Outline
B. The Translation Problem
It must be noted as we begin that the view of the "Holy Trinity" is not a concept that is definitively taught in the Biblical scriptures. It was not until Gentiles entered the ranks of believers that the theology was seriously considered. In fact, "church" leaders and authorities were still arguing its merits before and after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD where it was "officially" adopted by the majority. Until then, and to some extent even after then, it was a matter of legitimate debate. From this council originated what eventually became the Nicene Creed. After continuing controversy, it was later refined in the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. In that form it was adopted as "gospel" by the Roman Catholic Church. The essence of this Creed is recited at most "high" masses by the officiating priest and repeated by the laity. For purposes of our discussion I will quote it here.
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven. And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: And was made man. He was crucified also for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven. He sitteth at the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life: Who spake by the Prophets. And in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the world to come. Amen.
The above Nicene Creed was essentially fashioned from the creed of Caesarea, and was put forth mainly by Eusebius. It reads thus:
We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, the maker of things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, Son only-begotten, Firstborn of all creation, begotten of the Father before all the ages, through whom also all things were made; who was made flesh for our salvation and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead; we believe also in on Holy Spirit.1
Eusebius' creed was modified at the council, since it did not directly address the anti-Trinitiarian view of Arius. Phrases such as "true God of true God" and "for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man" were used to modify the creed of Caesarea. In addition, a concluding portion was added which specifically attacked Arius' beliefs. As Beecher said, a creed was made to keep out minority opinions.
There has been considerable Catholic literature concerning the essences of this Creed and the theology of the "Holy Trinity" contained therein. It also must be noted here, however, that by the time this Creed was written many fundamental precepts of scripture had already been abrogated by unprincipled men in their quest for power. In fact, many scriptural truths were disregarded to accommodate "traditions" by the time of the Nicene Council. The Catholic Church's attitude toward scripture vs. tradition is described succinctly by the Catholic Brantl.
Catholic theologians maintain that as a source of truth, tradition is superior to Scripture. Scripture is, after all, incomplete; it not only requires interpretation, but it required tradition in order that it might be recognized and established. Further, Scripture is not a textbook; in a sense, it is a dead word which must be brought to life in the living voice of tradition (emphasis mine).3
It is easy to conclude from the above quote that the roman Catholic Church does
not place their top priority on the scriptures when it comes to faith and practice.
Regardless of their public posturing on the efficacy of Bible study in recent years, they
believe that the scriptures are inferior (since tradition is superior), incomplete (since
tradition is used at all), and dead (Brantl's term, not mine). Actually, Rome was forced
into the above explanation as an answer to Luther's challenge that the Roman Church's
theology contradicted a multitude of scriptures.
We can see, therefore, that challenges to Catholic orthodoxy are answered with
the "infallibility of the Church" paradigm. In this regard, John Henry Cardinal Newman
declares that these "truths" must be accepted by all Catholics whether understood from
the scripture or not. Commenting on FAITH AND THEOLOGY he pontificates thus:
... why has not the Catholic Church limited her credenda to propositions such as those in her Creed, concrete and practical, easy of apprehension, and of a character to win assent? such as "Christ is God"; ... and the like, as they are found in her catechisms. On the contrary, she makes it imperative on everyone, priest and layman, to profess as revealed truth all canons of the Councils, and innumerable decisions of Popes, propositions so various, so notional (subjective), that but few can know them, and fewer can understand them (emphasis mine).4
As the reader can detect from the opinions of the Cardinal, if you want to be a part of the
Catholic system you must "buy" the authority of the "powers that be" to decide what is truth and
what is not. It is not the scripture that decides but the "canons of the Councils and innumerable
decisions of Popes" even though these decisions and traditions came about as "propositions so
various, so notional, that but few can know them, and fewer can understand them." The reader
can deduce that the affirmations of the "Church" are indeed the claims of all encompassing
authority.
The good Cardinal even proceeds to "ridicule" the confusing language of the Nicene
Creed as something that does not have to be understood -- just believed and accepted!
What sense, for instance, can a child or a peasant, nay, or any ordinary Catholic, put upon the Trindentine Canons, even in translation?... Or again, consider the very anathematism annexed by the Nicene Council to its Creed, the language of which is so obscure, that even theologians differ about its meaning. It runs as follows: -- ' Those who say that once the Son was not, and before He was begotten He was not, and that He was made out of that which was not...' These doctrinal enunciations are de fide (lit. "of faith" -- not subject to debate); peasants are bound to believe them as well as controversialists, and to believe them as truly as they believe that our Lord is God (emphasis mine).5
There you have it! From this theology composed (by their own definition) from an
"obscure ... propositions so various, so notional" Creed emerged the now entrenched doctrine of
the "Holy Trinity" -- a theology that has endured the great Protestant Reformation of Europe and
the restoration movements of Europe and America.
The reason that I have spent so much time here is because the roots of this theology need
to be examined regardless of the conclusions that might be drawn. If a person denies the
declaration of the Roman Catholic Church -- that truth rest solely with them and that tradition is
superior to the scriptures -- he must press on without trepidation even though questioning the
Trinitarian view places one among the heretics. Robert Whitelaw states it well.
There are some today taught to view with alarm any study, no matter how Biblical, that calls into question cherished religious traditions or creeds of any kind, and particularly those that touch on 'established' doctrines of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity.6
Whitelaw also writes his amazement that modern evangelical preachers and Bible students -- those who do not believe the scriptures inferior, incomplete, and dead -- have so readily accepted the edicts of papal councils. He writes:
What is even more amazing is the veneration that leading evangelicals today continue to attach to the edicts of these 'famous Councils' (e.g.. Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon) made up for the most part of proud and worldly ecclesiastics far removed from the age of the apostles, infatuated with Greek wisdom and Papal authority.7
The challenge to the reader is to lay aside as best he can his paradigm and pre-conceived ideas and examine the scriptures for himself.
Before proceeding to the meat of the subject, I think it imperative to examine briefly the subject of our English translations. It is mandatory for all serious Bible students to recognize that our English Bibles are indeed only translations. All translations contain translator bias or paradigm. I want to stress the word "all". It is impossible to translate the entire Greek or Hebrew text without bias. The reason is simple. Some words will have a certain meaning depending only on the context. This forces the translator to interpret the context before translating the word.
Another reason bias cannot be eliminated stems from the innate difficulty of
translation itself. Languages cannot always be understood on a "word for word" basis. In
addition, the translator is often called upon to supply words to clarify the text. In the
King James Version, these supplied words are sometimes italicized to show that they do
not appear in the original.
The original Greek New Testament is certainly a good example of the difficulty
facing the would be translator. It was penned in "uncials" (all capital letters) and
possessed virtually no punctuation and no spaces between words, sentences and chapters.
Therefore, even the chapter breaks, paragraphs, verse breakdown and numberings depend
-- to various degrees -- upon the interpretation of the translator. In fact, these "helps"
were not added to the text until much later.
A pertinent example would be in the rendering of the Greek word pneuma (Greek
pneuma, i.e., spirit, breath, wind). When you
see pneuma capitalized "Spirit" (or Ghost)
by the KJV, NIV, NASB, or any other translation, you can be sure that you are observing
the translator's Trinitarian theology rather than mere translation.
If the translator did not hold to the view of "Holy Trinity", he probably would
have translated pneuma "breath" and would
certainly leave it uncapitalized. In this example, the correctness of the translator's
theology would determine the correctness of the translation. Are you getting my drift?
The translation that I will use for the New Testament text, generally renders
pneuma "spirit" when revelation is believed
to be meant; and "breath" when miraculous power is considered the meaning. However,
this is also interpretation rather than inspiration, as with all other translations.
Also, some words must be supplied with the pronoun "he" or "it". The translation
problem occurs because "he" or "it" is sometimes only determinable by the theology of
the translator and not the text itself.. Many times the definite article "the" is supplied
when it is uncalled for, especially when translating pneuma. Robert Whitelaw comments correctly on this
matter as follows:
Another misleading translation in the English Bible (KJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, etc.) is found in the phrase "the Holy Spirit" in the four Gospels... In most cases there is no definite article in the Greek, so it should be read as "Holy Breath" ... Yet all English versions print it as "the Holy Spirit" or "the Holy Ghost" without any warning to the reader that the translator is adding a nonexistent "the"; i.e. practicing eisegesis unawares!8
The crux of the matter is that a translation will reflect the paradigm of its
translators. Almost without exception, our English translations were completed by men
who accepted the view of the "Holy Trinity" as part of their paradigm and the KJV, for
instance, contains many other easily discerned biases of the Church of England men that
did the translating. Therefore, to erect a theology around a particular translation is folly at
best.
I have even heard people say that God wanted the English speaking nations to
have the KJV. This argument is spurious and begs the question. The Bible of choice
among Puritans that colonized the Americas was the Geneva Bible. Why didn't God want
them to have that translation? How about the German translation of Luther? Did God
want the German speakers to have Luther's even though differences in translation occur?
To the one who says, "Are you saying we must all learn Greek," I can reply, "Are you
saying we must all learn English?"
The most that can be said is that God desired that we have the New Testament
penned in Greek uncials. This knowledge forces the student to look behind the paradigm
of the translator to see for himself whether their views can be defended. There is an old
saying that is worthy of injection here. It goes something like this:
Truth has nothing to fear from the evidence.9
The scholar David Lipscomb and namesake of David Lipscomb College echoed the above sentiments.
To suppress discussion is to deprive truth of all its vantage ground.10
Frank Daniels, whose Non-ecclesiastical New Testament I will be quoting from unless otherwise noted, had this to say about the result of suppressing discussion:
In reality, most people have no view at all. What they say is nothing more than a repetition of the precepts of their chosen group or the group's leader. They would have no opinion at all if it wasn't supplied to them by the clergy.
This is not a cynical statement, but rather a reflection on the reality that most people mistake
opinion for fact, especially when it is spoken by a professional or "man of the cloth".
The subject of God's nature and the meaning of the phrase "One God" is certainly effected
by the English translation. The nature of this subject will demand from the reader that he be a
serious Bible student and form his own theology. It will also require that he search the scriptures
without the "blinders" of his paradigm. It is the desire of the author that the reader be open
minded and willing to search the scriptures. He is not desirous, however, that anyone be so open
minded that his brains fall out.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE
"HOLY TRINITY"
The above verse is certainly germane to the subject under discussion in this thesis. Before the advent of Christianity and before the theology of "Creedal Trinitarianism" took root, there was no question within the Hebrew culture, Torah, Talmud or Jewish community that Jehovah was more or less than monos (one) theos (Divinity) -- one God in every sense of the word. Monotheism means "the worship of one god."
The Jews did not perceive the "Holy Spirit" of the Old Testament as a separate personality or entity but just another way to describe the power, presence and influence of the one God. For example, when king David said in 2 Samuel 23:2,
The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was in my tongue,
he meant -- according to Jewish thought -- that God (the "his" of the verse) spoke through him.
