Tuesday, April 30, 2019

The Doctrine of the Trinity, Part 5: The Son of God, the Image of God


    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.
            Yet there are not three almighty beings;
            there is but one almighty being.

        Thus the Father is God,
        the Son is God,
        the Holy Spirit is God.
            Yet there are not three gods;
            there is but one God.

        Thus the Father is Lord,
        the Son is Lord,
        the Holy Spirit is Lord.
            Yet there are not three lords;
            there is but one Lord.



-(From, The Athanasian Creed)





            This series of articles on the doctrine of the Trinity is divided (as best as is possible for me) into segments designed in a logical progression.  For example, in “The Title of, ‘God’”, I set out to scripturally define the words translated as “god” and “God” in the Bible; both Old and New Testament, and to show the elasticity of that word; to whom it can be applied in the Bible.  “Divine Agency” picked up from that point to show that the Bible, at times, calls a person or an angel of God, “God”; when that person or angel is speaking or acting as agent on behalf of God.  In “The Doctrine, Itself”, I set out to show what the doctrine of the Trinity states, the claims it makes, and how those who are credited with the formulation of the doctrine differed from one another and even differ from Trinitarian theologians today; in certain aspects of the doctrine.  Trinitarian theologians will argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential and yet essentials of that doctrine have not always been agreed upon among early Trinitarians, and has not been a consistent chain of belief.  In the previous article, part 4, I made the case that the Holy Spirit is not a “person” as the doctrine alleges and as the doctrine compels to be believed. 



            In this article, we look at the relationship between God, the Father and His Son, our Lord, Christ Jesus.  The Athanasian Creed and condensed doctrine of the Trinity claim that God, the Father is not God, the Son and that God, the Son is not God, the Father.  It claims that they are “co-equal”, and that Father is “almighty” and that the Son is “almighty”; equally “almighty”, I suppose.  Do these creedal and doctrinal statements agree with or contradict scripture?  Are there ways in which the Father and Son are equal; while being unequal in other; more important and distinctive ways?



            Before diving into the scriptures and arguments presented in this article, let us first answer two questions.  First, can Christ Jesus be referred to as God?  I would answer, “Yes, absolutely.”  We will explore in this article some of the ways that Jesus Christ can be referred to as God; as to perfectly representing God, the Father.  Secondly, is Christ Jesus, God in the same way and in the absolute sense that God, the Father is God?  I would answer, “No.”  We will also look at the scriptural reasons for that answer.



            As I described in “The Doctrine, Itself”, when we come across the title, “God” in the New Testament, it is understood to be speaking of God, the Father.  If we examine the words of Christ Jesus, alone, this becomes readily apparent.  Let’s look at a verse where our Lord, Jesus Christ makes an emphatic statement that clearly makes a distinction between Himself and “God”.



“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.”(John 14:1)



            In this verse, Christ is speaking to His disciples and is comforting them.  The disciples were believers in the God of the Old Testament.  This is Who (God) Christ stated that they believe in.  He then, urges them to “believe also in me”.  “Also”, or “in addition to”.  They already believed in “God”.  God, Who?  Did they believe in the Triune God, described in the Athanasian Creed?  Certainly not.  Their scriptures were the Old Testament and as I explained in “The Doctrine, Itself”, many Trinitarian theologians admit that one cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament scriptures. 



            In addition to the Trinitarian theology of God, there is the Modalist view of God.  It is equally incorrect.  Where the Trinitarian view of God states that there is One God in three persons, the Modalist (sometimes called, “Oneness”) view states that there is One God, Who manifests Himself in three different modes; but Who is the same person.  In article 2, I explained the concept of agency and how an agent can speak on behalf of his principal; the one the agent represents.  I argue that this is exactly what we read in John 14:9.  Jesus Christ so thoroughly represents and makes the Father known, that to see and hear Jesus Christ, is to see and hear the Father.



            Consider this everyday example of which almost anyone can relate:



Me:     “Take a look at my son, Reagan.” (holding out my phone, displaying a photo of my son)



Friend:  “Oh, he’s a handsome young man.”



