|
|
|
JOHN CHAPTER ONE
A surprising number of the great doctrines of the Bible including the doctrine of the Trinity can be clearly examined in the first 18 verses of the Gospel of John. This section of Scripture called the "Prologue of the Gospel According to John" brings home with great clarity the diety of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who is presented by author John as the Second Person of the Triune Godhead:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
"In the beginning" - compare with Gen 1:1:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
It is no accident that the author John the Apostle, chose the same words to begin his work as those words which begin the book of Genesis. "In the beginning" means before all time and all creation in both verses.
"In the beginning" God is there, He is eternal, He has no beginning.
And "In the beginning was the Word" = John says the Word Who is Christ was there; He was already there before all time...before all creation. He Himself has no beginning. No matter how far back in time or eternity you go, He already was!!! There never was a time when the Word was not...He is eternal. This is why John who wrote his gospel in Greek used the verb form "en" (Greek for "was") which indicates a continual existence in the past. These verses do not just say that God's word is eternal, they speak of a person Who is God Who is referred to as the Word! (As God is referred to as Light or Truth or Righteousness elsewhere in Scripture for example). John indicates later on in verse 14: "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." So the Word Who is eternal added to Himself humanity and yet retained His eternality - His Godhead!
Philippeans 2:5-8 testifies to this:
The main purpose of this passage is to exhort the believer to emulate the humility and servitude of our Lord as exemplified by His humbling Himself by setting aside the exercising of His essence as God in order to function as a Perfect Man so that He could then pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world:
[Phil 2:5-8 N.A.S.]:
(v. 5) "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
(v. 6) Who, although He subsisted in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(v. 7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men.
(v. 8) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Objectors to Phil 2:5-8 being a proof text of the diety of Christ maintain that all this passage says is that Christians should not be motivated by self will but to be meek and obedient like Christ; Who although existing in the form of a god like Almighty God was not ambitious to become equal to his Father. Scripture clearly refutes this statement. Let's examine this passage in the light of Who it says Jesus Christ really is.
[Phil 2:5-8 cont.]:
(v. 6 N.A.S.) "Who, although subsisting in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(v. 6 K.J.V.) "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
"os ....en morphu ....Theou huparchon"
"Who in [the] form of God subsisting
ouch arpagmon egesato ...to
not ...robbery ...esteemed it
elnai .isa ...Theps
to be equal with God
["Who" = refers to Jesus Christ, (v.5)]
["being" or "subsisting" = "huparchon" = subsisting, existing.
Vines, (Op Cit, p.60), states:
["huparch on" from the verb] "HUPARCHO"......denotes to be, to be in existence, involving an existence or condition both previous to the circumstances mentioned and continuing after it."
This word "huparchon" was selected instead of the Greek word "eimi" which means to be, or a status of being. The word "huparchon" is in the present tense which refers to the ongoing continual status of Jesus Christ in the present. And it is in the active voice meaning that our Lord chose to retain this state of subsistence. It is in a participle form indicating that it is a statement of truth. It therefore implies much more than just being, it indicates a continuous existence - one which in the context is a continuous existence of Deity, therefore it is an eternal existence. Finally, "huparchon" indicates that our Lord existed as God when He became a Man and continued to exist as God while He now also exists as a Man. So here is what this verse is saying: 'Jesus Christ had a continuous state of existence in the form of Almighty God in eternity past before He took on the form of a human body. And He continues to exist as God while He exists as a human being.'
[Phil 2:5-8 cont.]:
(v. 6 K.J.V.) "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
["form" = "morphu" = while this word does mean form it is more than that. The word form in English is limited to some physical shape - some outside structure in a physical sense. But the Greek word which is translated into the English word "form" = "morphu" is a philosophical word which refers to the essential being of someone - an internal quality as well as an external one - the essential quality that characterizes that person and which is reflected by the external. The English word metaMORPHOsis which contains a transliteration of the Greek word "morphu" refers to, for example, the complete change of form - both external AND internal of a caterpillar to a butterfly.
This word "morphu" was chosen by author John as inspired by God over other words such as "schema" which means that which strikes the senses, the figure, the bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life, etc., i.e., the external; or = "omoiomati" = external form, shape, figure, likeness, representation. (Ref. The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Joseph Henry Thayer, editor, Hendrickson Pub., Peabody, Ma, 1981, pp. 445, 610):
Compare Phil 2:7-8:
[Phil 2:7-8]:
(v. 7) "but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men.
"being made in the likeness of men" =
"being made" ="genomenos" = [Lit.] "having become"
"in [the] likeness of men" = "en omoiomati anthropon
(v. 8) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
"And being found in appearance as a man. =
"kai .schemati euretheis ..............os ..anthropos.."
"and in figure having been found as ...[of a] man "
"schemati" = dative, singular, neuter, nominative of "schema" meaning fashion, form, external show.
Phil 2:8 states that Jesus Christ took on the outward form (= "schemati") of man - the external appearance. It says the same thing in Phil 2:7 with the word "omoiomati" = external form, shape, figure. (Our Lord, being without a sin nature, did not have the internal contaminated form of man. Cp 2 Cor 5:21)
[Robert P. Lightner stated, B.K.C., p.654:
"The word translated [in the N.I.V.]"nature" ("morph ") in verses 6 and 7 is a crucial term in this passage. This word ([translated] "form" in the KJV and NASB) stresses the inner essence or reality of that with which it is associated....."
The particular kind of form that "morphu" represents in this passage is "morphu Theou" = "form of God" = the essential nature of God.
Dr John Danish states, (Audio tape #74PH-36s-1, Berean Memorial Church, Irving, Tx):
"There is no 'the' here in the Greek ["form of God"]. It does not have any definite article and therefore it is stressing the essence of God, the quality of Deity. So the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ in His inner most being was that of Deity. This was His nature from all eternity. He was and He continues to be a member of the Godhead. He is coequal with Father and Holy Spirit."
[Here in Phil 2:6 the Greek word "morphu" Dr Danish continues to say...]"...refers to the mode of being which expresses the quality of Diety. It is the quality in Jesus Christ of Diety which He had out here [in eternity past] before He took on a human body.......Now the Lord Jesus Christ, when He took on the human body, did not go off His form. What He was before out in ......eternity past - as Deity, He was also [that same Deity] when He was walking the streets of Palestine."
[Phil 2:5-8 cont.]:
(v. 6 K.J.V. cont.) "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
"robbery" = "harpagmon" = refers here to a treasure which is to be held on to. It is in a noun form which can have one of two basic meanings:
An active meaning = robbery in the sense of a person taking something that doesn't belong to him,
and
a passive meaning = robbery in the sense of a prize or a treasure which one rightfully possesses but which is robbed from him.
The passive meaning must apply here because of the first part of verse 6 which states that Jesus Christ already continually was Almighty God from eternity past:
[Phil 2:6a] "...Who [Christ] although He [continually] subsisted in the [internal and external] form of God..."
Phil 2:6a indicates that in eternity past our Lord always subsisted - existed - as God. So He would not be in an active position of robbing something He already had - that of being God. Rather, the passive meaning of "harpagmon" applies: that of having the expression of His diety..........