He was not alluding to another being but to the influence of One God and himself as a prophet.
Of course, modern orthodox Jews still see it no differently and the introductory verse,
"Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one!" is often quoted in their synagogues and on
religious feasts and holidays as a kind of creedal chant of tribute to their monotheism.
In Judaism, there was never any concept whatsoever that the promised Messiah was a
person of God even though some profound attributes were prophesied concerning his person.
They understood the Messiah would be Israel's deliverer and his mission would be sanctioned by
the power of God Almighty but never considered him to be God Himself. This is important in
light of the fact that the Jews believed everything that God accomplished "pre-existed".
Anthony Buzzard explains how they considered their God as the one that "... calls the things that
are not as though they are" (Rom. 4:17).
To claim 'before Abraham was, I am' (John 8:58) is to echo the statements of the Rabbis that 'Messiah existed "before tohu,'" that is, before the chaos of Genesis 1:2. In Jewish thinking anything or anyone of supreme significance in the divine plan 'existed' 'before the foundation of the world.' Thus Moses, the law, the throne of God, and the Messiah were all said to have 'existed' before creation.11
However, their living Messiah (as opposed to the conceptual one) was to be born among Israelites and be likened to Moses. In Deuteronomy 18:15, Moses tells Israel,
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear (NKJV, emphasis mine).
The next verse actually emphasizes the difference between this prophet "like Moses" and the God who had spoken to them at Sinai.
According to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die' (NKJV, verse 16, emphasis mine).
The coming "prophet" would be one of their own and not a spirit being of any kind such as the one that spoke to them at Sinai. This prophet would carry unprecedented status and authority, however. He was going to be the only way to the Father, i.e., "... no one comes to the Father but through me" (John 14:6). Isn't this what Deuteronomy 18:18-19 teaches from the negative standpoint?
I will raise up for them a prophet... and will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him, and it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which he speaks in My name, I will require it of him (NKJV, emphasis mine).
The above also demonstrates that the Messiah was not going to be speaking on his own
initiative but would receive words and be commanded. Jesus echoes this fact repeatedly in his
personal teachings. This aspect of the Messiah's ministry seems to offer one of the biggest
obstacles to Trinitarian theology as it seems to prove just the opposite. Everyone, on both sides
of the question, have trouble with the idea of God commanding God.
The remarkable authority granted the Messiah in the scheme of things -- though a prophet
from among his brethren -- can easily be explained by his relationship with God and the
"anointing" that rested upon him. He could bear Divine titles and obeisance because he was the
"only begotten son of God" and these "amenities" were granted to this Anointed One. However,
Old Testament allusions to the Messiah's power and authority will be seen to have taken place at
his resurrection. I will speak more to this point and to the significance of the term "anointed"
later. The heart of what has been said so far is summed up best by Anthony Buzzard.
A Messiah who has himself existed as "God" from eternity does not share the characteristics of the one destined to be the Savior of Israel and the world.12
The reader can thus be assured that the prevailing theology of the "Holy Trinity" was not a product of Jewish culture or an understanding of Old Testament doctrine. In fact, the Jews had no trouble with the various appellations of God. They saw no need to separate divine Wisdom, Yahweh, and Elohim into a Trinity. As we have seen, they did not regard the coming Anointed One to be a "personality" of God; they rightly saw him as a human being. Finally, they did not distinguish the "Holy Spirit" as a personality of God. The Spirit of God or Holy Spirit was used in an entirely different sense, a sense that will be explored in a later chapter of this paper.
If the view of the "trinity" of God did not issue from Judaism, then where is its fountain? I can say this without fear of the facts. The Bible says nothing "specific" about a "Holy Trinity". Robert L. Whitelaw asks this pertinent question about the etymology of these words and phrases:
Why is it that nowhere in Scripture can one find any such words or phrases as trinity, Trinitarian, triune God, holy trinity, God in Three Persons, or the like in English or in the original Greek and Hebrew?13
Whitelaw answers his own question by correctly observing that even certain words were inserted by the translators to accommodate the Trinitarian view.
Even the English word 'Godhead' was coined to insinuate the idea of the trinity rather than use the plain meaning divinity for the Greek theotes (Col. 2:9), theiotes (Rom. 1:20), and theios (Acts 17:29). There is evidence, in fact, that the KJV translators invented the word 'Godhead' to appease Catholic King James, since he had 'authorized' the version on the condition that the English words chosen must not disturb those tenets of Romanism hitherto derived from, or permitted by the Latin Vulgate.14
Although there is no evidence that King James was ever a Catholic convert, rumors did persist throughout his reign that James was "pro" Catholic. He was actually raised a Presbyterian but as monarch showed no sympathy for Puritan Protestants.15 Regardless, there is little argument between historians that the Church of England and Roman Catholicism were almost identical in theology (except for the authority of the Pope) and both solidly Trinitarian. In addition, the English word Godhead (according to Webster) predated the KJV and was taken from a middle English word that meant literally "Godhood" viz, God's nature. However, it can be surmised that by the time of the KJV it was only understood in a Trinitarian sense. Instead of rendering the Greek qeoV and its derivatives "Divinity" or "Deity" -- which is word for word and would have served well in this instance -- they translated qeothV "Godhead," a word whose original meaning had been obscured by Trinitarian usage. Such is the nature of translator bias.
I mentioned that translation was a difficult process in the best of situations. However,
when men are unduly influenced -- either by outside pressure to conform or by the prejudices of
their own theology -- translation is naturally slanted to accommodate one's views. The above
example of forcing an English word to fit their theology from the Greek qeoV (theos) is a prime example.
QeoV simply means a god or deity. We also have
qeioV (divine), qeothV (God's nature),
and qeiothV (a divine nature). When translated such, the
words offer no hint of plurality and force us to look to history for the advent and source of the
Trinity.
The New Testament never records Jesus alluding to a personal pre-existence as God: the
co-creator and co-eternal One. Atlanta Bible College professor Anthony Buzzard argues:
Contrary to what post-biblical tradition asserted of Jesus, he himself makes no claim whatever, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to have been present at or to have assisted in the creation of the world.16
Except for several references to certain "pre-existence concepts" almost entirely isolated
in John -- which will be discussed in detail later in this work -- the gospel historians had every
opportunity to develop the Trinitarian theology but failed to do so. This is the reason the subject
was central to most heated debates for centuries before being adopted in creed form by the
Roman Catholic Church already referenced. It should be specifically noted that the controversy
arose among Gentile believers and was perpetuated by them. No such controversy or debate
transpired within the ranks of Jewish Christians or between Jewish believers and Jewish
unbelievers for that matter.
If there is a "credal statement" found anywhere in the New Testament that explains the
essential difference between Father God and Jesus it is found in John 17:3.
Now this is the eternal life: that they may know you -- the only true god -- and Anointed Jesus , whom you have sent (emphasis mine).
If this verse was accepted and believed by students just as it reads, no one would be
arguing that Jesus was God or that God was more than one. Jesus (though not discussing
Christology) points out that he and his Father are distinct, separate entities -- making no claims
whatsoever of equality. He describes himself as the "Anointed Jesus" and the one that had been
sent by the "only true God." Now we all know what "only" means.
Paul re-enforces this clear distinction between the God he revealed to his audience as
creator and the "man" whom God "appointed" to judge the worlds thus:
The God who made the universe and everything in it -- the one who is Lord of Heaven and Earth -- does not dwell in handmade temples... Therefore indeed, overlooking the time of ignorance, God now announces to all people in all places to change their minds. Because he has established a day in which he is about to judge the Empire regarding what is right, by a man whom He selected -- having provided proof to all people by raising him from the dead (Acts 17:24,30-31, emphasis mine).
So we can see -- in the words of both Jesus and Paul -- that it was the "... Only True God" who "anointed" and "selected" the separate and distinct "man" who was to judge creation. In the Trinitarian approach, you are forced to admit that indeed God "anointed" and "selected" Himself! Andrews Norton (1786-1853), in a detailed critique of the Trinitarian proposition had this to say:
But further; it (Trinitarianism) contradicts the express and reiterated declarations of our Savior. According to the doctrine in question, it was The Son, or the second person in the Trinity, who was united to the human nature of Christ. It was His words, therefore, that Christ, as a divine teacher, spoke; and it was through His power that he performed his wonderful works. But this is in direct contradiction to the declarations of Christ. He always refers to the divine powers which he exercises, and the divine knowledge which he discovered, to the Father, and never to any other person, or to the Deity considered under any other relation or distinction, of himself, As the Son, he always speaks as of a being entirely dependent upon the Father (emphasis mine).17
A few examples of Jesus' allusions to his dependency on God are in order. The following verses are taken from John which, remarkably enough, is the gospel that is most used in proving the Trinitarian theology. They are listed in the order in which the occur -- the emphasis is mine.
(John 5:19) Indeed I assure you: the son can't do anything of himself, except what he may see the Father doing. For whatever he may do, in the same way the son does these things as well.
(John 5:26-27) For as the Father has life in himself, similarly he gave the son life to have in himself. Also he gave him authority, even to execute judgment, because he is a mortal.
(John 5:36) But I have greater testimony than that of John, for the deeds which the Father gave me to finish, these deeds that I do testify about me: they testify that the Father has sent me.
(John 6:57) As the living Father sent me, and as I live through the Father , also the one who eats me, he will also live through me.
(John 8:28:29) When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he. And from myself, I am doing nothing, but as my Father taught me, I am saying these things. And the one who sent me is with me. He hasn't left me alone, because I always do the things that are pleasing to him.
(John 8:54) If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. The one who is glorifying me is my Father, of whom you say that he is your god.
(John 10:37) If I am not doing the deeds of my Father, don't trust me.
(John 12:49-50) Because I didn't speak from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a precept: what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that his precept is eternal life. Therefore the things I say, I am speaking as the Father has spoken to me.
(John 14:24) The one who does not love me does not keep my sayings -- and the message that you are hearing is not mine, but the Father's who sent me .
This is a constant theme with Jesus and many other verses could be added to the list. It is unnecessary to multiply them at this time. They are listed in this section only to show that nowhere in the New Testament is the Trinitarian view actually taught. Andrews Norton suggests plainly that if the "Holy Trinity" theology had even been suggested by the New Testament historians it would have been a main subject of debate within the ranks of the first century community. After all, these new Christians were dealing with monotheistic Jews. He addresses the lack of New Testament teaching like this.
The doctrine, then, is never defended in the New Testament, though unquestionably it would have been the main object of attack and the main difficulty in the Christian system. It is never explained, though no doctrine could have been so much in need of explanation. On the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth the apostles express themselves in such a manner that, if it had been their purpose to darken and perplex the subject, they could not have done it more effectually. And still more, this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary article of faith; though it is now represented by its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity (emphasis mine).18
Charles Hunting, in collaboration with Anthony Buzzard, argued similarly in their short work on the same subject, quoting prominent clergymen from Harvard and Cambridge.