Me:     “Thank you very much.  I think he is too.”





            We can relate to this exchange and in my example, my friend recognizes that the photo of my son, from my phone is not literally my son; but is such a likeness of my son, that I can use the figure of speech of Identification to identify the photo as “my son”.



Now, imagine that the conversation went like this:



Me:     “Take a look at my son, Reagan.” (holding out my phone, displaying a photo of my son)



Friend:  “Holy cow!!  Your son lives in your phone?!  How did he get so small and get inside   your phone?!”



Me:  “Well, this isn’t literally my son.  This is a photo of my son that I keep on my phone, but I used a figure of speech, identifying the photo as my son, because it is an exact likeness and image of him.



              This is an extreme example, but it is actually exactly what Modalists do to John 14:1-12 (below) and what Trinitarians do with other passages of scripture:



“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (John 14:1-12)



            In the above passage, Christ is speaking with Thomas and Philip and when answering Philip’s request to “show us the Father”, in typical Jesus-fashion, He does not answer them “, “plainly”, as He would later begin to speak to them (see John 16:25-29).  He is making a more significant point about Himself and His relationship with God, the Father; and He is making a very important point with respect to His role in bringing the world into a realization of exactly Who the Father is. This role is both as God’s Word (John 1:1) and the Image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15); which the apostles John and Paul; respectively, describe Christ Jesus as being (though, not literally). 

           

    Similarly, the Father is almighty,
        the Son is almighty,
        the Holy Spirit is almighty.



            The doctrine of the Trinity claims that God, the Father (a phrase that is found a dozen or more times in the Bible) and God, the Son (a phrase that appears nowhere in the Bible) are co-equal.  The portion from the Athanasian Creed, cited above, states that both are “almighty”.  Is that what we find in the scriptural accounts of the life and statements of Jesus Christ?  We certainly see that Christ Jesus, both said and did many mighty works during His earthly ministry.  He fed the multitudes, healed lepers, healed the ailing, caused the mute to speak, deaf to hear, the blind to see, read people’s unspoken thoughts, gave insights into God, the Father, raised the dead, and never sinned.  Were these things done in and of Himself; however?  Was Christ Jesus “almighty” in the respect that the power to do the many miracles He worked; originated in Himself? 



“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19)

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”(John 5:30)

“Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.”(John 8:28)

“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:10)



            According to Christ’s words, the Father is Who gave Him the power to work the miracles.  Further, it was God’s Holy Spirit (which we determined is not a “person” in “Is the Holy Spirit a Who?”) which was poured out on Jesus Christ “without measure” (John 3:34).  It was God’s Spirit working through Jesus Christ to do the miraculous things He did as the Old Testament prophecies stated that He would do.  Being that it was God Who directly worked through His Son is why Jesus Christ warned the Pharisees that by saying the miracles He wrought were by a devil; they were committing a blasphemy which would not be pardoned in this age or the next; where by contrast, things they said against the Son would be pardoned.  See the passages below:



“Wherefore, I say unto you, All sin and profane speaking, shall be forgiven unto men,—but, the speaking profanely of the Spirit, shall not be forgiven; 32 And, whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him,—but, whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or the coming.” (Matthew 12:31-32)



 “Verily, I say unto you—All things shall be forgiven unto the sons of men,—the sins and the profanities wherewithal they shall profane; 29 But, whosoever shall revile against the Holy Spirit, hath no forgiveness, unto times age-abiding,—but is guilty of an age-abiding sin:” (Mark 3:28-29)



            Similarly, this is why Peter could say to Ananias that he had lied to God and not to men (Acts 5:4) when he brought to Peter, less than the full proceeds of the sale of his and his wife’s possession.  When Peter confronts Ananias’ wife, Sapphira, he accuses her of tempting “the Spirit of the Lord” (Acts 5:9).  Ananias and Sapphira were lying to God, not a “3rd person of the Trinity”.  They very likely swore a vow unto God to give the proceeds of this sale to the apostles as was being done by the believers, in preparation for the kingdom, as detailed in Acts 2:45.