(and not the essence since God is immutable and cannot lose His essence in any way. Compare Malachi 3:6),
............having the expression of His diety taken away. So Jesus is spoken of as NOT thinking it robbery to be in the position of not expressing the glory of God that is His essence and instead becoming a Man to die for the sins of the whole world:
[Phil 2:5-8 N.A.S. cont.]:
(v. 5) "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
(v. 6) Who, although He subsisted in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
(v. 7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men.
(v. 8) And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
["but emptied Himself" = Our Lord emptied Himself such that He took on 'the form of a bondservant...being made in the likeness of men'. Since God Who is Christ is immutable, our Lord could not have emptied Himself of His divine attributes. The context gives us the answer to the question of what He emptied Himself of:
"He humbled Himself by becoming obedient.." = Our Lord being God set aside the expression of His glory so that He could humble Himself and take on the form of a bondservant, a slave, an obedient Man "to the point of death, even [the ignominious] death on a cross"
Dr Danish states, (op cit):
"In other words, this verse is telling us that Jesus Christ simply decided He would set aside the expression of the glory of His Diety and the independent use of His attributes.' [From now on our Lord would act in His Humanity and permit Himself to be guided and supernaturally attended to by God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. This even to the extent that His miracles were done by the Holy Spirit through our Lord's Humanity - just the way the Apostles would do miracles later on]
.....[So our Lord]...would continue as God, but you wouldn't look at Him and see that He was God. The reference here is holding on to His Deity in terms of its outward expression - His visible glory - the use of His Attributes. He was willing to veil the glory of His attributes and set aside their independent use. This was an exemplary act of condescension on the part of Jesus Christ. It is the principle which was expressed here in Phillipeans 2:4, "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."
Walter Martin states, ("Kingdom of the Cults', Bethany House publishers, Minneapolis, 1985, p. 68): "Paul declares [in Phil 2:1-11] that Jesus did NOT consider equality with God something "to be grasped after, or robbed".......... since He previously existed as the eternal Word of God (John 1:1) prior to His incarnation (John 1:14), and as such shared the Father's prerogatives and attributes. Hence He had no desire to strive for what was His by Nature and inheritance. Paul elsewhere calls Christ "all the fullness of the Deity in the flesh" (Colossians 2:9), "The great God and our Savior" (Titus 2:13), and "God" (Hebrews 1:3,8). These are just a few of the references; there are at least twenty-five more which could be cited from his writings and over seventy-five more which could be cited from from the balance of the New Testament."
[C. I. Scoffield states in reference to Phil 2:6, (Oxford NIV Scoffield Study Bible, C. I. Scoffield, Editor, New York, Oxford University Press, 1984, p.1243]:
"This [Phil 2:6] is one of the strongest assertions in the N.T. of the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Greek word....["morphu"]... here translated "very nature," literally means form, and refers to the external appearance by which a person or thing strikes the vision; yet it is an external form truly indicative of the inner nature from which it springs. Nothing in this passage teaches that the eternal Word (Jn. 1:1) emptied Himself of either His divine nature or His attributes, but only of the outward and visible manifestation of the Godhead. God may change form, but He cannot cease to be God. At all times His divine attributes could be exercised according to His will."
So our Lord's humanity is often on display in Scripture, and not His diety, although both exist at the same time within Him. Many of the passages which refer to the humanity of Jesus Christ are used by objectors to refute the doctrine of the Trinity. These objectors maintain that since these particular passages prove out our Lord's humanity then His diety is disproved. This is not the case at all. For example, consider that visible light is a composite made up of 7 basic colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. If only one of the colors was visible from a particular point, (as our Lord's Humanity was at times), this would not indicate that the other colors did not exist nor that they did not operate as a unity, (as God the Father and God the holy Spirit operate as a unity with God the Son and are uniquely evident on other occasions). As a matter of fact, scientists say that the other 6 colors are absorbed by the 'red' object, the red being reflected. Thus, visible light does operate as a unity of composite colors, one color being visible at times but this not negating the existence of the other colors. So the Triune God operates as a unity, one Personality being evident at times but this not negating the existence of the other Personalities. Scripture clearly maintains that Jesus Christ is BOTH fully God and fully Man at the same time. An example of our Lord being referred to in His humanity is when He was baptized by John the Baptist (Mt 3:16; Mk 1:9; Lk 3:21; Jn 1:32). These passages refer to when God the Holy Spirit indwelt His humanity not His diety. Most of our Lord's ministry on earth was in the role of His humanity, even when performing miracles. The Personalities of God function as a unity and at the same time separately. An example of separate functioning was when God came to earth as a Man to die for the sins of the whole world. At that time it was clear that God consisted of more than one Personality because of the separate roles that each of the Personalities of the Godhead distinctly played in God's redemption of mankind. This is clearly brought forth in Ephesians 1:3-14. God, being omnipresent, (Ps 139:1-24), means that not only is He present everywhere in the universe, (Job 9:1-35; Ps 29:1-11), but at every point in the universe are all of His attributes present at infinitely full capacity. God's powers and attributes, in other words, being absolutely infinite cannot be diluted because they are spread out in omnipresence over every single point in the universe. Therefore it is not beyond the capacity of God to become a man and have His full capacity in all of His attributes and powers within that single man. It remains for an individual to prove out if God's Word says whether or not God did this by becoming the God-Man Christ Jesus. Recall that God's purpose in adding humanity to Himself was to live the life of a Perfect Man and thereby be justified in paying the penalty for the sins of the whole world, (2 Cor 5:21; 1 Jn 2:2) - thus reconciling humanity to God by faith alone in Christ alone as Savior, (Ro 5:1-11).
Statements about the humanity of our Lord can be found in the following excerpts from Scripture:
[Jn 6:57a]:
"As the living Father sent Me, and I live [in My humanity] because of the Father......
[Jn 5:26]:
"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life [human life] in Himself."
[Jn 1:1-2 cont.]:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."
So our Lord Jesus Christ is God...the God Who exists as one God with three personalities - - - - -
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
What is being taught here from God's word is often called the doctrine (teaching) of the Trinity or of the Triune God. Trinity: A doctrinal or theological word which does not appear in Scripture but which is a term which is used to describe the God of the Bible with respect to His being one God with three Personalities. So, the fact that the word Trinity does not appear in Scripture does not negate the truths which the term Trinity represents in God's Word. More information is revealed about our one God with three Personalities as the Gospel of John moves on. The occurrence in history of trios of pagan gods does not provide conclusive evidence that these are the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity. Satan has counterfeited many truths from God's Word. An important rule in the interpretation of God's Word must be followed: SIMILARITY DOES NOT PROVE IDENTITY. Since the Trinity is evident in Scripture at the very beginning of Genesis, (Gen 1:1-2), and thus at the beginning of time and is even indicated as an eternal truth without beginning, then nothing predates it and can therefore be proved as establishing the groundwork for the concept of the Trinity. Let's consider thirteen important summary points about the Trinity:
SUMMARY POINT #1 ON THE TRINITY
1) Herein lies a mystery as revealed in Scripture. God has provided evidence that He does exist as a Triune God; but in the final analysis the belief that God is one God of three Personalities is based on trusting that what God says in His Word is true: Scripture always teaches that there is one God with three distinct Personalities:
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
One might comment to those who find the thought of a Triune God difficult by stating that if water which God created can have three states: solid, liquid and vapor (...three personalities if you will), then surely Almighty God Who created water can exist in three Persons. Light is another good illustration of this point: Visible light is made up of seven basic colors - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. These colors all function together in a unity...................