Important voices, ancient and modern, have warned us that all is not well with the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, that mysterious teaching that the true God is three-in-one. 'Few doctrines have produced so much unmixed evil,' said an eminent Harvard divine. From a Cambridge professor of divinity comes the admission that the Church has 'not usually (whatever it may have claimed to be doing in theory) based its view of Christ exclusively on the witness of the New Testament.'19
When examining the above two quotes, one needs to remember that the Roman Catholic Cardinal Henry Newman admitted that "Creedal Trinitarianism" arose from:
... propositions so various, so notional (subjective), that but few can know them, and fewer can understand them (emphasis mine).
In concluding this section, I want to draw attention to another opinion set forth by Andrews Norton more than 200 years ago. Those that persist on accepting the "Holy Trinity" creed without self study and examination need to answer this imperative.
If it were a doctrine of Christianity, the evidence for it would burst from every part of the New Testament in a blaze of light.20
Again, instead of Norton's "New Testament in a blaze of light", we have Cardinal Henry Newman's,
... propositions so various, so notional (subjective), that but few can know them, and fewer can understand them (emphasis mine). 21
As the heading suggests, the theology of the Holy Trinity has its roots in Greek
philosophy and not in the Biblical writings. Remarkable as it may seem, there was no substantive
question about the Messiah's pre-existence in the minds of either believing or unbelieving Jews.
It was only after Gentile converts entered the ranks of believers was this question
fulminated.
It was generally the Greek "apostolic fathers" (those that sat at the feet of the apostles and
those one generation removed from them) that initiated the debates concerning the nature of God.
It was their interpretations of the New Testament writings -- influenced by the teachings of
the Athenian sage Plato concerning the nature of man -- that formed the seed of this controversy.
Even though attributing to Plato the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is spurious, it cannot be denied
that the majority of Greeks in that period were greatly influenced by his philosophy and by the
polytheists around them.
The "apostolic fathers" were not prophets themselves and were not putting forth a new
revelation. They were trying, however, to reconcile their Greek cultural views and paradigm with
some of the difficult concepts of the Anointed recorded in scripture. The Christian Jew Mosheim
comments on this theme:
It is an old complaint of learned men, that the (Greek) Fathers, or teachers of the ancient church, were too much inclined to the philosophy of Plato, and rashly confounded what was taught by that philosopher with the doctrines of Christ, our Saviour; in consequence of which, the religion of Heaven was greatly corrupted, and the truth much obscured.22
It cannot be denied that difficult scriptures do exist and to the point that Peter felt obligated to mention them. After placing his imprimatur on Paul's message, for example, Peter then refers to the difficulty in understanding it as well as the tendency of many to pervert Paul's teaching as well as the "other writings."
Regard the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paulus also wrote to you according to the wisdom that was given to him (just as he speaks in all of his letters about these things). They consist of some things that are difficult to understand and the unlearned and unstable people distort them to their own destruction as they do the other writings (2 Pet. 3:15-16, emphasis mine).
It should surprise no one, then, that controversies of theology intensified after the apostolic dispensation. Though the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations claim the continuing guiding and "teaching function" of the "Holy Spirit", there is nothing practical that can be demonstrated by these "Church" leaders that would attest to their claims. This is a valid criticism since confirmation of God's power resident in the teacher or prophet demands signs. This is evident by the challenge posed by Paul to those of his day that claimed apostolic authority. Notice his dare to them and his comment on his own evidentiary teaching. In I Corinthians 4:19-20, Paul, speaking of his coming visit to Corinth, addressed the claims of men who would teach contrary doctrine thus:
However, if it is the Lord's will I will be there in a hurry. I will then know the power of those that are puffed up and not merely their message. For God's kingdom exists not by a message only but also in power (emphasis mine).
As you can see from the above scriptures, God's message is confirmed with power and Paul felt compelled to point out that fact to the Corinthian believers. On the other hand, Paul claimed that his message was attested to by God as witnessed by accompanying miracles and signs of the true envoy.
Indeed, the signs of an envoy were worked out among you with all endurance: signs and wonders and powers (2 Cor. 12:12).
We can understand by the above, that those who claim the teaching and guiding capacity
of the "Holy Spirit" dwelling with them -- then and now -- could be expected to perform signs
that would lend credence to their claims. However, this was not demonstrated, then or now,
although every "orthodox" and "heretical" group claimed to possess the spiritual gifts.
This being the case, their opinions on difficult scriptures or Bible interpretation in
general, carries no more weight that any other student. On the contrary, the schisms of theology
found in Catholicism itself and the multiplication of denominationalism outside Romanism,
prove that it is not the "spirit of God" that is responsible for such doctrinal controversies but
rather the "spirit of men" claiming a teaching authority contrary to
scripture.23
The doctrine of the "Holy Trinity" is actually an attempt to synchronize some aspects of
Platonic thought with the notions of a literal pre-existence of the Anointed. Plato opined that
man possessed an immortal soul and a person's true essence was spiritual rather than material.
Though the majority of Christians believe that this theology is Biblical, it actually originates with
Greek and not with Biblical thought.24 We can see in Plato's character Crito, that
he believed in a spiritual "essence" that would survive the grave.
In Plato's Phaedo, Crito is supplied with the "immortality of the soul" theology when he
supposedly asks Socrates where he wishes to be buried,
"But how shall we bury you? 'However you please,' Socrates replied, 'if you can catch me and I do not get away from you.' ... ' I cannot persuade Crito... that the Socrates who is now conversing and arranging the details of his argument is really I. He thinks I am the one whom he will presently see as a corpse, and he asks how to bury me. And though I have been saying at great length that after I drink the poison I shall so longer be with you, but shall go away to the joys of the blessed, he seems to think that it was idle talk uttered to encourage you and myself' (emphasis mine)."25
It was this philosophy of Plato -- that man was a composite being -- that later gave rise to his three main attempts to present man as immortal. These consisted of the Immortal-Soul Doctrine, Reconstitution doctrine and the Shadow-man doctrine.26
It was from Plato's belief that man's "inner self" was often in conflict with the material things of life (the world) that led to Dualism, which purported that "the material world is either unreal or positively evil."27 Since the New Testament teaches about the conflict between "flesh" and "spirit," it was easy for Gentile Christians to accept Dualism along with the Biblical teachings. Subsequently, it was the acceptance of dualism that eventually led to Docetism which is a foundational basis of Gnosticism. The encyclopedia defines "Docetism" as:
"The heresy (that) arose in a Hellenistic milieu and was based on a DUALISM which held that the material world is either unreal or positively evil. Tendencies to spiritualize Christ by denying his real humanity were already present in New Testament times (emphasis mine)28"
A statement defining Docetism says simply,
If he suffered, he was not God; if he was God, he did not suffer.29
Stumbling over the Jewish writings, docetic Christians concluded that somehow Jesus'
body was a ghostly one, a phantasm.
Monarchians attempted to deal with the unity of God in at least two ways.
Tertullian wrote that Praxeus claimed:
... that the Father himself descended into the virgin, was himself born of her, himself suffered; in fact that he himself was Jesus Christ.30
This doctrine allowed monotheism but created other theological problems. Sabellius tried to resolve it this way:
...that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same being, in the sense that three names are attached to one substance. A close analogy may be found in the body, soul, and spirit of a man.31
This view today is called Oneness or Modalistic Monarchianism.
Arius' resolution to "the person of Jesus" was different, since he did not view
Jesus as God at all. Arius held the Son of God to be a created being, subordinate to God
and created before the beginning of time. As he said, "There was when the son was not."
This view takes the "pre-existence passages" literally but allows Jesus to be something
other than God Almighty. A similar view is held today by Jehovah's Witnesses. The
spread of Arianism was a threat to Trinitarian beliefs, since Arianism was popular. It was
for the purpose of condemning Arius that Council Nicaea was called (by the infidel
Constantine by the way).
It is not my purpose in this thesis to explore these philosophies in detail. It is
enough to show their source and their similarities. As you can see with a little cogitation,
that it is only a short leap from the principle of "immortality of the soul" to the literal,
material (but spiritual) pre-existence of Jesus.
In other words, if we can accept the proposition that man possesses a thinking,
spiritual, "essence" that -- according to Plato -- is the real person dwelling in some
mysterious way independently and apart from the body, it only follows that God (being
spirit) could also literally indwell a human body. Once you have the "Christ" as
pre-existent God but a separate entity -- you have arrived at the "duality" of God
theology. Now, include the Holy Spirit (which will be dealt with in some detail later)
with the other two and you have the "Holy Trinity."
It is true that the theology of Trinity did not happen overnight or as simplistic as
has been presented. But the progression mentioned here, however crude, is essentially
accurate. Nevertheless, it took several hundred years, countless debates, and the "official"
man- inspired councils of Nicaea and Constantinople to come to us in the "authoritative"
creedal form seen today.
The Trinitarian and 17th Century master of Cambridge College, Ralph Cudworth
(1617 - 1688) admits the influence of Plato in the theology of "Holy Trinity". He
writes,
"As the Platonic Pagans after Christianity did approve of the Christian doctrine concerning the Logos, as that which was exactly agreeable with their own; so did the generality of the Christian Fathers before and after the Nicene council, represent the genuine Platonic Trinity as really the same thing with the Christian, or as approaching so near to it, that they differed chiefly in circumstances, or the manner of expression (emphasis mine)."32
It is important to note that Cudworth admits that the Trinitarian view had
its roots in Hellenistic philosophy. For modern Bible students it is difficult to
separate theory from fact.
Between the seed ("immortality of the soul") and the plant ("Holy Trinity") you
had countless brawls, debates and discussions. Over the years noted men such as
IGNATIUS of ANTIOCH, IRENAEUS, THEODORE of MOPSUESTIA and his pupil
Nestorius, EUTYCHES, Arias, Apollinarius, Eusebius, and ATHANASIUs --
discussed, debated, defined and presented their different theories as divine truth to the
Christian "laity." All of the above (and countless unnamed) were men of influence in the
Christian community and were leaders of certain sectarian philosophies. The central
point of debate between them was what God's relationship to Jesus and the Holy Spirit
was.
Reader, does this sound like a subject that was plainly taught in the Bible by Jesus
and the New Testament apostles and prophets; carrying such importance that it had to be
accepted for one's ultimate salvation? Does it seem that these men were prophets to you?
If so, where was the power of confirmation and why did these "prophets"
disagree?
Just the fact that these numerous disagreements took place between them proves
that these men were not gifted with prophetic abilities! If this is not true then God
Himself is divided against Himself and "that old dog won't hunt!" Reader, if you want
your mind expanded -- search out for yourself the roots and history of this controversy.
Don't take my word for it.