           

            Next, let’s look at the matter of knowledge.  Among Christians, the overwhelming majority will say that God knows everything.  Is there anything that God does not know?  Most Christians will answer, “Of course not.  God is omniscient.”  For Trinitarians and modalists, we have to ask if by “God”, do they mean, the “Triune God” (keep in mind that Trinitarians believe “God” to be One Being/What and three Who’s), or do they mean each “person” of the Triune “Godhead”, or do they mean “God, the Father” (opting for “God” out of convenience).  As we explored in the last article, “Is the Holy Spirit a Who?”, we read in Matthew 24:36:

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”



            By virtue of the truthfulness of the above statement by Christ Jesus, the following can be ruled out as being “omniscient”:



Ø  The Trinitarian God (since the triune God is made up of 3 persons, if only one person, The Father, knows a particular thing; the Triune God is not “omniscient”)

Ø  Jesus Christ (His disciples asked Him “When will these things be and what is the sign of Thy coming” and He answered that He did not know and that only the Father knows)

Ø  Holy Spirit (If the Holy Spirit is a “person”, and Trinitarian doctrine states that the Holy Spirit is not the Father; then the Holy Spirit is not omniscient)



Many Trinitarians and Modalists will argue that Jesus Christ did not know “in His humanity”.  This answer, on its face, is completely irrational and unbiblical.  By Trinitarians’ and Modalists’ own reasoning, Christ Jesus is both 100% man and 100% God, and therefore; even in His humanity, His Divine nature would know everything.   

If we accept for the sake of argument that Jesus Christ did not know things in his “human nature”; certainly, we would have to agree that after His resurrection, glorification, and ascension, He became omniscient, correct?  

Years after Christ’s glorification and ascension into Heaven, He gave the Revelation to the apostle John.  The book of Revelation, is actually “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”.  Was this revelation inherently known by our Lord, Jesus Christ?  Here is what we read in the opening of the book of Revelation:



“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out unto his servants the things which must needs come to pass with speed,—and he shewed them by signs, sending through his messenger, unto his servant John;” (Rev. 1:1)



            So, even after the glorification of the Lord, Jesus Christ, He is given a revelation by God.  Also, as I pointed out in “Is the Holy Spirit a Who?” when “God” is spoken of in the scriptures, we see that it is understood by the context of the passage that God, the Father is the subject.  This observation brings us to the obvious question, “Is there any passage in the scriptures in which ‘God’ is contextually referencing the Triune God of the Trinity Doctrine?”  To be more precise, is there any verse of scripture in which “God” is used and we know that “God” is referring to the One What and Three Who’s of the Trinity?



            In the New Testament, I have been able to find no such example.  In the Old Testament, there are three examples of plural personal pronouns being used with the Hebrew word which we translate as “God”, as opposed to the 10s of thousands of instances in which singular personal pronouns such as “I”, “He”, “His”, and “Him” are used to modify “God”.  However, if we are going to indulge this argument based solely upon the grammatical usage of the plural, personal pronoun “us”, as proof of the Trinity, we must counter that with the fact that the Hebrew word, “Elohim” (plural) is what is translated in these verses as the singular, “God”.  As I have stated many times throughout the course of these articles, the Trinity Doctrine is emphatic that there are not three gods (plural).  Trinitarians will however; go directly to Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22 as proof texts that we have the members of the Trinity speaking to each other.  They knowingly or unknowingly rely on the plural, personal pronoun while ignoring the plural form of “God”, “Elohim”.  Do we have three Gods in these two verses?  No.  I would argue and many Hebrew scholars would argue that we have the plural of majesty in play in these two examples.  Before looking more deeply at scriptural evidence for these two instances actually speaking of God, the Father and no one else, I want to mention that I explain the other plural occurrence, found in Genesis 18 and 19, in the second article of this series, “Divine Agency”.  If you have not done so already, please read it for a complete explanation.



            Consider Job 38, in which God uses the singular, personal pronoun “I” (not the plural, personal pronoun “we”) when He questions Job.



