Lord Yahweh”) as an added subject rather than an added object. At any rate, the Third Person is distinguished from either the First or the Second, so far as these verses are concerned.

In addition to the examples given above of Old Testament verses that cannot be made sense of except through the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead, there are repeated instances of the activity of the “Angel of Yahweh” who becomes equated with Yahweh Himself. Consider the following passages:

1. Genesis 22:11 describes the most dramatic moment of Abraham's experience on Mount Moriah, as he was about to sacrifice Isaac: “But the Angel of Yahweh called to him from heaven, and said, `Abraham, Abraham!'” The next verse proceeds to equate that Angel with God Himself: “For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” Then in vv. 16-17 the Angel declares, “`By Myself I have sworn,' declares Yahweh, `because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son…indeed I will greatly bless you.'” Very clearly the Angel of Yahweh here is Yahweh Himself. “Yahweh” is the covenant name of the Trinitarian God, and the Angel of that God is also Himself God. That is to say, we can identify the Angel of Yahweh in passages like these as the preincarnate Redeemer, God the Son, already engaged in His redemptive or mediatorial work even prior to His becoming Man in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

2. In Genesis 31:11 , 13 we have the same phenomenon; the Angel of God turns out to be God Himself: “Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, `Jacob,' and I said, `Here I am….I am the God of Bethel,
where you anointed a pillar.'” (NASB).

3. Exodus 3:2 states: “And the angel of Yahweh appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush.” Then in v.4 we read: “When Yahweh saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush.” The full self-identification then comes in v.6: “He said also, `I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.” Here again the Angel of Yahweh turns out to be Yahweh God Himself.

4. Judges 13:20 states: “For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of Yahweh ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground.” Verses 22-23 complete the identification of the Angel with God: “So Manoah said to his wife, `We shall surely die, for we have seen God!' But his wife said to him, `If Yahweh had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands.'”

From this survey of the biblical evidence, we must conclude that Scripture does indeed teach the doctrine of the Trinity, even though it does not use that precise term. Furthermore, we ought to observe that the concept of God as one in essence but three in centers of consciousness–what the Greek church referred to as three hypostases and the Latin church as personae –is absolutely unique in the history of human thought. No other culture or philosophical movement ever came up with such an idea of God as this–an idea that remains very difficult for our finite minds to grasp. Yet the inability to comprehend fully the richness and fullness of God's nature as embraced in the Trinity should not furnish any solid ground for skepticism as to its truth. For if we are to accept and believe only what we can fully understand, then we are hopelessly beyond redemption. Why so? Because we shall never fully understand how God could love us enough to send His only Son to earth in order to die for our sins and become our Savior. If we cannot accept any idea that we do not completely understand, then how can we believe John 3:16 ? How can we receive the assurance of the gospel and be saved?” (ibid)

blessings

[kenrch]

I thought the Trinty doctrine stated that three “Equal” persons in one

The father is greater than the Son. The Son is God of this world being the second Adam and the one who defeated Satan. When Jesus is finished His work and death is conquered then Jesus will turn everything over to His and our God Jehovah.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 09 2006,00:12)

Hi E, Is Christ a deity? I thought there was only one deity and that is God.

I know you think this Nick, these simplistic questions have been answered repeatedly for you, but you do not have ears to hear it seems. In fact, the Bible EXPLICITLY says that Jesus is deity: (Col 2:8-9 NASB) See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. {9} For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form,”

The word “deity” here is:
theotēs
Thayer Definition:
1) deity
1a) the state of being God, Godhead
Part of Speech: noun feminine” (Thayers)

2320. θεότης theótēs; gen. theótētos, fem. noun from Theós (2316), God. Deity, Godhead as directly revealed, God’s personality (Col. 2:9), as distinguished from theiótēs (2305) in Rom. 1:20, divinity or divine power and majesty, a concept arrived at by observing God’s mighty works. (Zodhiates, S. The Complete Word Study Dict)

theótēs (→ theiótēs). This word, meaning “divinity,” occurs in the NT only in Col. 2:9 (cf. 1:19-20). The one God, to whom all deity belongs, has given this fullness of deity to the incarnate Christ.
(Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. Theological dictionary of the New Testament.)

