The Holy Trinity: Fact or Fable ? Rev. C. David Coyle, M.Min. Introduction It was early on a Saturday morning in late 1985, as I prepared to go out on some errands, I noticed a paper stuck in my front storm door. It was from the Watchtower Society, dated @ February 1, 1982, and was obviously left by some poor lost soul who thought he had news to give me. It was entitled; “THE TRINITY — SHOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?” I knew what was coming next so I disposed of it in the kitchen trash can. But the title of the article bothered me some more until I dug it back out of the trash, brushed off the egg shells and used tea bags and flattened it so I could read it. I had to answer it. It was a question that begged to be answered from an honest biblical perspective. And so, I sat down and began to read the article and pen my response. I. The Objections to the Trinity Reading, I couldn’t help but notice an obvious contempt for the doctrine of the Trinity as something less than the truth. Little Scripture was used in support of the stated thesis and what was used was misquoted, partially quoted or dragged from its original setting or context. One can prove almost anything from the Bible with a verse yanked out of context. I had an old, Scottish Professor in Bible College who drove this home to us, constantly, that, “A text without a context is merely a pretext.” Proof is not found in one verse alone, for a definitive answer It is found in consistent examination of many passages gathered together. And it helps to have the complete context at hand to derive the intention of the Scripture writer or the one quoted. In the process of building evidence against the “CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY”, an incident from history is called up for examination. There is nothing wrong with looking at Western history for answers when it applies, but Western history does not and will not support an argument one has against the Bible. And an attack upon the Trinity is an attack upon the BIBLE, itself. No demonstration from history justifies an attack against a biblical doctrine, not even in the face of abuse. Ever since the temptation of our original parents in the Garden of Eden, there has been someone who has attempted to cover sinful deeds with an appeal to religion. But that does not make his religion wrong, just his actions. A. A Question of History The lead-in piece, about five paragraphs long, looks back to the fate of one Michael Servetus. My study shows He was a real person, born Miguel Serveto in Tudela Navarre Spain in 1511 and died in Geneva Switzerland October 27, 1553 (The Encyclopedia Americana). He was a learned man and wrote extensively on a number of topics including the pulmonary system and theology. To say many of his stands were unpopular would be understatement. The article correctly states that his writings include “his contribution in connection with the discovery of the pulmonary-circulation system.” He began publishing his opinions in anti-Trinitarian theology and found himself at odds with the orthodox Church, As well as the Reformers of his day. The story correctly reveals that he was on his way to Italy from his native Spain stopped off in Geneva, Switzerland, where his identity was discovered. He was ceremoniously arrested, tried, convicted and put to death by burning, at the behest of John Calvin. The crime for which he was found guilty and worthy of so vile a death was heresy; “because he denied Christendom’s orthodox doctrine of ‘the most Holy Trinity’.” This action was indeed, cruel, and sadistically barbaric. Notably, severe by anyone’s definition. However wrong the action taken by zealous men does not negate the validity of the truth of the doctrine they defended. The “Watchtower” article alludes to the idea that any doctrinal teaching that would be defended in such a manner must be man-made, unscriptural, ungodly and incorrect. This is not necessarily so. There have been other doctrines for which men have wrongly died in early Protestantism and Romanism of that time. They were, of certainty, tragic times. They were times of great personal injustices and shame. The Bible would have us educate people of its truth and trustworthiness not intolerantly put them to death as infidels. But, just because men acted unjustly, irrationally and shamefully, in hasty reaction to heresy, does not make the doctrine they believed and defended wrong. The Bible condemns such actions as taken by Calvin and his ilk, but it plainly teaches the doctrine of “The Holy Trinity”, as we shall see. B. A Question of Opinion The article further purports to quote evangelist, Dr. Billy Graham, saying, “The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is fully God, and in no way is inferior to God the Father.” Of course the inference is that Dr. Graham is mistaken. Now, it would appear to us that if the statement were incorrect, one could easily go to the Bible and quote a few well chosen verses of Scripture to refute Graham’s statement. This is not done, however. Instead, the writer quoted from the Denver Post (that great, well-spring of