Don't you think, then, that a doctrine that flows from a crucible of such heated
controversy at least deserves close scrutiny? A doctrine of such overwhelming
importance that belief in it -- claim proponents -- is required for salvation! Doesn't such a
theory deserve nothing less than our undivided attention? And yet it has been accepted by
the majority (myself included until recently) without question for centuries!!
Below is a letter sent from Council Nicaea to the church at Alexandria explaining
reasons for summoning the council. It condemns Arius even though his actual "sin" was
suggesting a view other than the "Holy Trinity" which was actually a minority view at
the time.
To the church of the Alexandrians, holy, by the grace of God, and great, and to the beloved brothers throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. The bishops assembled at Nicaea, who constitute the great and holy Synod, send greeting in the Lord. Since by the grace of God, and at the summons of our most God-beloved sovereign Constantine, a great and holy synod has been constituted at Nicaea out of various cities and provinces, it appeared to us necessary, on all considerations, to send a letter to you from the sacred Synod, in order that you may be able to know what was discussed and examined, and what was decided and decreed. In the first place, examination was made into the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers, in the presence of our most God-beloved sovereign Constantine; and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with all the blasphemous sayings and expressions which he uttered in his blasphemies, affirming that 'the Son of God is from what is not' and 'there was when he was not'; saying also that the Son of God, in virtue of his free will, is capable of evil and good, and calling him a 'creature' and a 'work.' All these utterances the holy Synod anathematized, not enduring the hearing of so impious, or rather so demented, an opinion, and such blasphemous things...."33
For God is one and there is one mediator between God and human beings: the human, Anointed Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5, emphasis mine).
I want to say immediately, that regardless of your view on this subject, certain difficult
scriptures must be considered. Jehovah's Witnesses deal with the "pre-existence" of Jesus (while
maintaining the view of "One God") by teaching that the "Holy Spirit" is simply the influence of
God, while Jesus was created first and then he created all other things. Jesus, then, as a created
being is a "lesser god".
Some others, such as the Seventh Day Adventists and World Wide Church of God, claim
a duality of Deity viz, God the Father and God the Son are deity but deny deity to the "Holy
Spirit". The "Jesus Only" model suggests that Jesus was in fact all "three" manifestations
(majesties) of God and thus endow the attributes of "Trinity" to Jesus while maintaining the
"oneness" principle. As you can see, everyone has trouble dealing with this Biblical
theme.
In light of this fact, don't you think it is unkind -- to say the least -- to castigate those that
would question the view of "Holy Trinity"? Remember, those who perpetuated the doctrine of
"Holy Trinity" contained in the Nicene Creed described it themselves as arising from
"propositions so various, so notional, that but few can know them, and fewer can understand
them!" Are serious Bible students supposed to hang their brains on the wall because the men
who championed this theology in the first place falsely claimed apostolic authority?
There can be no disagreement that synoptic gospel historians (Matthew and Luke) record
the birth of Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem of Judea circa 5 BC. Mark and John both begin their
accounts at the advent of John the Baptist's ministry as forerunner to the Messiah. Even those
who deny the historical reliability of the scriptures agree that Jesus existed. It is easy to conclude
from their testimony that the "man" Jesus was born and did not pre-exist.
However, even disallowing claims of Trinitarians that God was "incarnate" in this man,
there can be no doubt that Jesus was unique among all human predecessors. He had no earthy
sire. He was the "only begotten son of God".
Only one other man shared a comparable uniqueness and that was Adam. Adam
possessed no earthy parents but was created from the earth. Paul refers to this connection by
calling Jesus the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45). However, proving that Jesus was unique among
humanity does not prove that he was actually "God in the flesh" or that he pre-existed in some
way any more than the uniqueness of Adam proved his literal pre-existence.
In fact, it was the raw material of their being that actually pre-existed both Adam and
Jesus. In Adam's case, it was the dust from which he was created. In the case of Jesus, it was the
virgin human woman that God impregnated through his spirit. In both examples viz, a lifeless
body and a virgin womb, the spirit of God "breathed". On the one hand, God "breathed" into
Adam's nostrils "the breath of life". One the other hand, God breathed into the virgin womb "the
life giving spirit." Adam, then, was the only created son of God, whereas as Jesus was the
only "Begotten" son of God. In both cases, they were fathered by God and became living beings
independent of man's procreation.
That Jesus was 100% man cannot be doubted from scripture either. The Hebrew writer
describes his humanity like this.
Therefore, since the children shared blood and flesh, he likewise partook of those things, so that through death he might deprive of his energy the one who has the strength of death -- that is, the Accuser... For surely he does not take hold of messengers, but he takes hold of Abraham's seed. Consequently, he was bound to be made in all ways like his brothers, so that he would become a merciful and trustworthy high priest regarding the things that lead toward God -- to the point of making atonement for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:14, 16-17, emphasis mine).
These verses do not say that Jesus was formed in some ways like his brothers but in "all
ways." This knowledge, then, fashions the dilemma of this discussion. Since no other humans
have been described as "God incarnate" (the Bible describes no person in such terms) or have
claimed to be such in the holy writ, it makes it hard to reconcile a theology that claims that Jesus
was just that -- literally "God in the flesh."
It is common to hear some say that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. This was what
the framers of the Nicene Creed were attempting to say by their "obscure" language:
... the only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God, light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made; being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven. And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: And was made man.
The obvious question to such a theme -- in the light of what the Hebrew writer so
confidently affirms -- is how could this be true and Jesus still be described as 100% human?
Jesus, himself, said that "God is spirit" (John 4:24). God attests that man is dust! "For dust you
are and dust you shall return" (Gen. 3:19). Wouldn't this make Jesus a schizophrenic in the
truest sense of the word?
Biblical scholar and author John Knox states this enigma quite well.
You can have a human Jesus without pre-existence or a non-human Jesus with pre-existence. There is absolutely no way of having both.34
Some Trinitarians argue from the Hebrews text that since Jesus was said to have
shared in "blood and flesh" it implies pre-existence. This argument will not "wash",
however. The same sharing is also applied to the "children," and no one argues that they
pre-existed in order to partake of "blood and flesh"!
I suppose that we could argue, as do Mormons, that there are multitudes of "spirit
babies" extant just waiting for a human infant to inhabit, but we cannot so argue from
scripture.35 And the Trinitarian view claims this is true as far as Jesus was
concerned, except in this case the "Second" person of God was that "spirit baby".
There are many verses in the Bible, however, that seem to imply a "pre-existent
quality" to Jesus and we will examine most of them. The method whereby people
reconcile these verses with the above Hebrews declaration of Jesus' 100% humanity is
what determines their theology. As previously mentioned, a person will not arrive at a
comfortable position about this question without serious study and thought. Milton C.
Burtt, in his marvelous little pamphlet on this subject, described what it takes to deal with
the difficult passages pertaining to this very subject.
... a very difficult passage for either side of the question. superficial thinking will only skim the surface. We must cogitate. Observe these facts and reason therefrom.36
It is necessary to consider the Biblical definition of "Anointed" if we are going to
be able to understand its concept in the theologies under discussion. In my opinion, there
are few errors that have been more confusing than translating the Greek word cristoV
(christos) and its derivative, "Christ." In reality, the English word "Christ" is not a
translation at all but an Anglicizing of the Greek word cristoV. In rendering cristoV
"Christ", the KJV translators were following the theology already well entrenched in
Romanism and the Church of England. Because of its universal use, it has been virtually
understood by many to be Jesus' last name. Had the translators even added a "the" in front
of "Christ" it would have helped greatly, such as "Jesus, the Christ." This would have at
least informed the student that "Christ" was not actually a title or last name. Alas, what
could have been. The author has even retorted to those that have used the oath, "Jesus
Christ!" by saying, "That's right, he is" to the consternation and puzzlement of the
swearers.
Consider this: In the New testament, cristoV (and its derivatives) is used 572
times (obviously a bunch) and is actually translated but 6 times by the KJV translators
and most other versions. You may wonder why they bothered with these 6 but their
reasoning is traceable. Lets look at these six verses one at a time and in chronological
order.
The first time is found in Luke 4:18 -19 and says this:
The Lord's spirit is upon me. On account of this, he has anointed (ecrise) me to announce a good message to the poor; he has sent me forth to herald a release to the captives and a restoration of sight to the blind; to send forth in freedom those who had been crushed; to herald the Lord's acceptable year.
This scripture is significant because it is a quote from the Old Testament and also defines what
the function of this particular "anointed" is regarding Israel. We will examine it in some detail
later but let's proceed with the others.
The next in order is found in Acts 4:27-8: Peter is laying the burden upon the Jewish
leaders by accusing them of participating in Jesus' death. He says,
For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus whom thou hast anointed (ecrisaV), both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (KJV)
You might wonder why the KJV renders ecrisaV "Anointed" in this verse (27) rather
than "Christ", especially in light of the proceeding verse (26) where cristou is transliterated "Christ" even though Peter was
quoting Psalm 2:2 and which the KJV itself renders "Anointed" in the Old Testament
Psalm.
But instead of going with "Anointed" in Acts 4:26, they give it as "Christ" and then
translate ecrisaV "Anointed" in Acts 4:27. The
reason is evident upon closer scrutiny. It would be cumbersome to render ecrisaV "Christ" in the past tense. You would come up with
"Christed", and that would never do. This explains their reasoning in the Luke 4:18 verse
also.
The next use of "Anointed" rather than "Christ" can also be explained in light of
Trinitarian theology and the difficulty they had with the past tense. It is found in Acts 10:38.
Peter explains to the household of Cornelius about salvation thus:
How God anointed (ecrisen) Jesus from Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.
In this spot, you can see the same dilemma. You cannot very well translate ecrisen "Christed" here either, now can you? It doesn't
sound right to the ear and would mess everything up. However, if they had wanted to be
consistent in the rendering of cristoV they would
have done it anyway.
The next example is found in Hebrews 1:9, and is also a quote from Psalm 45:7. It reads
thus:
Thou has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed (ecrise) thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
In this instance, the KJV renders the verb "anointed" in both Old and New Testaments. Did they
develop an real aversion to "Christed"? Wonders never cease, do they?
Finally, they translate crisma "anointing" twice in 1 John 2:27. In this case crisma is
applied to the believers being addressed by John rather than Jesus. John writes:
But the anointing (crisma) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing (crisma) teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
There are probably two reasons our friendly translators got it right in this verse. First,
"Christing" sounds a little funny (almost as bad as "Christed") and second, the allusion to
"anointing" is to someone other than Jesus. What is interesting in this text, however, is that it
expands on the definition of "anoint" which we will scrutinize as we proceed.
You can see that the KJV translators were actually "consistent". Yet their consistency was
that they translated everything BUT the noun form anoint. It would have been too repugnant to
the human ear to say "Christed" or "Christing" so they reverted to the translation process rather
than continue to Anglicize.