“Where wast thou, when I founded the earth? Tell, if thou knowest understanding!” When I put a cloud as the garment thereof, and a thick cloud as the swaddling-band thereof; Which I have reserved for a time of distress, for the day of conflict and of war?  (Job 38:4, 9, 23)



            Isaiah, writing the words of God, states:



“Thus, saith Yahweh Who hath redeemed thee, Who hath fashioned thee from birth,—I—Yahweh, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens, alone, Spreading forth the earth, of myself;” (Isaiah 44:24)



“I, before thee, will go, And the hills, will I level—The doors of bronze, will I break in pieces, e And the bars of iron, will I cut asunder;”(Isaiah 45:2)





“I”, “alone”, “My”, “Myself” are the words recorded speaking of the creation of the heavens and earth.  Where are three Who’s in any of these scriptures?  No, Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22 are examples of plural of majesty figures of speech.  The scriptures cannot be broken and cannot contradict!  Some, many even, will object by referring to the words of John 1:1-15 and Colossians 1:14-20; arguing that these passages are scriptural truth that it was the pre-existent Jesus Christ Who created the heaven and the earth.  However, we cannot have contradictions in the scriptures.  When “God” is referenced, alone, in the scriptures; it is understood and implicit that God, the Father is the Subject.  This argument is less problematic for the Modalist Christian who believes and argues that the Father and the Son are the same person.  This is not the argument of the Trinitarian Christian; however.  The Trinitarian must rely on the argument of the one Who and the three What’s of the Trinity.  And, “I”, “My”, “alone”, and “Myself” cannot grammatically or logically be used with three Who’s.  Had the Triune God been speaking and acting in unison (especially in the accounts of creation referenced in Isaiah), God certainly could have easily and correctly assigned/inspired the plural pronoun, instead of singular personal pronouns.



           

            If John 1:1-15 and Colossians 1:14-20 are not statements that Jesus Christ created the world, heaven, and earth; what are those passages speaking about?   I will tackle these lengthy subjects in a subsequent article in this series.  My plan is to address these in the final article in this series which will deal with Trinitarian proof-texts and objections.  Addressing these passages now would be too lengthy and divert from the topic at hand.  The object of this article is to demonstrate that if we are to understand the relationship of Jesus Christ with His God and Father, we have to recognize that we must allow there to be this distinction of Father and Son and not water the distinction to the point that no actual distinction exists; outside of a formality.



            The Trinitarian doctrines of God, the Father and God, the Son; being “co-equal” and “co-eternal”, make a true distinction and relationship between Father and Son; into a sham. 



           

            Here, it would be helpful to point out the following scriptural truth, found in several passages of scripture.  The following passages point out something that is missed/ignored by the Trinity Doctrine; which only pays lip service to the fact…Jesus Christ has a God and Father.  In my article, “Is the Holy Spirit a ‘Who’?”, I argued that the Trinity Doctrine tries to give Jesus Christ two Father’s by making the Holy Spirit the “person” apart from the Father, Who conceived Jesus Christ. 





“[Yet], to us, there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and, we, for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and, we, through him.” (1 Cor. 8:6)





            There is only one God, in the absolute sense.  God (the Father) has no God and no Father.  All those who may be termed “god”, are in a relative and lesser sense.  In the first article in this series, “The title, of ‘God’”, I point out with scriptural proof that in addition to God, the Father, angels, spirits, judges, good kings, bad kings, rulers, etc. are found to be termed “god” in the Bible.  The above verse, of course; is also making the point that idols are worshipped by the heathen and therefore; Paul is also speaking in that sense as well. 



            Now, let us look at some very emphatic statements made by Christ Jesus, Himself, as it relates to this topic.