(as the Personalities of God function in a unity in a much greater, infinite way),
...........................These colors all function together in a unity in a way that is not fully understood in detail to bring us visible white light. Yet that light consists of all seven colors! At times, one or more of the seven colors functions separately, as in a rainbow or a sunset, and it is then made clear that light is a unity which consists of more than one component - or more than one personality if you will. So just as light which was created by God has more than one personality and is not understood in all of its aspects, so too can God have more than one Personality and not be understood in all the ways He exists and functions.
Incidentally, none of the authors of Scripture refers to God as being limited to one Personality. They often, however, refer to a particular One of God's Personalities in their writings; this not being proof that the doctrine of the Trinity is false any more than the observing of one of the colors which comprise light would exclude the existence of one of the other colors, nor would it disprove the composite nature of light.
One might also defend the truth of the Trinity by indicating that each one of us has a number of personalities also: a man may be a father, husband and son with respect to his relationships with other people.
The doctrine of the Trinity is like the physical science of gravity. Most people have a clear understanding of some aspects of gravity. They operate in their daily lives with a 'religious' type trust in the reliability and truths that they do understand about gravity. Yet there is no clear in depth, detailed understanding by mankind of how gravity precisely works. People just trust in its unfailing ability to do what it has always done in their lives. No one has yet 'fallen' off the earth into outer space. So it is with the doctrine of the Trinity which is expressed in God's Word. Faithful believers have a clear understanding of some aspects of the Trinity and they operate in their daily lives with a faithful trust in the reliability and truths that they understand about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Yet there is no clear understanding presented in God's word as to how the doctrine of the Trinity precisely works. There are, therefore, some teachings in God's Word that are beyond the thoughts and ways of finite man - beyond his understanding:
[Isa 55:8-9]:
(v. 8) " 'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,' declares the Lord."
(v. 9) For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts."
Faithful believers just trust in God's unfailing Word and His ability to do what He has always done in their lives, which includes His existence and operation as a Triune God.
A number of doctrines of Scripture are understood in part and accepted by faith as true. Walter Martin provides four important examples, (The Kingdom of the Cults, Bethany House, Minneapolis, 1985, p.65):
"First, does God give us a reason for creating Lucifer and allowing him to rebel against the Almighty? Is such a reason found in the Scripture? It is not, and yet we must believe that he exists, that he opposes God and that all references in the Scripture to Satan are authoritative. God demands that we exercise faith in their objective truth, yet He never gives a reason for it.
Second, does God anywhere give to man a 'reasonable' explanation of how it is possible that He exists in Trinity - as three Persons while at the same time retaining oneness of nature and essence? No. Never in Scripture is this explained. Here we see a gross inconsistency of..[objectors']...reliance upon reason in their rejection of the Trinity. When compared to their acceptance of the miracles of Jesus, one wonders what they consider 'reasonable'. If they can believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, changed the water into wine, and fed five thousand with only two fishes and five loaves, without a 'reasonable' explanation as to 'how' He did this, should the 'how' of the Trinity be of more difficulty in 'reasonableness'? Surely the former is every much as mysterious as the latter!
Third, does God anywhere give the grieving parent who has just lost a child a 'reasonable' explanation as to the 'why'? That certain physical catastrophies can be traced to the results of sin upon mankind, no one will argue. But is God under any obligation to furnish the parent with a 'reason' as to why his child in particular was taken? No. Never do the Scriptures address the issue. Yet, through it all God asks us to believe that these seemingly indescribable evils will ultimately work out His divine plan, and He asks us at times to believe in Him against reason and with the eyes of faith.........
Fourth...It is unquestionably true that God through His Word appeals to our reason; were it not so we could not understand His desires.
So not being able to understand a doctrine of Scripture does not negate that doctrine.
SUMMARY POINT #2 ON THE TRINITY
The testimony of others cannot be used as conclusive proof that the Trinity is true or false.
The testimony of others cannot be used as conclusive proof that the Trinity is true or false. Testimony from individuals who are spokesmen of religious organizations which do not teach the true gospel of salvation is untrustworthy. This is due to the individual's reliance upon human viewpoint reasoning instead of God's viewpoint from Scripture.
Walter Martin states, Op. Cit., p.62),
"The claim...[by some objectors to the Trinity]...that [early church leaders such as] Tertullian and Theophilus propagated and introduced the threefold unity of God into Christianity is ridiculous and hardly worth refuting. Any unbiased study of the facts will convince the impartial student that before Tertullian or Theophilus lived the doctrine was under study and considered sound."
Objectors to the Trinity often point to so-called notable Christians of the past who have rejected the doctrine of the Triune God - suggesting that the Trinity was a fabrication made up long after the early church began. Yet history shows that thousands upon thousands of believers from the past to the present ages including early church fathers espoused the doctrine of the Trinity and the Diety of Christ. And they showed clear understanding of this truth from Scripture. Although testimony from the majority of the leaders of the early church is not conclusive proof of the veracity of the Trinity, it is extremely noteworthy and effective in refuting the claims of objectors to the Trinity who maintain that the early church did not believe in the Trinity at all. Following is written testimony that the early church did indeed believe in and teach the doctrine of the Trinity as it is in fact taught in Scripture:
In his 'Epistle to the Ephesians', Ignatius, a disciple of Polycarp, (who was a disciple of John's), stated the following, (Quoted from 'The Apostolic Fathers', by J.B. Lightfoot, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich, 1978):
[Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians chapter 1:Intro, (p.63 of 'The Apostolic Fathers')]:
"Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plenitude of God the Father; which hath been the foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus (of Asia), worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy."
Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans chapter 4: Introd, (p.75 of 'Apostolic Fathers')]:
"Ignatius, who is also Theophorous, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and hearing the Father's name; which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness."
[Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians chapter 1:14, (p. 99 of 'The Apostolic Fathers')]:
"For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted. Only, as it is said in these scriptures, "Be ye angry and sin not", and "Let not the sun set on your wrath.. Blessed is he that remembereth this; and I trust that this is in you. Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High-priest Himself, the (Son of) God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath and in forbearance and long suffering and in patient endurance and in purity; and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints, and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father "Who raised Him from the dead. Pray for all the saints." Pray also "for kings" and powers and princes, and "for them that persecute" and hate "you", and for "the enemies of the cross" that your fruit may be "manifest among all men", that ye may be perfect in Him."
Scottish theologian James Orr in excerpts from his lectures given before the Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny, Pa, in 1897, stated the following, ('Progress of Dogma, Fleming H. Revell, Old Tappan, New Jersey):
[pp. 176-177]: "This leads me to observe that, to do justice to the Christological findings of the ancient Church, it is necessary to keep in view what precisely it was which the Church set before it as its aim in these decisions....In truth, however, what the Church aimed at was not so much to furnish an exhaustive definition - metaphysical or other - of what it always recognised to be an inaffable 'mystery of godliness,'1.......