theological thought and dogma of our day — I am being facetious), where, supposedly, some Pentecostal preacher (unnamed) offered $1,000,000 U.S. dollars as a reward to anyone who could convince him; that the Bible teaches a Trinity. It doesn’t mention his name, or, where he got the million to give away so frivolously. He obviously doesn’t believe in the Trinity or that the Bible teaches it. His loss! His beliefs, or lack of them, do not prove a point about what is or is not biblical. He is further quoted, allegedly, as having said that Trinitarian theology is a man-made philosophy “that is incongruous and incomprehensible.” Big deal! Why quote the opinions of a man, especially one, so apparently ignorant of the Bible as this one seems to be? Doctrine is determined to be biblical, or not, by the study of the Scriptures, the Word of God not the rhetoric of men. The Bible says, “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4), because, it is what God says about a matter that counts, in the final analysis. One’s personal disbelief in any doctrine is of none effect, especially if it differs from God’s. There are ecclesiastical Judases among preachers of every sect and denomination, even among the Pentecostals and Charismatics. Now, I am not a Pentecostal or a Charismatic and I have no sympathy of those movements. However, I know many who are in those movements and the words of the following quote do not find agreement of any of those I know. They believe and reverence the doctrine of the Trinity as the biblical, God-given revelation that it is. Perhaps the Trinity is incongruous to the preacher they quoted because he isn’t saved. Perhaps, he does not know the Lord as Savior. There could be no other explanation for one who claims to know the true biblical facts and still arrives at such an untenable conclusion. Perhaps he reads the Reversed Version. As far as being incomprehensible, who says one must fully understand a doctrine before it can be true? How ludicrous! We are not dealing with the reasoned thoughts of men and human philosophies, but the verbal plenary revelation of God about things otherwise, unknown. There are many things in life we cannot explain, but we accept, merely upon the premise that they work. I don’t understand electricity but I’m using it to type with and read by. I do not understand why a computer works but I’m using one to present the Word of God to the world, via the Internet. And I don’t know what makes it work, either. Medical people don’t really know what makes aspirin work, but, when someone has a headache anywhere in the known world, they take two aspirin for it. Why? Because it works, pure and simple. Something doesn’t have to be understood or comprehended to be plausible. Why demand it of the Bible if it isn’t necessary in any other discipline in the natural or spiritual world. Further, most of the prophets did not understand their mess- age fully, if at all, but they faithfully discharged their duties and wrote and preached as they received commandment from God. The Twelve, Jesus’ inner circle, did not understand much of the Master’s message or activities until He met with them privately and illuminated their minds (and much of that was after His death and resurrection). Comprehension is not now, nor has it ever been a prerequisite for personal faith based in the truth of the Word of God. C. A Question of Doctrine The “Watchtower” asks: “But what difference does it make? you may wonder.’ Does it really matter what you believe?’ YES it does.” The writer is absolutely correct in that much of his statement. It does indeed matter what you believe. And it also matters why you believe it! No matter what it is, it must be believed, solely on the ground that it is plainly revealed and taught in the Word of God. The “Watchtower” writer would appear to agree with this, because, he, seemingly, quotes the Lord Jesus Christ as an authority, saying; “‘Eternal life means knowing you as the only true God, and Jesus your messenger as Christ. (John 17:3 An American Translation).’” Actually, this rendering is flawed. The Greek does not support the Jehovah’s Witness position on the subject of the Person and ministry of Jesus Christ. The insertion of the word “as” is totally unjustified and causes readers to assume a different conclusion concerning Christ than the Scripture makes. One that devalues His Person and His position. In the verse, cited above, Christ is seen as a messenger of God who carried a message and nothing more, an angelic personage only who became the son of God. This is consistent with their doctrinal statements but it does not square with the Bible itself. Jesus is not an angelic messenger but the Christ of Old Testament promise, the Person of God in human form. The King James Version is much more accurate here in its rendering “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Similarly, The ASV (The American Standard Version of 1901) reads: “And this is eternal life, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.” A more literal Greek translation would go more like this; “But this is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God and the Sent One, Jesus Christ.” Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus simply called “a messenger”! He did not merely carry a message, but He was and is the MESSAGE! Neither, does the Scripture, anywhere, ever make Him an angel, or angelic being, of any kind, nor, created, as the angels were. Jesus is greater than the angels. That is one of the primary themes the writer of the book of Hebrews puts forth and develops. Some of the Hebrews venerated angels and the Scripture writer wanted to make sure they knew Jesus Christ is better, greater and higher than the angels. Subtle, though it may be, the Jehovah’s Witness translation, tending to minimize the Person and character of Christ is totally unjustified. Though their theology limits Jesus to the role of an angel and fails to recognize Him as part of the equation for salvation, so clearly set forth in the verse above, the Bible has no such problem. What is eternal life in this verse? Knowing the only true God (the Father) AND Jesus Christ the Sent One or One sent (both referents being equal). The verb in this statement modifies both objects. It is clear to anyone seeking the truth what the context of John’s statement is, that is, unless he has a predisposition toward misrepresenting the truth. This isn’t the sending of a messenger or angel, but the doctrine of the PROCESSION OF CHRIST, being in agreement with the Father, to proceed, or, come to earth in human form and passion, from the heavenly throne of God. Jesus, throughout the New Testament, claimed to be God or the Son of God. The JWs deny this obvious truth and call Him a liar In their denials. If He were not God, why would Scripture include Him as the Object, with the Father, toward a relationship to obtain eternal life, salvation? One cannot KNOW God the Father and reject Jesus the Son, for He is the Revealer of the Father, John 14:1-7. They present another half-truth when they state, “Our everlasting welfare is dependent upon our accurately knowing ‘the only true God.’” The problem is not in the statement but in the conclusion. They create a false dichotomy in choosing between Jesus as “the Son of God” or “God the Son”. The question is raised: “So which is the truth? Is Jesus Christ ’the Son of God’ or God the Son? There is a big difference!” Oh, really? Is there? We shall evaluate these charges against the Word of God and we shall see what the Bible teaches on the subject. Is there a “big difference”, or are both titles equally applicable to Jesus Christ? We, as true Christians must have an answer ready to present to the cultist and the honest seeker, as well. The Bible directs us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ” (1 Peter 3:15b-16). The preceding was obviously set in place as a smokescreen to cause readers to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, based, solely upon an emotional and pseudo-intellectual appeal. In the main article, entitled, “The Trinity - Should You Believe It?”, there is a series of questions which are quite pertinent, even in their impertinence, because, they call into question our knowledge and understanding of a doctrine we Christians claim to wholeheartedly believe. D. A Question of Creed We are asked: “DO YOU sincerely believe in the Trinity? Hundreds of millions in Christendom do. Perhaps you have always thought of it as based on the Bible. Do you know exactly what it is? Do you understand it? Can you explain it?” Obviously, the thinking of the writer, based upon a predisposition toward his particular bias, is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical, that it is unexplainable, and therefore, totally indefensible. The proof offered is made to appear to come from the Bible, causing people to think that they are being enlightened about a man-made, false doctrine which sprang out of tradition. But this is not the case. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses spent as much time studying the Scriptures, as they do misrepresenting them, they would not only prove to themselves the truth about the Trinity, but also would put an end to their unbiblical and ungodly cult. The second thing that is obvious is the diabolically clever way a cult-religion preys upon the average churchgoer’s ignorance of the Bible and true Christian doctrine. This is the natural result which follows when churches fail to instruct their people in a systematic and complete study of the Bible, God’s instruction Book for doctrine and life. In this atmosphere, people become academically lazy and are wide open for the rhetoric of godless cults to blind them with cleverly orchestrated lies. Some say, in defense of their lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, that they don’t believe in teaching “doctrine”. But, “doctrine” simply means “teaching” They are, in effect, saying, they don’t believe in “teaching”. No wonder they are carried away with “every wind of doctrine” that blows their way. The article quotes from the ATHENASIAN CREED, one of the earliest Christian statements of Trinitarian Theology, which declares that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-existent