None of the problems of consistency occur if you just translate the word in the first
place. "Anoint", "Anointed", "Anointing", "Anointed's" and "Anointeds" (in lieu of "Christians")
are not only correct but also work nicely and give the intended meaning rather than obscure the
text as does the anglicized "Christ".
Let me illustrate the game they played with the definition and use of this word with one
more verse.
In John 1:41, the KJV reads like this:
He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias (Messian), which is, being interpreted, the Christ (cristoV).
Cogitate upon this verse for just a minute. Here you have Andrew telling his brother Simon that
they have found the Jewish Messiah and that Messiah means cristoV in Greek, a language
which they all spoke. But the KJV does not translate cristoV and yet claims to do just that in the text, i.e., "being
interpreted, the (they even added the definite article "the") Christ".
Basically, what they said was, "being interpreted, the cristoV". How does that help you and I if we are not
conversant with Greek? It is just another example of them laboring under the Trinitarian bias
and the injunction of King James to keep the nomenclature of the Church of England! They
would have done us all much more good if they had simply left the Greek word cristoV and its derivatives untranslated altogether.
Notice, they had no problem with interpreting the next verse:
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou are Simon, the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas (khjaV), which is by interpretation, a stone (petroV).
Had the KJV done the same as the proceeding verse they would have said, "which is by
interpretation, Petros."
The result of their unwillingness to translate cristoV in the New Testament has clouded
the definition of "anoint" and -- as has been previously mentioned -- caused "Christ" to become
Jesus' last name rather than a description of his choosing and function.
The literal definition of both the Greek and the Hebrew "anoint" is offered by Vine and
agrees with all others:
chrisma ... (crisma) signifies an unguent, or an anointing. It was prepared from oil and aromatic herbs...37
Like "anoint", he defines "anointed" i.e., KJV "Christ" thus:
christos... (cristoV), anointed, translates, in the Sept., the word Messiah, a term applied to the priests who were anointed with the holy oil, particularly the High Priest, e.g., Lev. 4:3, 5, 16. The prophets are called hoi christoi Theou, "the anointed of God," Psa. 105:15. A king of Israel was described upon occasion as christos tou Kuriou, "the anointed of the Lord," 1 Sam. 1:14; Ps. 2:2; 18:50; Hab. 3:13; the term is used even of Cyrus, Is. 45:1.38
As you can note, Vine gives us the definition as well as a good sampling of the uses of "anoint"
and "anointed." Even though Vine is a Trinitarian in theology, he acknowledges in his definition
that the term "anointed" refers to several others besides Jesus.
Though "anointed" literally means one who has had anointing oil poured upon him, it
carries greater significance. The one "anointed" in the Bible was always chosen either directly
or indirectly by God. Even kings of other nations are sometimes "anointed" through God's
prophets. In this manner, the term carries the idea of not only a specific choosing by the
Almighty but also a particular function and purpose. Thus, in the Old Testament, you see priests,
prophets, kings, holy utensils, etceteras described as "anointed." In one instance, the whole
nation of Israel is called God's anointed (1 Chron. 16:22).
This is very important as we examine the term as it is applied to Jesus and occasionally to
his envoys (2 Cor. 1:21) and first century believers (1 John 2:27). There can be no doubt that
Jesus was a special "anointed". He was the "only begotten of the Father" and his "anointing"
included miraculous power unlike John the Baptist's "anointing". Jesus was not only an
"anointed" prophet but also an "anointed" priest and later king.
As God's "anointed" then, he was chosen by God and given a specific function and
purpose within the confines of his "anointing." In addition, he was equipped with everything he
needed to accomplish his task by the Father. Fortunately for US, his "anointing" included
suffering and ultimately the death of atonement as well as his subsequent resurrection and
coronation, etc. All of these attributes: his foreordination; his prophetic office; his priesthood;
his atonement; and his reign are easily covered within the definition of "anointed". And none of
these things require a literal pre-existence.
Personally, I believe the best place to start as we examine the theology of pre-existence is
with the gospel according to John. No other historian of Jesus alludes to the theme of
"pre-existence" nearly to the extent that John does. Consequently, much of the theology existing
today has been inspired by John's gospel. Not only is the interpretation of John primarily
responsible for the view that Jesus was "God incarnate" but it is also the main contributor to the
doctrine that also includes the "Holy Spirit" among the "Godhead" -- thus the "Holy
Trinity."
As mentioned in the introduction, a person's theology will color his translation of the
Greek. Such is the case with the gospel of John. Undoubtedly, the theme of John is set forth in
chapter one and is developed from there. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic commentary
on the "Holy Trinity" was developed by alluding first to their translation of John 1:1-14. For this
reason it behooves us to look at some of these verses first.
The KJV and most that have followed have rendered John 1:1 thus.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek word translated "Word" is logoV (logos). Most scholars would agree that "word" is inadequate as a definition of logoV. Vine defines it thus:
"a. Denotes the expression of thought -- not the mere name of an object as embodying a conception or idea... b. A saying or statement..."39
Doctor Adam Clark defines it in this fashion.
"It signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning."40
As previously mentioned, the entire original manuscript of John was penned in Greek
capital letters. Given this fact, to capitalize this word in the English is to interpret its meaning
and this is what the majority of versions do. Just the fact that they capitalize it in this verse
proves their Trinitarian bias and paradigm. It does not mean that they are wrong in their
theology; it only identifies what their theology was as they entered their labors. If you change
the translation of logoV to a lower case "message"
it carries a greater meaning than the English "Word" and changes completely the theology
contained therein.
In addition to capitalizing and translating logoV "Word", they also translated the Greek word
proV (pros) "with" -- which is not its general use in
the accusative case. ProV, as with most
prepositions, has a very strong directional sense. Chase and Phillips define its use in the
accusative as:
To, towards, with reference to, according to.41
ProV (Pros) is not the word in the Greek
that would have been used if John wanted us to understand the "Word" was "with" God in the
English sense. "Meta" (meta) would have been
used to convey that sense. In John 1:1, I agree with those that render it as "directed
toward".
Another thing that happens with this verse in most English translations is the
repositioning of the phrase "and 'God' was the logoV," which is the order it appears in the Greek text.
Sometimes switching the sequence of a sentence does not influence the meaning but in this case
an entire theology can be bolstered as a result. Therefore, you see it translated "and the Word
was God" in most English translations instead of "and 'God' the message was".
Another important point that needs to be discussed here is that -- in the opinion of most
Greek scholars -- at least the first portion of the John text is in poetic form. The poetic form that
occurs is that the first word or principle meaning of the next sentence is the last word or principle
meaning of the proceeding sentence. In view of this, let me quote what is in my opinion a
superior translation of the passage:
In the beginning was the message,
And the message was directed toward God,
And "God" the message was.
As you can see illustrated by the above rendering, "message" is the last word of the first line and becomes the first primary word of the second line. "God" -- which is the last word of the second line is the first primary word of the next line. This poetic structure appears in other portions of the "prolog" to John, such as:
What has been done in it was life,
And the life was the light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness,
But the darkness did not understand it. (vv. 4-5)
As you can also intuit, a tremendous change in theology can be derived by the above
translation. Let me emphasize that the above IS a valid rendering and that it is not a perversion
designed to undermine the Trinitarian view. The translator, Frank Daniels, did NOT hold the
view contained in this thesis when he translated John.
Translating the first verse with the lower case "message" rather than the upper case
"Word" also causes the pronoun autoV (autos) -- translated "he" by the "authorized" versions --
to be translated "it", "this" or "the same" because it refers to a neuter "message" rather than a
person "Word". Instead of the normal rendering of verse 2 which is,
He (autoV) was in the beginning with (proV) God.
it is translated
The same (autoV) was directed toward (proV) God in the beginning.
The pronoun autoV will be masculine or
neuter depending upon the gender of the word to which it refers. Of course, we all know that
"word" is neuter anyway. However, the KJV assumed that logoV -- in this case -- was a male person, i.e., "Jesus Christ,"
so they rendered autoV "he." Do you see what I
mean by translator bias? You don't need to be a Greek scholar to notice this bias if it is pointed
out to you.
Even the "authorized" versions do not uniformly translate autoV "him" in verses 2 through 4. In verse 2 cited above,
they render autoV "He". In verse 3, they give
autoV as "him". However, in verse 4, they switch to
"it". They are not being disingenuous here, only interpreting according to their paradigm.
Instead of the KJV rendering,
All things were made by him (autoV); and without him (autoV) was not any thing made that was made. In him (autoV) was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness and the darkness comprehended it (autoV) not (emphasis and Greek mine).
the alternative would continue the poetic structure with a different and consistent translation of the pronoun autoV as follows:
Through it (autoV), all things were
done.
And without it (autoV) nothing was
done.
What has been done in it (autoV) was life.
And the life was the light of humanity.
And the light shone in the darkness.
But the darkness did not understand it (autoV).
Do you see the seeds of a "new" theology emerging? The "authorized" rendering of
verses 3-5, certainly demonstrates the personification of the Greek logoV (translated and capitalized "Word") by the additional
rendition of autoV as "he" and "him". On the other hand, by translating logoV "message" and (autoV) "it" you project an entirely different connotation to
verse 14 -- which I believe states concisely the theme of the gospel of John.
Whereas the "authorized" version gives it as:
And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
the alternative would read,
And the message was embodied (made flesh) and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth.
The "authorized" rendering of John 1:3-5 also strongly implies that the personified "Word" was the creator by translating the Greek word dia "by " instead of "through." Almost all later versions, including the RSV, NASV, ASV and NIV, correct this bias of the KJV and give it as "through." However, most follow the error that is compounded by translating egeneto (egeneto) -- a form of the word ginomai (ginomai) -- "made", strongly implying in this context create when the basic meaning is "happen"! Wilson aptly comments on its use here as follows:
"Ginomai occurs upwards of seven hundred times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create, yet in most versions it is translated as though the word was ktizw (ktizo). 'The word appears fifty three times in John, and signifies to be, to come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted."42
Reader, egeneto NEVER carries a "creation"
meaning and is never translated such outside the four times rendered such in the first chapter of
John (John 1:3,4, & 10) and in these cases the translators strongly suggest create by translating
egeneto "made."
Are you beginning to understand the powerful influence of paradigm in the translation
process? These men were brilliant scholars and certainly understood the English language and
the nuances of word usage. It is easy to identify their bias in this example. I reiterate that it does
not necessarily mean that their interpretation and theology was incorrect. It most assuredly
shows, however, that their Trinitarian bias (coupled with their fear of King James whose many
titles included "Defender of the Faith) "colored" their translation.
If we agree that the proper translation of egeneto is "were done" -- which fits this context -- you have
the makings of a whole new interpretation. Instead of the logoV "message" being the creator itself, it becomes the
reason that the "all things" under discussion in this text were "done." Therefore, the rendering
Through it, all things were done.