1"The watchword of the Alexandrians, Neander says, was 'the ineffable, incomprehensible, transcendant union of natures' [i.e., the union of the natures of Diety and humanity in Christ] (iv p. 120). Cf. Harnack, iv. p. 174.
....In truth, however, what the Church aimed at was not so much to furnish an exhaustive definition - metaphysical or other - of what it always recognised to be an inaffable 'mystery of godliness,1 as rather to maintain the integrity of the Christian fact against theories and speculations which did profess to explain it, but in reality impinged upon and mutilated it in a variety of directions. Christian faith may not be able to solve the mystery of the incarnation, but it may recognise that certain theories do conflict with vital religious interests, and may feel called upon to contend against them very earnestly on that account. WE may be conscious, for example, of our inability to see into the depths of this great subject, and yet be able to perceive very clearly that the integrity of Christ's humanity is compromised by the denial to Him of a true human soul - which was the error of Apollinaris; further, that it does not comport with the Christian fact to resolve Christ's single person into two - which was the error of Nestorius, again, that there is something wrong in representing the nature of Christ as a mixture of fusion of deity and humanity - a tertium quid, which preserves neither nature in its integrity - which was the Eutychian and Monophysite error; or, finally, that it is erroneous to restrict this fusion even to the element of will in Christ - which was the Monothelite error.....
[Notice that the early church repeatedly attempted to answer the various heretical viewpoints about the dual nature of Christ - His Diety and His humanity - which the true church to this day firmly holds to]
....In opposing these various errors, the Church....
[Mr Orr is referring here to the true believers of the ancient church as also written about by Luke as the first century church in the Book of Acts]
In opposing these various errors, the Church did not profess to be giving a rationale of the incarnation on its own account, but only to be warding off theories on one side or the other by which the integrity of the fact was threatened... ["the fact" = The fact of the dual nature of Christ - His Deity and His humanity]
[p. 192] "A few words are necessary on this Chalcedonian Creed, [A statement of beliefs of the early church in 451 A. D.]...........
After endorsing the Creeds of Nicea and Constantinople, [which also affirm the dual nature of Christ as both Deity and humanity]......it goes on to define the true doctrine of Christ's Person in the following terms - 'One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, confessed in two natures, without separation.' ....The aim of the creed, therefore, is to assert the unity of the Person along with the distinctness of the natures."
SUMMARY POINT #3 ON THE TRINITY
TRUTHS FROM SCRIPTURE SUCH AS THE TRINITY ARE CONTRARY TO 'NATURAL'
HUMAN REASONING. THEY ARE ONLY UNDERSTOOD THROUGH THE TEACHING MINISTRY OF GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Truths from God's Word are often hard to follow and contrary to 'normal' reasoning. 'Normal' reasoning is in actuality ABNORMAL being contaminated by man's sin nature that he is born with, (Ro 5:12; Ps 5:5). This so called 'normal reasoning' cannot understand truths from God's Word and instead chooses to believe untruths. Truths from Scripture are only understood when God the Holy Spirit intervenes in the mind of an individual and enables that individual to understand and believe. Many deeper truths from Scripture can only be understood and accepted when God the Holy Spirit has regenerated the human spirit and indwelt the individual thus providing that individual with the capacity to understand and believe and obey what God has said in His Word. Once one has become a believer, then all of Scripture is open for that believer to understand:
[1 Cor 2:12-16]:
(v. 12) "Now we [believers, v.1:1-2; 2:1] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit Who is from God, [1 Cor 12:13] that we might know the things freely given to us by God,
[So, verse 12 of 1 Cor chapter 2 states that "we" meaning the people to whom the letter is addressed - the saints, the believers at the Corinth - and all believers....
"we [believers] ...have received...the Spirit Who is from God." So all church age believers receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the point of trusting alone in Christ alone as Personal Savior, (Eph 1:13-14; Gal 3:2, 1 Cor 12:13). Note that during the transitional period of that 'first' Pentecost there were some who had already believed before the Holy Spirit 'came'. They were baptized after they believed - having already been believers beforehand, Acts 2:4; 19:1-7), but this period of transition is in the past and all believers afterward are baptized with the Spirit at the point of being saved. Compare 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 1:13-14; Gal 3:2]
[1 Cor 2:12-16 cont.]:
(v. 12 cont.) "Now we [believers, 1 Cor 2:1-2; 2:1] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit Who is from God, [1 Cor 12:13] that we might know the things freely given to us by God,
(v. 13) which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
[This does not say that we are not to study God's Word because God teaches us exclusively through the Spirit without our effort. What this verse is saying is that the words of Scripture that believers are commanded to study, (2 Ti 2:15), are made understandable not by virtue of what we use as human wisdom to teach us but we understand the meaning of words from Scripture by virtue of God the Holy Spirit's teaching us what they mean as we earnestly study them. It takes God the Holy Spirit, verse 13 says, to teach us what the words of Scripture mean. But first, believers must do their part by properly studying Scripture in accordance with the way God has sovereignly set His Word up to be studied, (Eph 4:11-13 & 2 Tim 2:15).
[1 Cor 2:12-16 cont.]:
(v. 12 cont.) "Now we [believers] have [all] received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit Who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God,
(v. 13) which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
The phrase from verse 13: "combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words" is a key to understanding the roles that God and the believer play in the believer's understanding of Scripture: God's Word is "taught...by the Spirit" by "combining...thoughts" which are provided by God the Holy Spirit "with" the "words" which a believer has studied and learned by the sweat of his brow from God's Word:
[2 Ti 2:15]:
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth."
[1 Cor 2:12-16 cont]:
(v. 14) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
(v. 15) But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man."
[An unbeliever does not have the capacity - is not equipped - to understand spiritual things. His mentality is so completely contaminated with his inbred sin nature, (Ro 8:6-8), that he can ONLY reason with human viewpoint which is diametrically opposed to the divine viewpoint which is necessary to understand God's Word. On the other hand, believers are permanently indwelt with the Conveyor of divine viewpoint: the Holy Spirit, (Eph 1:13-14; 5:18-30). The believer who is spiritual, i.e., ANY believer who permits himself to be filled, that is to say, CONTROLLED, by the permanently indwelling Spirit, (Eph 1:13-14; 5:18-20), appraises, i.e., evaluates all matters with the divine viewpoint that God the Holy Spirit provides in him through his study of God's Word. So it is not true as some suggest that some believers have AVAILABLE to them a special, deeper understanding of Scripture over other believers. While ANY believer does not grieve & quench the Holy Spirit, (Eph 4:30; 1 Thes 5:19-22) with disobedience and unconfessed sin, i.e., while he is maintaining fellowship with Almighty God, (1 John 1:2-9), i.e., while he is filled with, (controlled by), the Spirit, (Eph 5:18-20), then God the Holy Spirit makes available for those moments to His faithful child a full understanding of God's Word. Whether or not the child of God then pursues what is available to him through the earnest study of God's Word is up to him.
[1 Cor 2:12-16 cont.]:
(v. 16) For Who has known the mind of the Lord, the he should instruct Him? But we [believers - ALL believers] have the mind of Christ."