as One God. The implication is that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was taken from this Statement of Faith rather than the Bible. How ludicrous such a notion is! How come the writer of this piece cannot problem-solve and arrive at the obvious truth that the creed was formulated to teach the truth found in Holy Writ? He further editorializes that the Trinity is inconsistent with the thinking of the monotheistic Jews of the First Century, AD. How can this be?! Every First Century, monotheistic Jew knew, accepted, memorized and quoted the Shema [imw] (as is still done, today), God’s personal instruction, given in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, for the instruction of every Jewish household. They also taught them diligently to their offspring and future generations, as they were commanded of God in verse 7 — “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH {hvhy}] our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up” (Deuteronomy 6:4-7). Verse 4 could, literally, be translated to read: “Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is one.” This Tetragrammaton, YHWH [hvhy] is sometimes rendered as Yahweh or, is mistranslated and transliterated as Jehovah, because of an early copying mistake made by a confused or overzealous scribe. The key word in this verse is the word “one”, but not in a unitarian sense. There are two words available in the Hebrew for “one”. Yachid [dyhy] means one and only one, a unit, an individual, a single. This is not the word used here in this context. The word in this verse is echod, [dha] meaning a unity of one, a plurality of one, a unity of anything. It stands for a unity of things or persons, totally equal in every way. It is a unified ONE. It is used for individuals in a group of likes. My friend, no one can be like, or, equal to God but God. If Jesus is like God, He is God. “Hear, O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is [a] unified ONE (a UNITY of identical PERSONS)” — “the godhead” of Colossians 2:9. This is not an isolated text in the Old Testament, the Bible of the First Century Jew, from which he derived his religious thinking. No wonder the Athanasian Creed has been part of Christian dogma since the Third Century, AD, because it so closely reflects the plain teaching of both Old and New Testaments, as it has from its inception. Also, Eusebius of Caesarea formulated the Nicene Creed (circa, 325 AD) which also relates biblical doctrine to its adherents, and states: “We believe in one God the Father All-Sovereign, Maker of all things visible and invisible; And in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light; of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things are made, things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit.” At the Council of Constantinople (381, A.D.) was added: “And those that say ‘There was when He was not’, and that, ‘He came into being from what-is-not’, or those that allege, that the Son of God is ‘of another substance or— essence’ or ‘created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable,’ These the Catholic [Universal] and Apostolic Church anathematizes [holds as accursed].” So, then, we may define the Trinity this way: “The Trinity is therefore three eternally interconstituted, inter-related, inter-existent, and therefore, inseparable Persons within One Being and of One Substance or Essence.” (Emory H. Bancroft, D. D.; Elemental Theology; Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972). E. A Question of Interpretation The Watchtower article continues by saying; “But the critical question is this: Did Jesus and his apostles believe and teach the trinity?” Indeed, this is the critical question! One which was handled in an unscholarly manner by the writer of this article. We will briefly deal with the misquotes and the misleading conclusions drawn from them, as well as a brief discussion of the JW argumentation and see what the Bible truly teaches about the Trinity. The writer then points out that if we believe the Lord and His apostles (not to mention all of His other disciples) taught the Trinity, then “We are faced with a number of very puzzling questions.” The only ones who have “very puzzling questions” seem to be those who read clearly Trinitarian passages from Scripture with the unitarian eyes, after the misdirection of Arias (Third Century, AD). The rest of us don’t have any such problems. The writer’s first stated problem is with the Scripture verse which reads: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). The “day and hour” here have to do with the regathering of Israel at the end of the age and the personal, bodily return of Jesus Christ. The Jehovah’s Witness thesis is, then, if Jesus be God, how can He not know “the day and the hour” in which He Himself is to return to the earth? To the natural mind, this looks like a real good question. And it is. It would seem to be an impossibility if He is truly God. The writer rejected, out of hand, the answer that Jesus has two natures, that of God and that of man, and here He is exercising His nature as man. It is a pretty