And without it nothing was done.
could be interpreted as saying that God brought "all things" into focus historically through and on account of the pre-existent "message," and his whole plan was conceived and purposed toward this end. The next verse identifies the goal of this "message" as "life."
What has been done in it was life. And the life was the light of humanity.
This also explains verse one's description, "And 'God' the message was." God was the
source, inspiration, and accomplisher of this plan and the pre-existent and forthcoming
"message" would direct mankind toward this truth. God was the content of the message. The
great Revelator, omnipotent and omniscient One described by Paul as one who "... calls things
that are not as though they are" (Rom. 4:17), would be declared and glorified by a uniquely
prepared individual -- the Anointed Jesus. In other words, instead of having the person of the
"Anointed" pre-existing as God, you have the "message" of the "Anointed" pre-existing and
"directed toward God." This message is the same message spoken to Abraham and Moses.
A good example of this distinction can be seen in Ephesians 1:4. Paul writes that
Christians were "chosen in him (the Anointed Jesus) before the foundation of the world." No one
argues from this verse that Christians literally pre-existed but that the plan and purpose of God
for their redemption pre-existed. If this is true concerning the believer (the goal of the message),
couldn't it also be true regarding the "Anointed" (messenger) himself? If not, why not? Simply
put, God had the believer in MIND before he existed so why could not the "Anointed" have
existed only in God's MIND before it became flesh?
In the author's opinion, this view makes much more sense than trying to explain Jesus as
being both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. In addition, this principle can be
enjoined in all references to the pre-existence of the "Anointed" in the New Testament. Even the
difficulty of making the switch from the neuter pronoun to the masculine in the first chapter of
John is removed when you understand that Jesus of Nazareth was the "message" of God
personified rather than "God personified". So the it "message" was embodied in the "flesh" in
verse 14. We didn't observe the message itself, but the GLORY of the message, viz the
embodiment of the message: Jesus -- a he.
And the message was embodied and lived among us, and we observed its glory: glory like from a father's only son, full of favor and truth.
This view also agrees with John's use of the neuter in introducing the subject of 1 John. Here, John also introduces Jesus from the standpoint of a neuter "message" rather than a person "he" Compare with me John 1:1-4 and 1 John 1:1-2. John 1:1-4 has:
2 The same one was directed towards God in the beginning.
In 1 John 1:1-2 he writes:
In 1 John 1:1-2, all scholars render the subject as neuter. Some translate it "that" instead of "what" but there is no difference in the meaning. John emphasizes that "what" they had seen and heard -- their "hands felt". When you think on it, a "what" would require substance of some sort in order to be heard, understood and felt, wouldn't it? And this is just what John is alluding to. Jesus, as the Anointed, was the embodiment of the "message" of "life" -- the "message" that directed people towards the giver of life -- the "Father". This also agrees with the concept raised by Jesus in John 14:19. There Jesus taught Philip, "The one who has seen me has seen the Father." Was he saying they had literally seen God? No one claims this is the case! If he did not intend it literally then how did he mean it? They had beheld the "message" of God personified in him -- not God Himself! Isn't this what John was teaching in John 1:18?
No one has ever seen God. The unique son, the one who is at the bosom of the Father, that one has related him.
In the above verse, the word translated "related" is exhghsato (exegesato) and is translated "declare" by the KJV. It is the word we derive our English word exegesis. Vine defines it as:
EXEGEOMAI (exhgeomai), lit., to lead out, signifies to make known, rehearse, declare... In John 1:18, in the sentence 'He hath declared Him,' the other meaning of the verb is in view, to unfold in teaching, to declare by making known. See Tell.43
Jesus, as the Anointed One, related to them everything that the "message" residing
in him intended. Thus, through his life and teaching they had seen God -- His character,
His love, His desire for their deliverance and abundant life, etceteras. As they examined
Jesus, they beheld the "life" of John 1:4. As they lived with him, listened to him and
touched him, they "heard... saw ... felt ... the message of life."
Not only is this view more sensible and consistent, but it also makes the unique
man Jesus even MORE compelling -- if that is possible. This will be developed in detail
before the end of this work.
This Psalm is a remarkable description of the great God of which we have to do.
However, no theologian tries to literalize David's pre-existence from this text. How did David
pre-exist? That's right, in the Mind and foreknowledge of God.
Jeremiah is also similarly alluded to.
Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth from the womb I sanctified you and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations (Jer. 1: 4-5, emphasis mine).
Reader, could not the above scriptures be construed to mean that Jeremiah pre-existed in
some "spiritual" form before he came to inhabit his earthly body? After all, God "knew" him
before his birth and also "sanctified" him before the womb, right? Or does it make more sense
that God was saying that he was calling "things that are not as though they are"?
The omnipotent and omniscient God also speaks of Cyrus, king of the Medo-Persian
Empire, more than 150 years before the events described occurred. He is even referred to as
God's anointed in the work that he was to accomplish on behalf of the captive Jews.
Who says of Cyrus, He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, you shall be built, and to the temple, your foundation shall be laid. Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held -- to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings. To open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut (Is. 44:28- 45:1, NKJV emphasis mine).
As you can see for yourself, in this example Cyrus had God's anointing to perform good
things for the Jews that were in Babylonian captivity. He was the one that authorized their return
to Palestine to rebuild the walls and temple of Jerusalem that had been razed by the forces of
Nebuchadnezzar, first king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire circa 586 BC. As remarkable in
scope as is the prophesy of Isaiah that recorded these events almost two centuries before they
occurred, no theologian tries to make the pre-existence of Cyrus literal. Are
you getting the point?
Even Paul alludes to a similar pre-existence as Jeremiah's in Galatians 1:15-16 by saying,
But when it was well-pleasing to the one who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me (on account of his generosity) to reveal his son to me, so that I might announce him to the gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood.
So what can we say to all of this? Simply this. The scriptures that are used to prove that Jesus of Nazareth pre-existed also fall into the same category. It should also be stressed that the literal pre-existence of the Anointed is in no way necessary to our salvation! It is only relevant to the view of the "Holy Trinity". This view creates the difficulty of explaining how that God is one and yet three. Do you remember discussing this question in its various forms and solutions? Obsession with a particular theory will cause one to interpret every scripture possible within the context of that theory. Such has been the effect of the "Holy Trinity" view on scholars for generations.
Lets prove together that the literal pre-existence of Jesus is not required to accomplish the purposes for which he was anointed. In the same way that Cyrus' pre-existence was not a requirement to carry out the pre-existing purposes of God, the same can be said concerning Jesus, the Anointed. Let's also number then so we can keep track.44
1. His pre-existence was not required for his person and/or personality as the Anointed. He was certainly "material" before his death and even emphasized his continued "materiality" after his resurrection. Luke 24:39 records it thus:
Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.
Milton Burtt makes a very appropriate observation concerning this subject:
To theorize at this point and try to imagine an immaterial pre-existent personality distinct from the body is nothing short of subtle spiritualism.45
2. The pre-existence of Jesus was also NOT required for him to be the "only begotten son" of God. The scriptures record that he was born of a virgin woman as the spirit (or breath) of God overshadowed her (Luke 1:35). Those that have trouble believing the virgin birth would have just as much trouble believing that God created man in the first place. For the same reason that Adam's pre-existence was not required to be directly created by God, neither did Jesus (the "last Adam") need to pre-exist to be born without a human father. I doubt whether any would argue that Adam did not pre-exist in the Mind of God before his "advent," however. As you can see, his uniqueness need have nothing whatsoever to do with his personal pre-existence but rather with the existence of an omniscient Almighty God.
3. Pre-existence was not essential for the power resident in the Anointed Jesus. It was by the power of God's spirit (or breath) that Jesus performed signs. Jesus said,
But if I am casting out spirit beings by the spirit of God, God's kingdom has appeared to you (Matt. 12:28, emphasis mine).
This truth is echoed and placed in the context of "anointing" power by Peter in Acts 10:38.
[You know] how God anointed that Jesus from Nazareth with holy breath and power, who went about doing good deeds and healing all those who were oppressed by the Accuser, because God was with him (emphasis mine).
As we can see, without the "anointing" of God and the fact that "God was with him" he would have been powerless. This engenders the question of how the omnipotent God became powerless in the first place. We might as well turn to the old enigma that asks, "Could God create a rock that He was unable to lift?"
4. Pre-existence was also not involved in the atonement of the Anointed nor was it at all necessary. On the contrary, human existence was what was called for. Peter taught plainly that Christians were redeemed by the blood of Jesus.
On the contrary, you were delivered with the valuable, spotless and unblemished blood of a 'lamb' -- that is, the Anointed One's blood (1 Pet. 1:19).
In this, Peter was echoing the pattern of atonement laid down in the Old Testament system as a shadow and type of what was to come. "It is the blood that makes atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). In fact, the Anointed's humanity is what is being stressed in his subsequent sacrifice as the fulfillment of the old by the Hebrew writer. After making it clear that the blood of bulls and goats would not suffice for atonement, the writer posits that human flesh and blood was required.
Therefore, brothers, since we have freedom of speech by the blood of Jesus, to the point of entering the holy places (By his blood he made new for us a new and living way through the veil, which is, his flesh), and since we have a great priest over God's house, we should come near.... (Heb. 10:19-21, emphasis mine).
As everyone knows, blood and flesh are characteristics of human and earthly organisms and certainly require no pre-existence.
5. Pre-existence was not an essential requisite for the knowledge (revelation) that Jesus received. It should be noted that Jesus is referred to by Moses as a prophet like himself (Deut. 18:15). As Moses received his power and knowledge through God, the same was true of the Anointed Jesus. Luke explains his human mental capacity as he grows in wisdom, knowledge and favor in Luke 2:52. There is no record of Jesus performing any miracles or speaking prophetically before his baptism by John when the spirit of God descended upon him. It was immediately thereafter that Luke connects the power of God with Jesus. After his baptism and testing by the Adversary, Luke notes that Jesus,
... returned in the power of the spirit to Galilee, and a report of him went out through all the surrounding region (Luke 4:14, emphasis mine).
It was from this very context that Luke records the remarkable confrontation between Jesus and the townspeople of his youth. Luke says,
So he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up. And according to the custom, he entered the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read.... he found the place where it was written: 'The Lord's breath is upon me. On account of this, he has anointed me to announce a good message to the poor; he has sent me forth to herald a release to the captives and a restoration of sight to the blind; to send forth in freedom those who had been crushed; to herald the Lord's acceptable year (Luke 4:16-19).
The next verse records the rapt attention paid to him by those listening. Why, all of a sudden, did they give him such scrutiny? Because of his newly required reputation! News of him had preceded his return to Nazareth (Luke 4:14). It was after Jesus' "anointing" that he was able to receive their undivided attention and it was only then that he said,
Today this writing is fulfilled in your hearing (Luke 4:21, emphasis mine).