["But we have the mind of Christ" = But we - ALL - believers, not just a few so called 'anointed' ones - have the perfect mind of Christ with which to understand the deepest things of the Spirit. If all believers have the mind of Christ then all are given the capacity - without exception - of understanding and making judgments about all things including God's Word, (v.15). This verse again refutes the idea that some believers have a special understanding of Scripture on a deeper spiritual level. An individual who does not have the mind of Christ, who is not a believer would not have a clear understanding of what God's Word teaches. An individual is not a believer, i.e., regenerated or saved, who has not trusted alone in Christ alone for salvation, (Titus 3:4-7; Eph 2:8-9; Ro 11:6; John 3:16). Many religious organizations do not teach regeneration by faith alone in Christ alone. So teaching which comes from unsaved individuals who represent certain unbelieving organizations is not trustworthy. An individual who is regenerated may still choose to short circuit God's teachings and believe the lies rather than understand, believe and obey the truth. Even Christians can espouse untruths. God's Word is to be taught by one believer to another. If a believer forsakes the gathering of the "elect" or does not permit himself to become teachable by others, which is God's sovereign order of how a believer is to grow spiritually, (Eph 4:11-13), then he will indeed not be well instructed in God's word. The result will be that doctrines like that of the Trinity will not be clearly understood. The unteachable Christian will then fall back to human viewpoint reasoning which is influenced by his sin nature. Having quenched the teaching of God the Holy Spirit by going negative to instruction from God's word, (1 Thes 5:19-22), a believer can fall back into spiritual ignorance and be in the same willful ignorance as unbelievers are, (2 Thes 2:10-12). Although it is obviously possible for God to teach an individual spiritual truths without that individual making an effort this is not God's sovereign way during the church age. Man must do his part in order for the Holy Spirit to do His. This is in part the purpose of God's use of spiritual gifts:
[Eph 4:11-13]:
(v. 11) "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors/teachers,
(v. 12) for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
(v. 13) until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ."
If the believer does not do his job by studying God's Word under the teaching ministry of a pastor/teacher in order to show himself approved, (2 Tim 2:15), by presenting himself at the gathering of the elect in order to be taught by those with the sovereign gift of teacher, (Heb 10:25), so that he may be ready with an answer, (1 Pet 3:15), so that he may be able to contend for his faith against those who teach false doctrine, (Jude 3, Phil 1:29) - then the Holy Spirit has little material in that believer's mentality to work with and the believer will lack spiritual growth and discernment.
SUMMARY POINT #4 ON THE TRINITY
Jesus Christ is God Himself
One cannot truthfully say according to Scripture that Jesus Christ was just a god who was created....like some mythical god of thunder or a supernatural being.... because Scripture teaches that JESUS CHRIST IS GOD HIMSELF:
[Jn 1:1b]:
"kai ...Theos en ..o ...logos"
"and ..God ...was the Word "
(subject) (no article) (predicate nominative)
In the original Greek that God inspired John to write there is no article in front of "Theos" = "God". Therefore the noun is said to be anarthrous, i.e., without an article. In addition to that, the verb "was" = "en" is copulative, i.e. joins the two subjects = "Theos" and = "Logos" in meaning.
Walter Martin states, (Op Cit, p. 85):
'The subject of the sentence is "Word" ("Logos"), the verb, "was". There can be no direct object following "was" since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back [in meaning] to the subject, in this case, "Word" ("Logos")..........
a definite predicate nominative (in this case, "Theos" - "God") never takes an article when it precedes the verb ("was") as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for "Theos" ("God") and to translate it 'a god' is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek since "Theos" is the predicate nominative of "was" in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, "Word" (Logos). Christ, then, if He is the Word "made flesh" (John 1:14) can be no one else except God unless the Greek text and consequently God's Word be denied.'
Therefore the qualities of God, i.e., His divine essence, are indicated as qualities which are inherent in "logos" = "the Word" = Jesus Christ. So "Theos" in this verse being without the definite article means that Jesus Christ, the Word, has the nature, qualities and essence of the One and only Jehovah God.
"A god" with a little "g" or "a God" with a capital "G" do not apply here. Notice the order of the words which God inspired John to write, (which most translations do not take steps to indicate): "And God was the Word" emphasizing that the qualities and essence of God have always been the personal qualities and essence of the Word, Jesus Christ. Upon saying the words that John wrote and reflecting on their literal meaning, one can only say the Word, Jesus Christ is indeed God.
Inspite of all of this, objectors still claim that John 1:1 indicates that Jesus Christ is a god. They often insert the indefinite article 'a' in the translation in order to force their false viewpoint: 'and the Word was a god.' However, there is no indefinite article 'a' in the Greek, so one cannot arbitrarily insert one in the translation without considering the context. By translating Jn 1:1 to read that Jesus Christ was 'a god', objectors violate the grammatical rules of the copulative verb "en", and the anarthrous noun, "Theos"; and ignore the emphatic position of "Theos" at the beginning of the phrase in order to force their own false interpretation. Thus they deny the diety of our Lord Jesus Christ and set up a major contradiction with the rest of Scripture. If this construction were correct: i.e., that every time that no article is present the indefinite article applies then many other verses in God's Word would be in error.
Walter Martin states, (op cit. p.86):
To be consistent in this rendering of 'a god,' [objectors] would have to translate every instance where the article is absent as 'a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)...This they do not do in Matthew 5:9; 6:24; Luke 1:35, 78; John 1:6, 12, 13, 18; Romans 1:7, 17, etc.'
For example:
If Jn 1:18 were applied under this contrived rule of 'a god' when no article is present then God's Word here in the gospel of John would state that Jehovah God Almighty is merely a finite created god: 'No one has ever seen a god, but the one and only son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.' ['him' = the Father Who is 'a god' - a created god??? Notice that this deteriorates into nonsense]
[Mt 5:9]:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." now must become:
'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of a god'
[Mt 6:24]:
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
"You cannot serve both God and Money." = now must be retranslated in accordance with the objectors' viewpoint: 'You cannot serve both a god and money'
Phil 2:11 becomes 'and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is a Lord, to the glory of a god the Father.'
The Father here becomes a god, according to the objectors' 'a god' rule.
Lk 1:35 becomes, '...The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and a power of a Most High will overshadow you.' Indicating that there is more than one "Most High" - more than one Almighty God, which is a contradiction in terms.
Again and again when this contrived 'rule' of 'a god' is forced on God's Word, Almighty God is reduced in status from the One and only Eternal Almighty God to a mere created god, Who other passages say doesn't even exist, (cp Isa 43:10).
Jn 1:6 then becomes, 'There came a man who was sent from a god; his name was John'
Jn 1:12 becomes, 'Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, He gave the right to become children of a god' ['a god' referring back to God Almighty Himself]
Compare Jn 1:13, 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17-18; 1 Cor 1:30, 15:10; Phil 2:13 Titus 1:1 and many many more. Objectors even go so far as to claim that the first word God in Jn 1:1 means God Almighty:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,.."
"God" = "Theon"
But the second time the word "God" occurs in Jn 1:1, objectors claim that this god is a lesser, created god with a little 'g':
"...and the Word was God."