“Colossians i. 15–20, is expressly designed to set forth the true Godhead of Christ in opposition to the errors springing from the emanation theory, which had already begun to prevail in the churches of Asia Minor. This passage sets forth the relation of Christ, first to God, and secondly to the universe, and thirdly to the Church. Here, as in so many other places of Scripture, the predicates of the Λόγος ἄσαρκος of the Λόγος ἔνσαρκος, are mingled together. As in Heb. i. 2, 3, the Son is said to have created all things, and to be the brightness of the Father’s glory, and also to have made purification for sin; so here part of what is said belongs to’ the Logos as existing from eternity, and part belongs to Him as clothed in our nature. It was the Λόγος ἄσαρκος who is declared to be the image of the invisible God and creator of all things; and it is the Λόγος ἔνσαρκος who is declared to be the head of the Church. The relation of Christ to God, in this passage is expressed, (1.) By the words just quoted, “He is the image of the invisible God.” He is so related to God that He reveals what God is, so that those who see Him, see God, those who know Him, know God, and those who hear Him, hear God. He is the brightness of God’s glory, and his express image. (2.) His relation to God is also expressed by saying that He is begotten from eternity, or the only begotten Son. The words πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως are indeed variously explained. By Socinians they are made to mean that He was the head of the new dispensation; by Arians that He was the first created of all rational creatures; by many orthodox interpreters πρωτότοκος is taken in its secondary sense, of head or chief. They therefore understand the Apostle to say that Christ is the ruler or head over the whole creation. All these interpretations, however, are inconsistent with the proper meaning of the words, with the context, and with the analogy of Scripture. Πρωτότοκος means born before. What Christ is said to have been born before, is expressed by πάσης κτίσεως. He was born (or begotten) before any or every creature, i. e., before creation, or from eternity. All the arguments adduced in a preceding chapter in proof of the eternal generation of the Son, are arguments in favour of this interpretation. Besides, the Arian interpretation is inconsistent with the meaning of the words. That interpretation assumes that the genitive πάσης κτίσεως is to be taken partitively, so that Christ is said to be a part of the creation, the first of creatures, as He is said to be the first of those who rose from the dead, when He is called προτότοκος των νεκρων, But πασα κτίσις does not mean the whole creation, as indicating the class or category to which Christ belongs, but every creature, as indicating a relation or comparison; Christ is the first begotten as to every creature, i. e., begotten before any creature (i. e., eternally, according to the constant usage of Scripture, for what is before creation is eternal.) Besides, the connection requires this interpretation. The Apostle proves that Christ is the image of the invisible God, and the προτότοκος πάσης κτισεως by an argument which proves that He cannot be a creature; and therefore the birth of which he speaks must be before time. Secondly, the relation of Christ to the universe is expressed in this passage by saying, (1.) That He is the Creator of all things. This is amplified, as the all things are declared to include all that are in heaven and earth,. visible and invisible, rational and irrational, however exalted, even thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers; that is, the whole hierarchy of the spiritual world. (2.) He is not only the author but the end of the creation, for all things were not only created by Him, but for Him. (3.) He upholds all things; by Him all things consist, i. e., are preserved in being, life, and order. Thirdly, Christ is the head of the Church, the source of life and grace to all its members. For in Him “all fullness,” the plenitude of divine blessings dwells. In chapter Col. ii. 3, all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (i. e., all knowledge or omniscience) are said to dwell in Christ; and in Col. ii. 9, that He is filled with “the fullness of the Godhead.” This is very different from the πληρωμα mentioned in i. 19, where the Apostle is speaking of what Beza calls “cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum copia, ex qua, tanquan inexhausto fonte, omnes gratin in corpus pro cujusque membri modulo deriventuŕ” but here the reference is to the divine being, nature, or essence itself, τὸ πλήρωμα της θεότητος. The word θεότης is abstract of θεός as θειότης is of θειος; the former means Godhead, that which makes God, God; the latter means divinity, that which renders divine. The entire plenitude of the divine essence (not a mere emanation of that essence as the rising sect of the Gnostics taught), dwells (κατοικει permanently abides, it is no transient manifestation) in Him bodily, σωματικως, invested with a body. The Godhead in its fulness is incarnate in Christ. He is, therefore, not merely θεός but ὁ θεός in the
highest sense. More than Paul says cannot be said. (Hodge, C. (1997). Systematic Theology.)

selah

fine

blessings

[Elidad]

epistemaniac,Aug. wrote:

[/quote]
Hello Epistemaniac, Yours are sure the fingers of a ready typist. Your posts are exceptionally long and would take the same degree of verbose for response.