special investigator who can afford the luxury to look at all the evidence and then, sum marily dismiss the weightier part and keep only the part that allows him leverage to refute what he disagrees with, unchallenged. But that is just what this fellow has done. That isn’t very honest scholarship. Though they reject this answer — I must offer it as evidence, all the same. It isn’t the complete answer but it is the basis for a foundational understanding of this question, even if the questioner is obviously not paying attention to the answer. Since Jesus is God He is able to control and limit His human knowledge. Though He, as God must know all things, He, as a man need not know everything, all the time. And apparently, this is the case. He is simply not allowing His divine nature to take control. That knowledge is not part of the purpose for the present hour at hand. He is limiting His human understanding to the “now” or immediate present and not to the future. That information was not necessary at that time, for the men to whom He spoke, in 33, AD. God cannot be limited by any outside force, power or entity. However, He can limit His own nature. Why strip God of something every man, woman and child can do in a simpler form? Why limit God by stating, categorically, that He cannot reveal Himself as three distinct and eternally united Persons, if that is His desire. Is there anything God cannot do? YES! God cannot do anything that violates His direct will, His nature and His purpose. He has limited Himself to that. Is there anything God cannot know? YES! Anything that is not in line with His direct will and purpose. He has limited himself to that. What Jesus appears not to know in the Bible, He does not know as a man, though, as God, He is omniscient. The very same thing can be said of the Holy Spirit. Further, there is clearly a faulty interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:16 implied when the writer asks; “How is it possible to have ‘the mind of Christ’, and yet not know ‘the mind of the Lord’ if the Father and Son are equal?’” The major flaw here is that the writer does not realize that the whole, entire chapter is a single unit and that 1 Corinthians 2:16 follows 1 Corinthians 2:1-15 (Wasn’t that terribly enlightening?). If he had not wrenched the verse from its proper context, perhaps he could have answered his own question, or, better, never have asked it at all. Instead, he goes on record as clearly not believing the Bible at all and showing the whole world his lost condition and his personal need of a Savior. Let me suggest One, the LORD JESUS CHRIST. In its context, the verse does not claim that one member of the Godhead knows something the others do not. In fact the context implicates each and all members of the Trinity in their ministries to the believer, conjointly. Paul’s argument is as follows: He preached to the Corinthians the Gospel of God, which he preached after the wisdom of God, giving God’s revelation not the wisdom, so called, of men. This Gospel is the revealed “mind of the Lord” which is also “the mind of Christ” of verse 16. This is shown by the flow of the context, from verse 1 to verse 16. There are no secrets here. There is only agreement. He declares: 1. The testimony of God, v. 1; which is tied to 2. The crucifixion of Christ, v. 2; which is 3. The demonstration of the Spirit and of power (power of the Spirit and of God the Father are equal), v. 4 4. It is God’s wisdom, a mystery hidden and foreordained, v. 7; also, 5. Prepared by God, v. 9; being 6. The deep things of God, v. 10; and, 7. The things of God, v. 11; and, 8. The things freely given by God, v. 12; which are, 9. The things or words we [apostles and preachers] speak of, v. 13; which are, 10. Spiritual things, v. 13; or, 11. The things of the Spirit of God (see vv. 9-12), v. 14; and are, 12. Things spiritually discerned, v. 14; they are 13. Contained in the “all things” of v. 15; and are 14. “the mind of the Lord” in v. 16; which, also, is 15. “the mind of Christ”, v. 16. Paul is teaching that “we”, Christians, know “the mind of the Lord”, God’s wisdom, “the things of the Spirit of God”, showing a unity of Being in the two. When “the deep things of God”, “the things of the Spirit” are also called “the mind of the Lord” and “the mind of Christ”, there is a demonstration of unity between Christ and the Father and the Spirit in Being, Essence, unity and co-operation of purpose and in their Character. There is a oneness of knowledge and wisdom between them in totality. How can the Son and the Holy Spirit have the full knowledge that God the Father has if they are not also deity, God? They cannot. If God’s knowledge is total, no one else can have total knowledge unless he is also God. This also applies to each of the other attributes of the character of God. Only one who is spiritually blind could read the context of 1 Corinthians 2 and not see the plain, Trinitarian teaching of Paul the apostle! So, Did Jesus and His apostles teach the doctrine of the Trinity? ABSOLUTELY! Why did this Jehovah’s Witness writer not see these facts? If he was looking for them, in the first