"God" = "Theos"
This does violence to basic New Testament koine Greek grammatical rules which the people of Biblical times established when they used the common koine Greek language of their day. It was their language which they established the correct usage of and not some 20th century objectors who decide to change the rules 2000+ years later to suit their purposes. An examination of any secular Greek writing of Biblical times will show that in the koine Greek a noun is given different endings called 'inflections' according to its usage in the sentence. This happens even in English today in the possessive and plural cases.
Eugene Van Ness Goetchius states, ('The Language of the New Testament', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1965, p. 31):
'We can now proceed to define the parts of speech for Greek. We begin with nouns, presenting for the present only as much of the complete paradigm [pattern, diagram] as is necessary for the present purpose. Apart from the 'possessive' forms indicated by -'s (or -s'), English nouns are inflected [changed in accordance with different usages] only for number (i.e., they have no ending in the singular and add -s or some other inflection to form the plural). Greek nouns are also inflected for number, and, in addition, their inflections serve as grammatical devices with much the same functions as those of word order in English. Thus...........
[2 Cor 9:7]:
object subject
" ilaron gar doten agapa o Theos"
"cheerful for giver loves the God"
i.e.,
"for God loves a cheerful giver"
[Mr Goetchius goes on to say]:
'the endings "- " and "- " label the words which bear them as 'subject' and object,' respectively. This function of the endings is called case; each ending of a Greek noun usually indicates both case and number, as the following paradigm illustrates:
GREEK ENGLISH
singular nominative = Theos = God
(as in 'God loves us')
singular accusative Theon = God (as in 'We love God')
plural nominative = Theoi = gods (as in 'The gods are angry')
plural accusative = Theous = gods (as in 'Pagans worship god's')
Note that there are other cases such as the genitive, (possessive: 'THE MAN'S SLAVE'), and dative, ('The queen gave the slave TO THE WIDOW) cases which require their own pecular endings. And there are prepositions which require their own peculiar endings.
The one in question in Jn 1:1 is the preposition "with" = "pros" which requires the accusative ending if the meaning intended is to be "with" i.e., when motion is indicated by the verb - as in Jn 1:1 the Word was with God face to face. Hence, we have THE SAME WORD FOR GOD in both places of John 1:1 WITH THE SAME MEANING FOR GOD = THE ONE AND ONLY ALMIGHTY GOD. The first time "God" appears in Jn 1:1 with an ACCUSATIVE ending because of the preposition "with" and the second time "God" appears in Jn 1:1 with a nominative ending because the past tense "was" of the intransitive verb 'to be' demands such an ending, "God" here being in the predicate NOMINATIVE case.
However, let's suppose that the objectors have a case with their contrived rule of two god's in Jn 1:1, "theos" = god and "Theon" = God. Then the God in Jn 4:23-24 and many many other pasages must also be a lesser created god who is not Almighty God:
[Jn 4:23-24]:
(v. 23) " 'Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
(v. 24) God is spirit, and His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.' "
"the God" = "o Theos" = a created lesser god who is referred to as God the Father in the previous verse??? This also deteriorates into nonsense and heresy.
[cp Jn 3:16]
And in Luke we unmistakably have a reference to God Almighty in 20:37: "ton Theon" = God Almighty using the word Theos = God WITHOUT AN ARTICLE. Under the objector's contrived and arbitrary rule system, could both words now refer to a god or God or either one or neither one? On the other hand, koine Greek grammatical rules and the context DEMAND that the subject of this passage be God Almighty!
[Lk 20:37-38]:
(v. 37) " 'But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord the God ["Theon"] of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'
(v. 38) But He is not the God ["Theos" with no article] of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive.' "
Finally, the objectors claim that Jn 1:1 establishes that Jesus Christ, the Word, has the qualities of Jehovah God but is not God Himself. This stance turns into utter nonsense however when their statement is examined in light of Who God is - His actual qualities:
One of the qualities of God is His eternality - having no beginning and no end. Objectors vehemently deny that Jesus Christ has no beginning or no end, yet this is a quality of God. Other qualities of God are His omnipotence, His omnipresence and His omniscience. Again, objectors deny our Lord these qualities. If we ran down the list of the qualities of God which are all infinite, objectors would deny any of these qualities for our Lord Jesus Christ. In light of this, how can these objectors then claim that Christ has the qualities of God? They contradict their own interpretation of John 1:1 because they know in their heart that only God can possess the qualities of God.
Furthermore, if God is truly the only God - i.e., there is no other God or god, then Jesus Christ could not be a god other than Jehovah God Himself or He is no God or god at all. Scripture testifies that there is no God or god other than Almighty God Himself:
"I am the Lord, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God."
[Isa 43:10-11]:
(v. 10) "'You are My witnesses,' declares the Lord,
'And My servant [Israel] whom I have chosen,
In order that you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
[So no God or god was or will be created. Jesus Christ cannot therefore be a created God]
(v. 11) I, even I, am the Lord;
And there is no Savior besides Me.' "
Furthermore, there is no Savior besides God. Verse 11 above indicates that there is only one Person Who is Savior: God and God alone. So if Scripture identifies Jesus Christ as Savior, and it does, then He must therefore be God. This cannot mean that God is Savior through Whom Christ is the agency of that salvation because verse 11 identifies the Personage Who alone is Savior and other verses which follow identify Christ as that Personal Savior, not just the agency of God's salvation:
Note in the following passage that the Lord Jesus Christ is our God and Savior as well as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit - all having their respective roles as Personal Savior in the redemption of mankind:
[Titus 3:4-6]:
(v. 4) But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
(v. 5) He [God the Father] saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by [God] the Holy Spirit,
(v. 6) Whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
(v. 7) that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Notice that verse 5 indicates that God is our Personal Savior. Then verse 6 indicates that Jesus Christ is our Personal Savior - IN THE SAME IDENTICAL CONSTRUCTION AND WAY THAT VERSE 5 INDICATES THAT GOD THE FATHER IS OUR PERSONAL SAVIOR. There is no distinction made such that one could say Christ is not the Savior but that He is merely God's agent through Whom we are saved. No, Jesus Christ IS the Savior, as God the Father is!
[Compare Eph 1:3-14]:
And if there is only one Savior, (Isa 43:11), and He is God then Jesus Christ is God:
[Titus 2:13]:
"Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;"
"the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" = looks like this transliterated from the Greek:
"tes doxes ton ...megalou Theo kai
"the glory of the great .....God .and
Soteros emon Iesou Christou"
Savior .of our Jesus Christ "
Notice that the grammatical construction of this verse which was inspired by God to be written by the Apostle Paul demands that the appearing of the glory be that of One Person Who is described as "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ". Jesus Christ is literally and irrefutably described in this verse as being "Savior" and "God". Note that the glory of God cannot be attributed to Jesus Christ on an equal level with God without then attributing diety to Christ; for only God can have the full attributes of God on an equal level with Himself.