“Ye heard that, I, said unto you—I go my way, and I come unto you,—Had ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, that I am going unto the Father, for, the Father, is, greater than I.” (John 14:28)



            When faced with this statement and the others like it, Trinitarians are forced to add to what Jesus Christ said.  The typical answer is that when our Lord said that The Father is greater than He (Jesus Christ) is, He was speaking only of His humanity.  This is the “human nature” card that is the “ace in the hole” for Trinitarians.  Play that card, and it defeats any and all arguments.  Play that card, and you can overcome emphatic statements of scripture.  Consider for a moment how absolutely unnecessary it would be for Jesus Christ to have to point out “the Father is greater than I”; if all He meant by it was that the Father (God) is greater than his human nature.  Do you think Christ Jesus’ disciples would need to be told that the all-powerful, all-knowing God is greater than a man?!  They may have been fishermen, carpenters, etc. but they were certainly smart enough to that God is greater than a man.  No, it takes the creeds of man to necessitate making such a claim.



The greatest problem with the human versus divine nature proposition (hypostatic union) is that there is no scriptural support for Christ Jesus having two, competing natures.  Trinitarians claim that Jesus Christ was 100% man and 100% God, having a human nature and a Divine nature.  This is their way of maintaining an omniscient Jesus Christ, who did not know when He will be returning, when asked by His disciples.  They claim that His humanity did not know but His Divinity did, but since He was in His humanity when asked, He could not or would not answer.  How does this teaching not make a liar out of our Lord?  What would you think of a witness called to testify in court; who states that he did not hear a certain statement made by the accused; only to later say that he didn’t hear the statement with his bad ear, but heard it clearly with his good ear?





            Many times, such as in the case of (  ) we read in scripture that Jesus Christ is described as “the man” and the descriptive of “the man” is even used to describe our Lord, after His ascension and glorification.  The Trinity Doctrine takes something so simple and convolutes it to the point that renowned apologists, and Trinitarian Theologians, such as Dr. James White must create conundrums of language to keep the doctrine intact.  Please watch the short YouTube video at your convenience.  Bob Enyart (a Modalist) debated Dr. White in the clip and posted this video to YouTube.  The title of the video is, “James White Contradicts Himself on God the Son’s Natures”[1].  Bob Enyart is, in my opinion, disingenuous in both the titling of the video and in the claim that Dr. White contradicts himself.  If you watch the video, Enyart cross-examines White and asks him in various ways about “God the Son’s” (this title is key to his argument and is key to why Dr. White gave the answers that he did) nature (speaking of both a Divine nature and human nature) and whether in “eternity past” (whatever that means), “God, the Son” had one nature, later had two natures (on earth), and after the resurrection will, for “eternity future”, (whatever that means) retain two natures.  Enyart states that White has contradicted himself.  In the end of the video, he posts two written statements to make it appear that Dr. White contradicted himself and that R.C. Sproul, Jr. disagrees with White. 



            Enyart, was of course, attempting to make White appear to be at odds with the famous, Hebrews 13:8 passage, “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” If you watch the video, you may be thinking, “yeah, I see what Enyart is talking about.  White is contradicting himself.”  But, in White’s mind; he isn’t.  This is where we get into the conundrum of language that the doctrine of the trinity creates.  White responds to the referenced video in a rebuttal video of his own, entitled, “Bob Enyart’s False Accusation of Christological Heresy”.  You can also view that video on YouTube by typing the title into your search window.  In the video, White goes through great pains to make these distinctions of language where he states that “the second Person of the Trinity” never takes on a human nature or a divine nature.  White says, “When we’re talking about one person, two natures we’re talking about ‘Jesus of Nazareth’.[2] And that is just one of the problems with this teaching, ladies and gentlemen.  Notice that Trinitarians through this doctrine go to great lengths to maintain that the “second person of the trinity” is one nature; never taking on a second nature, or casting off a nature, consisting of only one nature,  but that Jesus of Nazareth does have two natures.  If we haven’t shut off our critical thinking skills just yet, think the following through and carry it to its logical conclusion.  Is the “second Person of the Trinity” (who is a person with only one nature) a different “person”, than Jesus of Nazareth, who is a person, who has two natures?  The Trinity Doctrine and certainly the hypostatic union (Jesus Christ with two natures) doctrine is clearly not intended to be dwelt on with any scriptural, nor logical scrutiny.