If you really want to test your understandings further, I suggest that you get yourself a copy of the book written by Greg S. Dueble, titled “They Never Told Me this in Church”. Dueble is a former Pastor of the Church of Christ; graduate from a Church of Christ Bible College.

Dueble explains how he previously vigourously promoted and defended the Trintarian view, and how he was subsequently challenged to rethink his postion, in a way that he had not considered before.

Then, throughout the length of his book of some 430 pages, he examines all the previous arguments that he used to defend his former standpoint, and shows how he had been completely deceived by the sophistry of words and the cunning of tradition.

You will find that he has covered off on many of the arguments that you are endeavouring to advance, to support the understanding that you are contending for.

May the truth, as it is in Christ Jesus our Lord, become clear to us all.

Elidad

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
Your lengthy rationalisations seem to miss some pretty obvious facts lost in the verbosity.

“The first thing that Paul tells us is that Christ, as the Father’s Son, is “the Image of the invisible God.” What does he mean by this? In view of Paul’s equation of “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the Image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4) with “the light of the glory of God [imaged] in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6), it appears that he is saying that in Jesus Christ the glory of God, indeed God himself, becomes manifest. When one recalls, in addition, that the writer of Hebrews (Paul?) also described God’s Son as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3), and that James described “our Lord Jesus Christ” as “the Glory” of God (2:1; see Zech. 2:5), there can be little doubt that Paul, with the New Testament writers in general, intended to assert that Jesus Christ is the invisible God made visible.”

So you have said that Jesus is;

The Son of God
The image of God
Our Lord.

Which are all true.
So why would misconstrue and believe instead that He is our God who in fact is his father and his God?

[camrezaie]

yeah i dont really have time to read those insanely huge posts your leaving, try breaking it down little a time… if you took the time to look at my responses for each of the verses that are trinity “proof texts”, regardless of the “deity” or christ its obvious that from what we read, the father is at a much higher status than Jesus, the scriptures even liken jesus to adam in corinthians and romans,

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life giving spirit

from what ive read in the bible, it is clear that in order for christ to have given us another chance, he would have had to been equally like adam in just about every aspect… if christ were god the ransom would have been infinitely greater.. it just doesnt make sense that god would send himself as a sacrifice.. also numbers 23:19 i believe clearly states that god is not a man or a son of man… how much more clear can it get? the problem is i think trinitarians are taking the very few verses their are that are that they claim are “proof-texts” that are very ambiguous and could have different meanings or interpretations and theyre basing all of their beliefs off of that while ignoring the solid scriptures that are pure proof against the trinity… a wise person would take the entire bible into account and look at the solid and unmistakeable verses first and then look at the rest of the bible in correlation with those verses… i just want to share this with you, this probably wont mean anything to anyone but the girl that i was going to marry changed her mind on me because i dont believe in the trinity, if i believed in the trinity we would get married, i would do anything to be with this girl and all i would have to do is say that i believe in the trinity… i cant do it…. ive wanted to and ive tried but if i do that then i feel like im betraying and disowning the one true god jehovah… after all of this research and studying ive done i feel like i really know the truth and now i am compelled to follow it, ive prayed about it so many times and my heart is telling me that i have found the truth and i cannot turn my back on it… but it kills me to know that i am probably going to lose my wife in all of this…

[NickHassan]

Hi cam,
Bless you bro. You are an inspiration.