[1 Tim 4:10, cp Isa 43:10-11]:
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, Who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
So God the Father and Jesus Christ and God the Holy Spirit being the Savior are together Jehovah God Almighty. These passages leave no room for another God or god but the Triune Jehovah God Himself Who is our Savior:
GOD THE FATHER
GOD THE SON
GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT
SUMMARY POINT #5 ON THE TRINITY
The Son of God, the Son of Man is God
Objectors who insist that there are other Gods or gods point to passages in Scripture which contain words which can be translated 'god' in them. By this association they claim that since angels, humans and Satan are referred to by these words therefore Jesus Christ is also a god - a lesser, created god. They claim that the terms 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man' do not indicate our Lord's diety but His mortality for they also are used to refer to mortal men. A careful examination of each of these passages will reveal that they are not saying that God has created gods of any kind but that they were either His representatives on earth, (Ps 82:1-8), or that certain beings made themselves out to be gods, thus usurping the power of God Almighty for a season, (2 Cor 4:9).
[Psalm 82:1-8]:
(v. 1) "God takes His stand in His own congregation;
He judges in the midst of the rulers.
(v. 2) How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked?
(v. 3) Vindicate the weak and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
(v. 4) Rescue the weak and needy;
Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
(v. 5) They do not know nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
(v. 6) I said, 'You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High.
(v. 7) Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes."
[Notice that the verdict is that those who were acting like they were gods were just mortal men after all. For verse 7 says, "Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes."]
(v. 8) Arise, I God, judge the earth!
For it is Thou Who dost possess all the nations."
Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon state in 'Seduction of Christianity', (Harvest House, Eugene, Or, 1985, pp 86-88):
'''In Psalm 82 God's judgment was pronounced against the rulers of Israel because they were acting like gods who were a law into themselves. In verses 6 and 7 God stated: "I said, 'You are gods.... Nevertheless you will die like men.' "
This Scripture and Jesus' quotation of it has given comfort to cultists and occultists and caused confusion among the unlearned. Mormons, for example, point to it as justification for their goal of godhood and support for their teaching that Satan told the truth when he offered godhood to Eve. Clearly that is a false application, for Psalm 82 does not say, 'Ye shall become gods,' as Mormons hope, but 'Ye are gods.' So whatever is meant by this statement, it refers to something that humans already are, not to some new status that we will eventually attain................................
"If man is not intended to be a god, then why did Jesus quote Psalm 82:6 to His accusers? [cp Jn 10:34-36] He was doing two things:
1) demonstrating that they didn't understand their own Scriptures, so were in no condition to condemn Him for saying that He was God; [even though that is precisely Who He claimed to be] and
2) showing them the depths and horror of their rebellion."
The Hebrew word which is translated "gods" which is transliterated, "'elohim" with a small "e" is used elsewhere in Scripture to refer to men which the One and only God appoints as His representative and authority on earth for a specific purpose - such as to be one of the Judges of Israel - to rule in accordance with God's sovereign will, (Ex 21:6). The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gensenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, Hendrickson, Peabody, Ma, 1979, p.43 defines the Hebrew word "elohim" as "rulers, judges [fully human and mortal] either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power."
[Dave Hunt, (cont.), pp. 87-88]:
'''The consequences of becoming gods are very clear. Jeremiah reminds Israel that the only true God is the Creator of the universe, and that He has declared that all who aspire to the status of being a god will perish:
[Jer 10:10]:
"The Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure His indignation.
Thus shall you say to them, 'The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.' "
Thus all gods - all beings who make themselves out to be gods - other than the one true God will perish, because God has declared all gods other than Himself to be false, (cp Isa 43:10; 44:6b, 8). So Jesus Christ cannot be a god because He will never perish, (Dan 7:14).
The following passages further define God and god:
[** Isa 44:6b]:
"I [God] am the first and I am the last;
apart from Me there is no god."
apart from Me there is no god." =
"'elohiym 'ayinl .........bal' ..dey .........min"
" god .......there is no and at apart from Me"
[1 Cor 10:19-20]:
(v. 19) "What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
(v. 20) No; but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons."
"No; but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice" = those things which are offered to various pagan gods "they sacrifice" in fact to "demons" who are the power behind those false gods, making them out to be real.
"and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons" = those who sacrifice to idols, i.e., provide for these idols their wealth, time or life, (as many today sacrifice their time, life and wealth to their jobs or families beyond what God has decreed, they in essence are on the side of Satan and his demons. Compare Isa chapters 45 & 46. Often these false god have demonic influence behind them: (I Cor 10:20; Ps 106:36-38; Lev 17:7 (goat = demonic); De 32:17; Mt 4:9; Acts 19:26). For a season, Satan is the god of this world, (Jn 12:31; 14:30; Eph 2:2; 1 Cor 2:6) - but he is not God or a god - only acting as if he is a god by God's sovereign permission. So the god of this world, Satan, rules for a season:
[2 Cor 4:3-4]:
(v. 3) "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
(v. 4) in whose case the god of this world
["god of this world" = Satan, cp. Rev 12:9; Eph 6:12; 1 Ch 21:1; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6]
(v. 4 cont.) in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the image of God."
So the god of this world, Satan, rules for a season until it is time for him to be sent to the Lake of Fire, (Rev 20:1-3; 20:7-10).
The terms 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man' also require contextual examination to determine the meaning. The term 'son of' in Scripture often signifies identity or similarity with a characteristic that is presented in the context of the passage. For example:
[Isa 57:1-4]:
(v. 1) "The righteous man perishes, and no man takes it to heart;
And devout men are taken away, while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from evil,
(v. 2) He enters into peace;
They rest in their beds,
Each one who walked in his upright way.
(v. 3) 'But come here, you sons of a sorceress,
Offspring of an adulterer and a prostitute.
(v. 4) 'Against whom do you jest?
Against whom do you open wide your mouth
And stick out your tongue?
Are you not children of rebellion,
Offspring of deceit,
This does not indicate that all men who are evil are naturally born sons of a sorceress or a prostitute but that they behave in an evil manner, taking on the evil characteristics the likes of a sorceress or a prostitute or an adulterer. They are in effect sons of rebellion and deceit.
[Isa 14:11-12]:
(v. 11) " 'Your pomp and the music of your harps
Have been brought down to Sheol;
Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you,
And worms are your covering.
(v. 12) How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning, son of the dawn!' "
Obviously, Satan was not procreated by the dawn but he did take on the characteristics of the beauty of the first light of dawn.
[Jer 49:33]:
"And Hazor will become a haunt of jackals,
A desolation forever;
No one will live there,
Nor will a son of man reside in it."
"a son of man" refers to humanity as opposed to other types of lifeforms. So when our Lord refers to Himself as the Son of God, He is stating that He has the characteristics of Almighty God - He is stating therefore that He is God. "The Son of God" is a technical term which refers to God Himself - the second Person of the Triune God. The doctrine of the diety of the Son of God is clearly taught even in the Old Testament:
"Who has gone up to heaven and come down?..............
["Who" = "Who are the Holy Ones Who"]
(Pr 30:4 cont.) "Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of His hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in His cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name [God the Father] and the name of His Son [God the Son] ?
In Hebrew the word "Who" is literally translated, "Who are the Holy Ones Who" = PLURAL. Genesis 1:1 and many O.T. Testament passages state that it was God alone Who created the heavens and the earth, (cp Ps 8; 19:1; 33:6; 89:11; 104; 146:5; 148; Pr 3:19;
Isa 37:16; 40:28; Jer 10:12, 32:17; Zech 12:1). And here in Pr 30:4 it states that God the Father and God the Son have gone up to heaven and come down, gathered up the wind, wrapped up the waters and established, i.e., created the ends of the earth. Here right in the Old Testament we find a clear statement that there is more than one Personality in the Godhead! We have two of the Personalities of the Godhead specifically referred to: God the Father and God the Son.