His neighbors were flabbergasted by what had transpired. The people that had known
him and his family demonstrate undeniably that Jesus had never previously exercised prophetic
or miraculous abilities. "Today", says Jesus, this writing is fulfilled. Wow! I wish I had been
there, how about you?
What occurred required NO pre-existence of any kind any more than did the calling of
Moses, Amos, or any other prophet singled out by God to receive power and / or revelation. And
as previously mentioned, Jesus often described his teaching as not his own but his Father's.
There could be much more said about the character of Anointed Jesus and the honor,
power, and glory that he received from his Father, but none of these require pre-existence. On
the contrary, they argue against pre-existence. If Jesus was God, he would not have needed to be
given anything at all. Some have argued that all the things received by him were already his by
right. If that was the case and they were already his -- then how did he receive them?
This question falls into the same category as the question that has bothered generations of
Christians, viz how can God be one and also three? As before mentioned, scriptures are often
interpreted in accordance with a persons pre-conceived notions -- his paradigm. Burtt put it like
this:
We become so obsessed with a certain theory that we read it into every passage in the
Bible.46
It is an interesting fact of revelation that it took the direct intervention of God and the resurrection of Jesus to prevent the Anointed One from undergoing decay like all the rest of humanity. This had been prophesied by the Psalmist and applied by Peter to Jesus as follows:
In light of this, my heart delighted and my tongue rejoiced. Furthermore, my flesh will relax in hope. You will not abandon my soul to Hades nor will you allow your godly one to decay (Acts 2:26-27).
Paul, in the "resurrection chapter" of I Corinthians 15, further explains the significance of the resurrection of the Anointed One. He points out that it was after the resurrection of Jesus that a definitive difference between the first Adam and the "last Adam" transpired.
The first person Adam, was made into a living being. The last Adam was made into a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45, emphasis mine).
It was the "last Adam" that was made a "life-giving spirit" and not the first Adam. The
first Adam is still in the grave. If you will read carefully the full import of Paul's discussion
concerning the resurrection of Jesus, you will be able to note that it was only at his resurrection
that Jesus was "made into a life-giving spirit".
Of course, we are all agreed that in his earthly ministry, Jesus had granted life, forgiven
sins and performed signs by the power and anointing of God and he tells us plainly that this
ability had been given to him by his Father. However, it was later that Jesus attained the
permanent attributes of a "life-giving spirit" in lieu of and by means of his resurrection.. Paul
emphasized this truth by saying that if Jesus had not resurrected, then any hope of resurrection
for himself and the Corinthian believers was vain! Listen to his direct comment on the subject:
Now if the Anointed One has not been raised, then our heralding is meaningless, and your trust is meaningless... if the Anointed One was not raised, your trust is deceptive: you are still in your sins. Then also those who have gone to sleep in the Anointed One have been destroyed. If only in this life we have hope in the Anointed One, then we are the most pitiful of all people (1 Cor. 15:14-19, emphasis mine).
It is my certain contention that if Jesus was indeed "God incarnate" his resurrection
would not have been essential for our salvation and redemption. However, Paul says just that in
the above text. If the Anointed did not raise, says he, "you are still in your sins." Furthermore,
those that "have gone to sleep" have "been destroyed." Review for yourselves the entire context
of 1 Corinthians 15 and see for yourself whether this is not correct.
The majority of Jews believed in a resurrection of the body long before the advent of the
Messiah. They were not counting upon the good graces of the future Anointed One, however,
but were simply dependent upon the power of God. However, God Himself, gave judgment into
the hands of the Anointed (John 5:22-27) and "made him into a life-giving spirit" at his
"begottening." Notice from the following verse how the resurrection is connected with
"begottening."
And we are announcing a good message to you, that promise that was made to our ancestors, which God has fulfilled for our children, by raising up this Jesus, as it is also written in the psalms, ' You are my son. Today I have begotten you.' Now because he raised him from among the dead to never return to decay, he said this: 'I will give you the godly and trustworthy things of David.' Therefore, he also said in another place, 'You will not allow your godly one to decay.' For indeed, David fell asleep, after serving his own generation as God planned it, and he was laid with his ancestors and saw decay. But the one that God DID raise up did not see decay! (Acts 13:32-37, emphasis mine).
The above teaches that the resurrection was also the "today" of begottening. It also points
out that if God had not raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus never would have received "the godly
and trustworthy things of David".
Again I ask why, if Jesus was actually "God incarnate", was his personal resurrection
necessary for us to obtain the promises? Could not he -- as a member of the "godhead" -- have
resurrected us regardless? If not, why not? And yet our resurrection was contingent upon Jesus'
atonement and subsequent resurrection as "a life-giving spirit."
Just as Adam existed as the only created son of God, so Jesus -- before his resurrection --
existed as the "only begotten son" of God. In this sense, however, uniqueness is being
emphasized more than honor and glory. However, when Jesus resurrected from the dead -- a real,
definitive difference between he and Adam occurred. A "begottening of glorification" and
coronation happened.
As the prayer of Jesus proves, the glorification of the Anointed did not take place before
his death and resurrection but after. Thus just before his death Jesus prayed,
And now, glorify me, O Father, alongside you -- with the glory that I had alongside you before creation existed (John 17:5).47
Jesus' glorification -- as his prayer indicates -- was going to be accomplished after his resurrection. This was the order in which it occurred. Jesus was foreknown. Jesus was predestined as the Anointed One. Jesus was born of woman. Jesus was called. Jesus was righteous therefore he needed no justification. Jesus died and was buried. Jesus was resurrected and then glorified. As believers, the order of our glorification takes much the same path. Assuming that believers are also born of women, compare what is said in Romans 8 and see if this is not the case.
Now we know that God is working everything together for good: for those who love God; for those who by design are called ones. Because those whom he knew previously, he also marked out previously to be in conformity with his son's image, so he would be firstborn among many brothers. Now those whom he marked out previously, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified. Now those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:28-30, emphasis mine).
It is interesting to note that the above verses speak to a "pre-existence" of all those in the
Anointed Jesus but none tries to use this text to prove our literal pre-existence. As far as Jesus is
concerned, the only real difference is that he is the paragon of the above description of believers,
i.e., our being foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Jesus, however, had no
need for intercession since he was sinless and therefore assumed the position as mediator.
As you probably noted, what is lacking in the parallel above is the resurrection of the
believer. In the same way that the glory of God rested upon Jesus before his resurrection through
his anointing, first century believers had limited glory presently through their faith in him and an
anointing. However, just as Jesus received a permanent "resurrection begottening" and much
greater glory, believers will receive a "resurrection begottening" and greater and permanent glory
at the resurrection described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:43-44. Notice Paul's explanation.
It is also the same way with the resurrection of the dead. It (the body) is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruptibility. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised up in power. It is sown as a physical body; it is raised up as a spiritual body.
From the above text, one can surmise that the believer's future resurrection described
would accomplish for them what the resurrection of Jesus accomplished for him -- only the
degree of exaltation is different. The glory received by the resurrected believer will be obtained
through what Jesus accomplished and will be shared by them with Jesus. This sharing is
described in ways such as "... heirs of God and co-heirs with the Anointed" (Rom. 8:17), "...
seated with him in the heavenly places" (Eph. 2:6), etceteras.
What did this glorification of Jesus consist? At least the following:
We could go on but this should suffice. What needs to be stressed is that these attributes were acquired after his resurrection. Whatever tribute he received before his death and resurrection was limited and due to the anointing power that rested upon him. However, after his resurrection, Jesus went to the Father and received the rewards of his "begottening" according to Psalm 2:7-9.
I will declare the decree; The Lord has said to me. You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the end of the earth for your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Could not this also be the fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6? Listen to the similarities:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; And the government will be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
As has previously proven, the above Psalm was fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus. The reader can see the similarities in the two scriptures. When was Jesus enthroned upon the throne of David? Peter says this happened at the resurrection (Acts 2:29-33). When was Jesus highly exalted and given a name above every name? After his death and resurrection says Paul (Phil. 2:5ff). And yet, if Jesus had actually been God incarnate, none of the things mentioned that he received would have been dependent upon any resurrection whatsoever.
Paul also gives the order that these things will occur and also says that after all is accomplished according to this plan and purpose, Jesus will remain subject unto God, the Father.
For just as in Adam all people die, in the same way also all people will be made alive in the Anointed One. But each one will do so by his own arrangement. The Anointed One was a first fruit. After that, those who were the Anointed One's in his presence. Then the end will come, when he will have delivered up the kingdom to Father God, when he will have neutralized all rule and all authority and power. For it is necessary for him to be king until indeed he has placed all of his enemies under his feet. Death, the last enemy has been stripped of power for he has arranged all things under his feet. But when it is said all things are arranged under him, it is a given that the one who arranged all things under him is excepted. But when he has arranged all things under him, then also the son himself will arrange himself under the one who arranged everything under him, so that God may be everything in everything (1 Cor. 15:22-28, emphasis mine).
These versus say volumes about the subject under discussion. In the first place, Jesus --
being of "Adam" in that he was 100% human -- died but was resurrected as a "firstfruit". God
performs this subjection or "arrangement" as part of a preset plan.
Even though some insist on his incarnate Deity because of the supreme dominion that
was ascribed to him, the above verses would seem to teach nothing of the kind while alluding to
his rule. It says that Jesus will rule UNTIL all enemies are under him and then he will assume a
subordinate position in relationship to the Father. This points out again the distinction between
the son of man and Father God. This would also again confirm that the prayer of Jesus already
quoted, i.e.,
... glorify me, O Father, alongside you -- with the glory that I had alongside you before creation existed
certainly did not refer to his returning to the rank of God as is taught. Rather, the Corinthian testimony speaks to the receiving of rank and privilege as the resurrected, begottened and exalted "son" of Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9:6, then becoming subordinate after God's purpose was accomplished. It was the purpose and plan of the Omnipotent God for his future "Anointed" that had been "alongside" the Father "before creation existed." Remember, it was after his resurrection that Jesus said,
All authority, in heaven and on earth, has been given to me (Mt 28:18, emphasis mine).
When you couple this fact with the direct declaration by Paul that,
... if the Anointed One has not been raised, then our heralding is meaningless, and your trust is meaningless... if the Anointed One was not raised, your trust is deceptive: you are still in your sins.
We are reminded that Jesus could not have been "God incarnate" or our resurrection and atonement would not have been conditioned upon his resurrection. If Jesus was indeed "God incarnate" according to the Trinitarian view, then Paul's rhetorical question to Agrippa could certainly have been asked of Jesus with or without his resurrection:
What!? Do you judge it incredible that God raises the dead? (Acts 26:8).