place, he should have. Why and how could he miss them? There is only one real reason and ironically, it is found in the context we have been examining. “Now the natural [unbelieving, unsaved, unregenerate] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and; he cannot [is not able to] know them, because they are spiritually judged [discerned, understood]” (1 Corinthians 2:14 [ASV]), see, also, Romans 8:8-9). “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his”. The point is made in the article that the Trinitarian doctrine is full of holes because one theologian used Proverbs 8:22-24 to show the pre-existence of Christ, the Word, which testifies He is a created being. I will demonstrate that any such premise as the one stated in the Watchtower is completely erroneous. They To begin with, Proverbs 8 does not refer to Christ. Though, it may appear to speak about Christ, from a superficial reading, closer study will reveal it does not. It is a beautiful, poetic description of godly wisdom. This passage establishes, poetically, a personification of an attribute of God and describes God’s use of that wisdom in all He does. The theologian, who was quoted, is not the first or only person to make a dogmatic statement of identification by spiritualizing a passage, stating what seems to be, rather than what is clearly revealed. Spiritualization is not a sin, but it isn’t good exegesis, either. We must be very careful not to dogmatize from personal opinion, rather than literal observation, or to spiritualize a context to make a catchy sermon point. I am only making a statement here, not an accusation about a fellow Christian theologian. The fatal flaw is not in taking the passages literally, to say what they mean, but, in making passages figurative christophanies, when there is no contextual justifications for so doing. Many have done it, but, it isn’t the wisest way to go. Dr. C. I. Scofield, D.D., in the same manner, also, wrongly concluded, “That wisdom is more than a personification of an attribute of God, or the will of God as best for men, but is a distinct adumbration of Christ, is sure to the devout mind. Prov. 8:22-36,with John 1:1-3; Col. 1:17, can refer to nothing less than the Eternal Son of God” (footnote: The Scofield Reference Bible). I have, use and love The Scofield Reference Bible, aalong with many others. But, I do not agree with every note he posted or that Arno C. Gabelein posted. They were men of God, for sure. But, like all of us, fallable. Were we ableto question Dr. Scofield, today, since his long distant home-going to glory, I am confident that we would find that he no longer holds the opinion expressed in his footnote. Remember, the Bible text was given by the inspiration of the Spirit of God. The footnotes were not. And we Christians need to get past the Evangelical Sunday School crédo: “My faith is built on nothing less than Scofield’s notes and Scripture Press!” Let’s defer to the Bible for a change! Wisdom was “possessed” by God before His wonderful works of old (Proverbs 8:22). Though Christ is said to be “with” (the Greek “pros” [prÕj] — face-to-face with or before the face of) the Father (John 1:1), He is never “possessed” by the Father. Wisdom was “set up” before the earth was formed, “brought forth” before the fountains abounded with water and before the mountains were settled, even “before the hills” were formed. Take not, none of this language is ever used in relationship to Christ in The New Testament. The preincarnate Christ was present before the earth was created, but He was never “brought forth” or “set up”, or anything which would intimate His creation. In fact: “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3), and that includes the; “bringing forth” and “setting up” of wisdom as well as the world of creation. This is not the creation of Christ but the wisdom used by Christ in creation, even as the passage identifies it to be (Proverbs 8:1,12). Many of the statements of description may, also, seemingly apply to Christ, but, they do not refer directly to Him. Why wouldn’t His attributes reflect His character, and vise, versa? They would, but that is the end of the similarity. We should be careful not to confuse godly attributes with His Person and we should be careful to choose descriptions of Christ from passages where they are clearly identified as such. Christ is said to be already in existence “In the beginning” (John 1:1, and following). In fact, He was not only there, but co-Creator. Under closer observation, the absence of the Greek article makes the actual statement “In beginning”, or literally, “in any beginning”, “in the beginning of anything or everything”, before any or all beginnings, Christ was already there. There was never a beginning before Him. Before anything was “begun”, “brought forth”, “set up” or “created”, the Word, Christ already existed, in the eternal present [face-to-face] with God (John 1:1). The “Word” is identified by John, the Scripture writer, as “the only begotten of God” (John 1:14), “the only begotten [One] of God” (John 1:18). One scholar equated this statement, in John 1:18, as, essentially, “the