[Elidad]

Quote (camrezaie @ Aug. 09 2006,05:34)

… i just want to share this with you, this probably wont mean anything to anyone but the girl that i was going to marry changed her mind on me because i dont believe in the trinity, if i believed in the trinity we would get married, i would do anything to be with this girl and all i would have to do is say that i believe in the trinity… i cant do it…. ive wanted to and ive tried but if i do that then i feel like im betraying and disowning the one true god jehovah… after all of this research and studying ive done i feel like i really know the truth and now i am compelled to follow it, ive prayed about it so many times and my heart is telling me that i have found the truth and i cannot turn my back on it… but it kills me to know that i am probably going to lose my wife in all of this…

Hi Cam, Your stand is admirable indeed. It would seem that for such you have placed yourself in good standing with the Lord, if what we read in Matthew 19:29 is any consolation;

“Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

May you be truly blessed for your integrity of heart .

Elidad

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
34 years and still loving her.
Now why would you want to divert from the obvious superiority of the Father over His Son as to origin, to discuss marriage?

“Nick, are you married? If so, are you a greater/superior being than your wife? According to your reasoning, she must be inferior… have you told her this yet? I doubt she would be too thrilled by the idea…..”

[NickHassan]

Hi E.
You say
“2. Psalm 33:6 reads, “By word of Yahweh were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the Spirit [ ruah ] of His mouth.” Here again we have the same involvement of all three Persons of the Trinity in the work of creation: the Father decrees, the Son as the Logos brings the Father's decree into operation, and the Spirit imparts His life-giving dynamic to the whole process. “

So here is Ps 33.1-9
” 1(A)Sing for joy in the LORD, O you righteous ones;
        Praise is (B)becoming to the upright.
   2Give thanks to the LORD with the ©lyre;
        Sing praises to Him with a (D)harp of ten strings.
   3Sing to Him a (E)new song;
        Play skillfully with (F)a shout of joy.
   4For the word of the LORD (G)is upright,
        And all His work is done (H)in faithfulness.
   5He (I)loves righteousness and justice;
        The (J)earth is full of the lovingkindness of the LORD.
   6By the (K)word of the LORD the heavens were made,
        And (L)by the breath of His mouth (M)all their host.
   7He gathers the (N)waters of the sea together as a heap;
        He lays up the deeps in storehouses.
   8Let (O)all the earth fear the LORD;
        Let all the inhabitants of the world (P)stand in awe of Him.
   9For (Q)He spoke, and it was done;
        He commanded, and it stood fast.
   10The LORD (A)nullifies the counsel of the nations;
        He frustrates the plans of the peoples.
   11The (B)counsel of the LORD stands forever,
        The ©plans of His heart from generation to generation.
   12Blessed is the (D)nation whose God is the LORD,
        The people whom He has (E)chosen for His own inheritance.
   13The LORD (F)looks from heaven;
        He (G)sees all the sons of men;
   14From (H)His dwelling place He looks out
        On all the inhabitants of the earth,
   15He who (I)fashions the hearts of them all,
        He who (J)understands all their works.
   16(K)The king is not saved by a mighty army;
        A warrior is not delivered by great strength.
   17A (L)horse is a false hope for victory;
        Nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength.
   18Behold, (M)the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him,
        On those who (N)hope for His lovingkindness,
   19To (O)deliver their soul from death
        And to keep them alive (P)in famine.
   20Our soul (Q)waits for the LORD;
        He is our ®help and our shield.
   21For our (S)heart rejoices in Him,
        Because we trust in His holy name.
   22Let Your lovingkindness, O LORD, be upon us,
        According as we have hoped in You. “

Typical scripture mining by trinity based men.

Who is the Psalm of praise addressed to?
It is addressed to the Lord God Whom Jesus identified as the Father in Jn 8.54

The Word here is Jesus then you will have to ascribe verses 4 onwards to him and not the Father.
If so by what authority can you ascribe verse here and there to Jesus without evidence?
Where is the Spirit called the breath of God?
Adam was born of the breath of God but was not of the Spirit of God.

The work of God done by in this Psalm is shown and praised.

The rest of your assumptions are apparently self justifying cant.

[NickHassan]

In John 14:28 Jesus says, “If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the
Hi E,
You say
“Father is greater than I” (NIV). The Trinity is defined in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (No. 6) as follows: “There are three Persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.” How, then, can the Son affirm that the Father is greater ( meizon ) than He? “

You may place great value on the followers of the Harlot church but such views as theirs carry very little weight here.

[Author]

Posts