The dual nature concept is extraordinarily similar to the Gnostic teachings on “The Christ”[3] that the Apostle, John countered in portions of his letters.  Among other things, the Gnostics believed that there was the man, Jesus of Nazareth, and there was “The Christ” which was Divine and Spirit.  They believe that “The Christ” left the man, Jesus of Nazareth, just as He took His last breath on the cross, because the Divine, the Spirt, “The Christ” could not die. In an almost identical fashion, Trinitarian theologians will argue that while Jesus Christ (the man) died on the cross, God, the Son, did not die.  I hope you, the reader, see the profound and very significant heresy in that belief.  The testimony of scripture is that the man, in His totality, Jesus Christ, the person; died on the cross.  The Trinitarian Doctrine has a thing (the human nature) having died; while the person, “God, the Son” did not die.  They further argue that “God, the Son” cannot die.





Read the following from the late theologian and Trinitarian, R.C. Sproul,



“Some say, ‘It was the second person of the Trinity Who died…by the human nature of Christ.”[4]





It cannot be understated, how problematic this line of thinking is; as the cornerstone of belief in the gospel is that “Christ (the person) died for our sins, according to the scriptures” (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  This dual nature teaching of the Trinity Doctrine, like the Gnostic teaching on “The Christ”, divides Christ Jesus and in actuality teaches that a thing (the human nature) and not a person, died on Calvary’s cross.





“Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”(Luke 22:42)



            Throughout the Old Testament, one thing is clear when it comes to the will of God, the Father; and that is that He does in both, Heaven and the earth, as He pleases.  God does the will of no one else.  His sovereignty is subordinate to no other.  What is significant about the above passage is that when our Lord, Jesus Christ was praying concerning what He would soon endure; His will was that there be some other way than the cross.  But, He so perfectly obeyed the Father, that He tempered the request of His prayer; with His willingness to obey a contrary will to His own.



            In the preceding paragraphs, we have looked at only a few of the ways in which God and His Son are not “co-equal” as the Trinity Doctrine declares.  So, what do we make of what is perhaps the most famous proof text offered by Trinitarians to claim that Father and Son are co-equal?  The passage is the following:



“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”(Phil. 2:6)



            When we take the above verse, reading it in isolation, we certainly are confronted with what seems to be the Trinity Doctrine’s silver bullet to the position that I now take.  But, of course; if we want to know the idea that Paul was trying to convey to the congregation of believers in Philippi, we need much more information than that one sentence.  We can jump to all sorts of incorrect conclusions if we do not take the immediate context of the entire passage, the larger context of the entire letter, and the supporting evidence of the remainder of scripture into consideration.  If one verse of scripture makes one claim which seems to contradict multiple other scriptures, we need to dig deeply to uncover what the more unclear verse is actually saying.  That is why Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:20 that no prophecy of scripture is of “its own interpretation” (literally, “self-solving”).  This simply means that we must use scripture to interpret scripture.  This is absolutely necessary when reading passages that may be confusing or unclear on the face of them, or for passages where symbolic language is used (as in the book of “The Revelation”).



            The overall context of Paul’s letter to the Philippians is service.  Paul admonishes and encourages believers to make themselves servants to others.  Isn’t this what our Lord, Jesus Christ did throughout the entirety of His earthly ministry?  Paul wanted believers to not only serve, but to have the mindset and attitude of a servant; the Ideal Servant.  Let’s look at the immediate passage surrounding the verse in question.



“For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; 30 Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me. 2 1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, 2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:” (Phil. 1:29-2:9)



            What becomes apparent in the above passage is that we are to serve and have the mindset of a servant; imitating Christ in this.  Paul tells his audience, “let this same mind be in you, which is in Christ Jesus…”.  What mind?  The following verse states that Jesus Christ was in the form of God yet “thought it not robbery to be equal with God”.  If Jesus Christ were literally and ontologically, God; how could He possibly rob Himself?  Being God would be inherent.  It would be absolutely pointless for Paul to even point this out.  Instead, we read in verse 7, that He (Jesus Christ) made Himself of no reputation and took on the form of a slave/servant.  The testimony of all four gospels; but especially the Gospel According to Mark, is that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, was descended from the throne of David, and yet did not make this known to the public (“…made Himself of no reputation…”) and even told His disciples and those He healed, not to tell others what they had come to know (see Matthew 16:20, Mark 7:36; 8:30; 9:9, and Luke 9:19) about exactly Who He was.  In addition to being the prophesied of Messiah; He was also the very Image of God; making God known to all men.  In that way, He was “in the form of God”. 