Regardless of the view of God you maintain, whether it be the Trinitarian view, the
duality view (God is God and Jesus is God), the "Jesus Only" view, or the "God only" view
posited in this thesis, you must deal with difficult scriptures. In other words, certain verses must
be reconciled to your basic premise and paradigm.
The controversial exhortation by Paul in Philippians 2:1-11 is a good place to start. After
encouraging the believers at Philippi to regard others with more esteem than they would give
themselves (verses 1-4), he rightly uses Jesus as the paragon of these virtues.
For you should have this attitude in you that was also in Anointed Jesus: who existed in God's form, but did not consider plundering to be like God. On the contrary, he emptied himself, taking a slave's form, having become in human likeness and being found in a human scheme. He humbled himself, becoming in subjection until death, even the death of the cross. So, God also lifted him up and freely gave him the name that is above every name, so that in Jesus' name every knee would bow (in heaven, on earth, and underground) and every tongue would acknowledge that the Lord is Anointed Jesus, to Father God's glory (verses 5-11).
The problem of interpretation begins with verse 6 i.e., "who existed in God's form..." It
has been argued by those that believe that Jesus was "God Incarnate", that this phrase is saying
just that -- that Jesus pre-existed as God and then became flesh -- inhabiting a human body.
Although this view is widely accepted, it poses all the problems that have already been
proffered and then some. If Jesus was indeed God -- as the above argument states -- then he
certainly was not made in "all ways" (Heb. 2:17) like me, because I certainly didn't exist as God
before I was born, how about you?
The Greek word translated "form" is morfh
(morphe) and is only applied to Jesus in this way. It is agreed that its use is antithetical to "...
taking a slave's form (morfh)" since the same word is
used and is the thrust of the teaching. However, what lies between "who existed in God's form"
and "... taking a slave's form" rings the death knell of this view. It says Jesus
... did not consider plundering to be like God. On the contrary, he emptied himself.
Reader, when has God ever been forced to contemplate a moral decision? Does not the
source of morality flow directly from God and is therefore defined by Him? The scripture
teaches things like "... it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 618) and "God cannot be tempted by
evil" (James 1:13) etceteras. If God is the source and definer of morality then certainly any
decision or action taken by Him would be right -- by definition. It was man that was given the
choice to follow God's instruction or reject it. This idea will be developed but keep this in
mind.
Yet we have (according to Trinitarians) Jesus -- in the pre-existent state as God --
contemplating a moral decision, viz "Now lets see, shall I remain God or shall I empty myself
and become a human?" Puh-lease! I will admit that this verse is difficult but does it drive us to
the "God Incarnate" position?
Consider this for a moment. Whether Jesus pre-existed or not, the contemplation and
decision whether or not to be like God would have had to occur while he was human. Yes it
would! This is true because -- as has been proven and acknowledged universally by all believers
-- God's essence and nature excludes Him from contemplating or doing wrong. Think about it.
Besides, it was the "Anointed" Jesus (the "son of man") that was "contemplating" -- not God.
And Jesus was "anointed" after his baptism (Luke 4:16-21). Jesus was certainly born according
to the dating of the historians in approximately 5 BC and became the "Anointed Jesus"
approximately 30 years later.
By way of repetition, it certainly cannot be argued from the synoptic gospels (Matthew,
Mark, and Luke) that Jesus was anything but "born of woman" as the Hebrew Messiah. He is
described as the "son of David", etc. The truth of this is echoed by Robert L. Whitelaw. He
states succinctly that:
Nothing in John's gospel alters the Mt and Lk records, or requires that the words beginning, birth, son; mother, beget, conceive, born, etc., must be given a figurative or esoteric meaning contrary to their plain meaning in everyday speech then and now.48
The phrase translated "did not consider plundering to be like God" (Phil. 2:6) is certainly difficult by anyone's standards. The KJV renders it,
... thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
The NIV and NASV concur as,
... did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.
As you can well imagine, the independent scholars also disagree. Wilson renders it,
... did not meditate a usurpation to be like God.
Clarke has it,
... who did not think being like God a matter to be earnestly desired.
Sharp translated it,
... thought not being like God a thing to be seized.
Since the experts agree that this is indeed a difficult scripture, it would also fall into the category that Peter was alluding to when he remarked that some things that Paul wrote were hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16). Since this is the case, we should all be careful not to construct extensive theology around this text.
Unless you are forced to make this word (rendered variously "robbery", "plundered", "seized", "grasped", etceteras) to fit the idea that Jesus was contemplating whether or not to remain God by a Trinitarian paradigm and bias, the word carries the idea of "usurpation" i.e.,
n. 1. The act of usurping, esp. the illegal seizure of royal sovereignty. 2. LAW The illegal encroachment upon or exercise of authority or privilege belonging to another:49
The verb form occurs several times in the NT, and is usually translated "snatch" or
"grab." In Hebrews 10:34, the Jewish Christians had been subjected to, among other things, "the
plunder of your goods." Taking by force or taking abruptly is always in view in the use of this
word group.
As heretical as it may seem, all scholars do agree that the word can mean usurp but in
the Trinitarian view (surprise, surprise), the "usurping" has a positive thrust. They say that
Jesus would NOT be usurping to be considered God. In fact, they not only have trouble with
"plunder," but they also don't like "to be." The Trinitarian Gifford states their position well:
The form 'to be' is ambiguous and easily lends itself to the erroneous notion that to be on equality with God was something to be acquired in the future. Assuming, as we now may, that the equality was something which Christ possessed prior to His Incarnation, and then for a time resigned, we have ... to choose between two meanings of the word harpagmos: (1) with the active sense 'robbery' or 'usurpation' we get the following meaning: 'Who because He was subsisting in the essential form of God, did not regard it as any usurpation that He was on an equality of glory and majesty with God, but yet emptied Himself of that co-equal glory... (emphasis mine)50
Now a regular student of the Bible would probably ask why "to be" in this case is
ambiguous. Is the Greek weird in this text? The answer is absolutely not! The text contains the
normal form of "to be." The fact of the matter is that the general use of "to be" does not fit the
Trinity view and is therefore called "ambiguous" and said to cause an "erroneous notion" to the
unpracticed eye (those that are having trouble with Trinitarianism).
Gifford -- like so many are wont to do -- starts with the Trinitarian paradigm before he
enters the task of translating and is therefore forced to interpret the text differently than the Greek
syntax demands and does so by his own admission. "To be" means "to be." Jesus did not
consider plundering, robbery, usurpation, "to be" like God. He did the opposite; he emptied
himself.
And reader, don't you think it would be a considerable understatement to describe
Gifford's assumptions as quite "weighty" within the framework of his own Trinity paradigm?
Interpreting it normally would give (in his own words) an "erroneous notion"! Now I ask you:
who says it is "ambiguous" and "erroneous"? Trinitarians do! Well then, we simply must take
their word for it, right?
As you can easily ascertain, an entire and binding theology is buttressed by the
Trinitarian assumption. Almost universally, you are considered the rankest of heretics if you do
not accept the Trinitarian view . This is true even though the view of "Holy Trinity" is derived
from a creed -- according to the words of Cardinal Newman previously alluded to -- constructed
of "propositions so various, so notional, that but few can know them, and fewer can
understand them!"
If the Philippian text is not teaching that Jesus pre-existed as God before he was born and
had to consider whether to remain so, then what is it teaching? Good question so lets look at the
context in detail.
The context is defined and enjoined upon the Philippian listener in the first 4 verses. Paul
uses the rhetorical "if" as he encourages them to love one another.
Therefore, if there is some comfort in the Anointed One, if there is any soothing love, if there is any sharing of the breath -- If anything I say has deep feelings and compassions, then make my joy complete, so that you would have the same attitude, having the same love, having united lives, having this one thing in mind: to do nothing out of bigotry or worthless conceit. On the contrary, with a humble attitude regard one another as being superior to yourselves. Each person should not look after his own interests, but also the interests of others (Phil. 2:1-4, emphasis mine).
These verses say many things but the thrust is for the Philippians addressed to consider
others and their interests superior to their own. Paul has told them that they were all sharing in
the "divine nature" that Peter had alluded to in 2 Peter 1:4. They were all sharing in the
"Anointed's" love and breath (spirit). These were attributes of God and not human. They were
the result of the new birth and not the human nature. Few would disagree that it is not man's
nature to put someone else's interests above one's own.
Were the Philippians to possess the attributes described above "by nature" or "by
attitude"? The attitude is what is in view. It was from this foundation that Paul says that their
"attitude" needed to be the same as Anointed Jesus' (verse 5).
For you should have this ATTITUDE in you that was also in Anointed Jesus:
This is the crux of the matter. When did Jesus possess this attitude? The Trinitarian view
has this attitude residing in Jesus while he pre-existed in heaven as God. Really!! Couldn't we all
expect God to have the right attitude? But expecting a one hundred percent man, even Jesus,
to possess the attitude of the Divine God, is another matter entirely.
God chose an heir that: was made in all ways like his human brothers (Heb. 2:17);
underwent similar struggles and persecutions as the Hebrew Christians (Heb. 4:15); yet remained
sinless and without need of atonement. This was his "ON EARTH" state of affairs when he
committed himself to take the "form of a slave" and die for mankind.
He had earned his inheritance through sinless living. It was because of this that he said
that he had the right to live or die as he willed (John 10:18). This was the background from
which he told Pilate that he could summon more than twelve legions of angels to deliver him at
his request if he so desired (Mat. 26:53).
In addition, it was the MAN Jesus that made the profound statement to others, "Be
complete as your heavenly Father is complete" (Mat.5:48). It was the man Jesus who told
Philip, "... the one who has seen me has seen the Father," (John 14:19). No human being before
Jesus or after could have spoken those words with a straight face because all were and are
sinners. Even before John the Baptist knew that Jesus was the Messiah he recognized in Jesus a
man more righteous than himself (Compare John 1:32-34 and Mat. 3:13-14). It was in light of
Jesus' humanity and yet sinlessness that the Philippians are admonished to treat one another
humbly as equals.
Paul is plainly comparing the attitude of the Philippian believers to Jesus' attitude as the
"Anointed." He certainly wasn't alluding to an attitude possessed by the Philippians in some
pre-existent state, was he? Then why place Jesus in a pre-existent form? Only by looking at verse
6 entirely out of context do you have problems with the phrase "... who existed in God's form ..."
This phrase could allude to several things that are unrelated to pre-existence. The
simplest explanation has already been alluded to, i.e., Paul was defining the attitude
demonstrated by Jesus, thus describing it as "God's form". This makes good sense in lieu of the
of the proceeding verse when the Philippians are encouraged to have the same "attitude", right?
Are we forced into thinking that Paul is speaking of God's literal state?
Let me refer you back to John 14:9. When Jesus told Philip "the one who has seen me
has seen the Father," was he not referring to himself as existing in a "form of God"? If not, why
not? He certainly wasn't telling Philip that to look at Jesus was to see God's actual spiritual
essence. No, in