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.
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.
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.
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 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.
[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.