There must be something here that we are missing.  We have shown previously that Christ Jesus has a God and Father, that Jesus Christ said the Father is greater than he, that Jesus Christ did not know certain things that only the Father knew, that Jesus Christ did not do His own will, and now that Jesus Christ made Himself a servant.  So, in what way was He “equal” with God, according to Paul?  He was “made so” in certain aspects.  No one gave God, the Father His credentials as “God”.  God the Father, did however, give to His Son authority to do forgive sins, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc.  And also, the key to this whole question is found in Matthew 28:18, where we read:



“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”



            God, the Father, gave all authority to His Son.  He did not inherently have it.  He did not take it by force or usurp it.  In other articles that I have written, I have pointed out that we find Christ Jesus pictured and foreshadowed throughout the Old Testament scriptures.  Joseph, who was sold into bondage in Egypt, was possibly the most famous archetype of Jesus Christ.  And the position Pharaoh gave to Joseph; perfectly pictures the authority that God gave to His Son.  See below:



“Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.  And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.” (Gen. 41:40-41)



            Joseph did not inherently have the authority given to him.  It was given by a power and authority greater than he.  In like manner, God, the Father gave Jesus Christ all authority in heaven and earth and we are told that Christ Jesus is given the position to stand at the right hand of God (see Acts 7:55-56, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20, Col. 3:1. Heb. 1:3; 1:13; 10:12, etc.). 



            Did you know that as believers, we are given “power/authority” (by Christ Jesus) to be the “sons of God” (John 1:12), are seated with Him in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:6), and finally that we can share His throne with Him (Rev. 3:21)??



            But, are we to Lord this honor over others and boast in this already settled fact?  No, we are to have “this same mind” in us “which was also in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5). 



            That was the point that Paul was making. 



            The portion of “The Athanasian Creed” (cited at the beginning of this article) attempts to state that there is only “one God” and only “one Lord”, but that 3 distinct and different persons are all equally the same one God.  In the previous article, I dealt with the scriptural truth that the Holy Spirit is not a “person” and is certainly not distinct and different from God, the Father.  I hope that this article has demonstrated that God, the Father is The LORD and “the only true God”, according to the scriptures and the words of Jesus Christ, Himself.  What we also see in the scriptures, is that Jesus Christ was given a role from His God and Father, to be God (in Image and Word) to us and was given authority from God to be Lord over heaven and earth; sitting at the right hand of the Father.



            The point that I have attempted to make clear in this article is that in Christ Jesus, we have Him (just as the Apostle Paul declares), the image of the invisible God; not God, Himself.  Christ Jesus perfectly represents, unfolds, and makes known His God and Father; while being subordinate and obedient to the One Who is subordinate and obedient to no other.  This contrast in no way diminishes our Lord.  Instead, the contrast makes clear the distinct relationship Christ Jesus has with His God and Father and our God and Father.  


            In the next article, we will examine the issue of co-eternality.


[1] Enyart, Bob. (9/17/2014). James White Contradicts Himself on God the Son’s Natures [Video].  Retrieved 4/24/2019, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLiPpcqSKVQ.
[2] White, James Dr. (7/19/2014).  Bob Enyart’s False Accusation of Christological Heresy [Video]. Retrieved 4/24/2019 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joEZqqy4fys.
[3] Groothuis, Douglas. (4/21/2009). ”Gnosticism and the Gnostic Jesus”. Retrieved from http://equip.org.
[4] Sproul, R.C. (3/23/2016).  “Did God Die on the Cross?”.  Retrieved from http://ligonier.org.

No comments:

Post a Comment