only begotten God” and he has syntactical justification for it. In either case, it makes Him God. He is “the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:16,18,36 Who is also God. The term “the only begotten Son” [tÕn uƒÕn tÕn monogenÁ] means the only uniquely born One of, or, from God, THE Son. The definite article means there is only one. We are the sons of God by faith in Jesus, but, there is only one “only begotten Son” of God Who proceeded and came forth from God the Father. How could the Son of God be less than His Father from Whom He came? He can’t. He isn’t. Jesus testified that He is God, in John 10 and all around Him wanted to destroy Him because they all understood Him to equate Himself with God. He was not created but was active in the creation as co-Creator (John 1:2-5); and is “the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15), showing Christ’s standing at the creation and not the creation of Him. In reference to “the firstborn”, as it relates to Christ, Dr. Merrill F. Unger writes: “The expression ‘firstborn’ stands for that which is most excellent. Thus Jesus is ‘the firstborn of every creature’ (Heb. 12:23). ‘The firstborn of the poor’ (Isa. 14:30) means the poorest of the poor. ‘The firstborn of death’ (Job 18:13) is that disease which Bildad has in mind as the one more terrible and dangerous than all others” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary; Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1975, pp 366-367). We, in America ought, surely, to understand that phrase quite well, as we refer to “first family” for the family of the chief elected officer of our land, that of the President. The “first lady” is the wife of the President and does not mean there were no ladies before she was born, but, as the wife of the President, she is in the most prominent position among the ladies of the land. I have a friend, from New Zealand, who refers to his wife as the “first lady of New Zealand”, because, to him, she is the most important lady in the country — in the world. The same is true with the phrase used in the biblical record. It has to do with standing or ranking of all who were born among men. Jesus is the “firstborn” of all men. He is the first- born among all who came forth out of the grave. He is chiefest among all on any, or, every level. And why would He not since He is “the only begotten Son of God”, God incarnate, Emmanuel (God with/among us). What better way for God to demonstrate godliness to mankind, to draw them to Himself, than for God to tabernacle among them in a tent of flesh, uniquely born into mankind; Who is fully God and fully man — the only truly theanthropic Being, the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ? Paul is saying, in Colossians 1:15, that Christ is great er than all the creation. Why? Because, He was co-Creator with the Father and the Holy Spirit of all that was made in the creation. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him” (Colossians 1:16). Paul repeats, in verse 17, that Christ is above the creation and not a part of it. In point of fact, all creation is held together by His will and sustaining power, the literal meaning of “and by him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17). This would not at all be possible if Jesus were merely a creature. The Bible declares that Jesus Christ is and indeed, must be God. Paul, also, warns about cultic writers, saying, “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily [the Trinity]” (Colossians 2:8-9 [ASV]). “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who existing in the form of God, counted not an equality with God a thing to be grasped [held onto], but emptied himself [of self-rights as God, showing willing submission to the Father before the whole world] taking the form of a servant [willingly], being made in the likeness of men [add- ing a coat of flesh to His pre-existent Spirit form (John 4:24)] and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself [willing submission] becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:5-8, ASV). The square brackets contain my commentary not biblical text. F. A Question of Terms The Watchtower writer, then, asserts that Jesus called the Father, “my God” (Matthew 24:46; John 20:17), but, that the Father never uses this phrase to refer to Jesus. The Father may not call Jesus, “my God”, BUT, HE DOES CALL HIM, “O GOD”. Hebrews 1:8, clearly sees God the Father speaking to His Son, saying; “And when he [God the Father] again bringeth in the firstborn [the preeminent One, as you will recall] into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him [Angels never receive worship in Scripture. Worship is always reserved for deity, God] And of the angels he sayeth Who maketh his angels winds, And his ministers a flame of fire [the Son is seen here as above the angels]: but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” (Hebrews 1:6-8, ASV). God the Father called The Son, “O God”. If the Father doesn’t know the Son, who does? He anointed Him Christ (the sent One) and sent Him into the world (1:9); declared Him to be the Son (1:8; Galatians 4:4) and declared His Lordship and Creatorship (1:10). “Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands” (Hebrews 1:10, ASV). This is still the Father talking to the Son in this verse. God the Father called His only begotten Son the Creator of the heavens and earth (vv. 9-10); eternal (v.11); immutable or unchangeable (v.12); different from the angels and the Source of eternal salvation (vv.13-14). Remember, this is God’s testimony of Jesus, the Son, Whom He called, “O God”. That sounds pretty convincing to me! And I really don’t think we can say God is confused on the issue. That leaves one other option, our writer from the Watchtower Society is wrong! Very, very wrong. What about the Holy Spirit? We have already seen, from 1 Corinthians 2, that the Holy Spirit knows “the mind”, yea, “the deep things” or “the depths of God”. He reveals “the depths of God” and the things of Christ (John 15:14) to believers who are yielded to Him for understanding. Only God can know the depths of God’s mind and Being. Jesus spoke of the Spirit’s Being in John 14:16; “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter [of the same kind as I], that he may abide with you [in Jesus’ physical absence] for ever.” The Comforter is “the Spirit of Truth” (v.17), the Holy Spirit. Jesus prays as a willing, submissive Servant to demonstrate to His disciples the proper attitude of prayer, the manner with which to approach the Father and that the Father is the Source of all blessing. Up until now, Jesus had prayed on their behalf, but, now, since He was leaving, they would be responsible for praying for their own needs, helped by the Holy Spirit Who is now going to come to indwell them. Jesus’ authority is seen, in verse 36, where He revealed that the Holy Spirit is sent in His name and would testify of Him. This is the same Spirit Who reveals the depths of the Father, Who will now reveal the depths of God the Son. He is to be not just a Comforter, but, He is to be “another Comforter” of the same kind, Who replaces Jesus’ earthly, physical presence, when Jesus goes to the cross and then, to the Father in heaven. The word “another” is significant here. This is the Greek word, “allos” [¥lloj], which means, “another of the same kind”. Had He wished to convey the idea of “totally different”, He could have employed the word, “heteros” [›teroj], which means that. Since He used “allos” it is clear that Jesus was sending One Who was and is “the same kind”, in every way to Himself. Since Jesus the Christ is the same kind as God the Father and the Holy Spirit is the same kind as Jesus Christ, He is God. Christ is God and so is the Holy Spirit. Another very important word here is “Comforter”, the Greek, “parakletos” [par£klhtoj], a Paraklete, meaning, “One called along side to help — One Who is to render aid”. This is what Jesus called God the Holy Spirit and, similarly, that is what John called Jesus, in 1 John 2:1 (translated as “advocate” ). Not only is the Holy Spirit of the same Essence, Substance, and Being as Jesus, but, He, also, maintains the same ministry as Jesus to the believer, since He is now abiding in the believer. To the honest seeker, the evidences put forth, so far, would be sufficient to demonstrate, without doubt, that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. To the cultist, who seeks only to supplant the true Word of God with man-made foolishness, nothing is clear. The Christian does not serve a weak, limited God but One Who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present. He is able to and does present Himself as three unified Persons to accomplish His purposes in three unified, yet diverse arenas of ministry to mankind. The Trinity does not supplant the authority of God the Father, as the Watchtower claims, but reveals God as He revealed Himself in His Holy Word. The Watchtower article went on to say that the doctrine of the Trinity wins no one to God, and so, does not bring glory to Him. However, this does not prove to be a true statement, for personal experience proves just the opposite. Several years ago I visited a man in his home and invited him to a Bible study at the church I was pastoring in Northern Virginia. The study topic? The Trinity. He understood enough that night to return the next week, his wife in tow, so she could hear what he heard the week before. That night, both prayed to trust Jesus Christ for their salvation. A couple of months later I was called upon to preach his funeral service. He is in heaven today because he heard biblical teaching from the Word of God concerning the Trinity. It does, indeed, win people to God through Christ and it most assuredly brings glory to God. The truth always does. The Bible clearly, over and over again reveals God as a Trinity, and a Unity and consistently reveals the character and characteristics of Deity in each of His Persons. The Athanasian Creed summarizes the doctrine of the Trinity, thus: “We worship one God in trinity and unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.” |
The Holy Trinity: Fact or Fable? Part One
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)