So when our Lord refers to Himself as the Son of God the Jews understood Him completely:
[Jn 10:33, 36b, 39]:
(v. 33) '''The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
(v. 36) [Jesus said]"...do you say of Him, [speaking of Himself] Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming'; because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
(v. 39) Again they tried to seize Him, but He escaped their grasp."
The indispensable step in correctly interpreting God's Word must not be sidestepped: that of letting the words in Scripture say what they meant to those in ancient times - to whom they were originally written. So if Scripture says that the Jews 2000 years ago interpreted the phrase 'the Son of God' to indicate that "You ....make Yourself out to be God", (Jn 10:33b), then that is what the term 'the Son of God' means. The Jews were so convinced of the meaning of that phrase that they were preparing to kill our Lord for referring to Himself as God.
In the Book of Daniel, the term son of God is used to describe one who has the characteristics of a god:
[Dan 3:25]:
(Dan 3:25 NAS) "He [Nebuchadnezzar] answered and said, 'Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!' "
Dr J Vernon McGee states in "THRU THE BIBLE with J. Vernon McGee," Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1982, p.547:
"This furnace apparently was an open furnace, and Nebuchadnezzar, who expected these men to expire at once, was amazed to see them alive and walking about in the fire.
Another amazing fact was to see a fourth Man whom Nebuchadnezzar described as being in the form 'like the Son of God.'
[KJV] That [phrase] should be translated 'like a son of gods.'.............................
Dr McGee is referring to the KJV of this verse which translation reads "the Son of God":
(Dan 3:25 K.J.V.) "He answered and said, 'Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." A more accurate rendering is found in the NAS translation:
(Dan 3:25 N.A.S.) "and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"
"son" = "bar", Hebrew = son singular.
"gods" = "elah" = Although the Hebrew text has the word "elah" = god = pagan god, singular; the phrase is best rendered "like a son of the gods" because Nebuchadnezzar is reflecting his belief in polytheism and was not referring in this verse to a particular god but rather to one who has the characteristics of one of his pagan gods, (ref Dan 3:28). The Hebrew "elah" can be rendered God or 'god' depending upon context.
So the fourth man appeared as a "son of" the pagan gods that the Babylonians imagined that they worshipped. In other words, the fourth man appeared to them in the likeness of a god, that is to say, he took on the characteristics of what the Babylonians envisioned were attributable to one of their gods. This phrase "like a son of the gods" does not therefore indicate that a pagan god actually procreated someone but that someone appeared to be as a god to them.
The Amplified Bible, which amplifies the meaning of the words and grammar and the background of the original languages in its translation, renders the verse best of all:
[Dan 3:25 Amplified]:
"He answered, 'Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt! And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"
So it is the context, background and other parallel passages which determine the meaning of "son of god" in Scripture. When our Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as 'Son' in Scripture the definite article is included; the context indicating a Unique, One of a Kind, Son Who is God Himself. The context in Dan 3:25 does not indicate that it is referring to the unique Son of God. Having no understanding or knowledge of such a Person as the Lord Jesus Christ at this time in his life, Nebuchadnezzar was referring NOT to our Lord but to what he understood of his own pagan religion which described such a one who was in the furnace as a son of a pagan god].
[McGee, cont.]
".......................Nebuchadnezzar had no knowledge of the living and true God at this time, although Daniel had spoken of Him. Having no spiritual perception, Nebuchadnezzar could only testify to His unusual appearance - He looked like one of the sons of the gods. However, I do believe that the fourth Man was the Son of God, the preincarnate Christ."
[Nebuchadnezzar thought that the fourth being was a son of a god, but unknown to him, He actually was THE SON OF THE TRUE AND ONLY GOD, THE PREINCARNATE JESUS CHRIST. Finally, notice verse 28 in Daniel]:
[Dan 3:28 cont]:
'Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who has sent His angel and delivered His servants who put their trust in Him, violating the king's command, and yielded up their bodies so as not to serve or worship any god except their own God.' "
It is evident from the above verse that Nebuchadnezzar was at this time a polytheist - who worshipped many pagan gods and just viewed the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego as the most powerful god at the time. So the term son in the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages often means identity, i.e., having the characteristics of, rather than human offspring or subordination. When the Jews used the word son in ancient days they often used it to describe likeness of nature. And Jesus Christ claimed that God was His Father in the sense of being like or equal to God:
[Jn 5:17-18]:
(v. 17) "But He [Jesus] answered them, 'My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.'
(v. 18) For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because [they determined] He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."
So when our Lord called God His Father He was saying that He was just like God. And His enemies had no doubt in their minds that Jesus Christ was claiming to be God:
[Jn 10:30-33; 36b]:
(v. 30) "I and the Father are one.
(v. 31) The Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
(v. 32) Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?
(v. 33) The Jews answered Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.'............"
[Jesus then says to the Jews]:
(v. 36b) "do you say of Him, [meaning Himself] Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming'; because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
[Dr John Danish states, (Berean Tape Ministry, Berean Memorial Church, Irving, Tx)]: "the Lord Jesus claimed to be God and His enemies knew it.....The term 'Son of God' [when it refers to Jesus] actually means Deity. [It] does not mean simply son of God the way we may say that every human being is a son of god because God created him............"
While God is Father of all men, not all men are children of God in the sense of being "born again" into His heavenly family, (Cp Jn 1:12). Those who are spiritually dead cannot have an intimate relationship with God until they become spiritually alive. It is true that all men are His sons and daughters in the sense that He made them in His image and provides for them...(Gen 1:26-30)..........
Even after man rebelled through Adam and Eve, (Gen 3:16-19), God still provides for all men, (Mt 5:45b; Ps 65:9-13; 147:8-9; Acts 14:16-17; Jer 5:24).....................
But men are His sons in the full sense only as they respond in faith to what He did for them through His one and only - unique - Son with a capital 'S', Jesus Christ, in order to overcome man's rebellion (his sin). Cp Gal 3:22 - 4:7; Ro 3:19-25a.
The children of God then are those who believe on the name of Jesus Christ, (Jn 1:12)......They are those who cease to rely on their own merits and achievements and put their trust in Christ instead. Such is the case in the aforementioned passages]
[Dr Danish, (cont.)]:
"This term ['Son of God' however] does not mean [in the context that Jesus used the term to refer to Himself] that [our Lord had] been adopted in salvation.......When this term was applied to Him it had a specific different technical meaning..........."
[Mt 26:63-66]:
(v. 63) "But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, 'I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.' "
["The Son of God" = The definite article "the" and the word "Son" are both singular indicating the unique Son of Almighty God rather than one of millions of believers who are sons and daughters of God in another sense, being born again by faith, (Jn 1:12). Children of God are referred to in Scripture either with an indefinite article 'a' or in the plural]
"Now [Dr Danish goes on to say] here these terms Christ and Son of God were equated in this fashion:
The Christ is equal to the Son of God.
And again, both of these terms indicate deity. So the high priest said, 'All right, we are putting it point blank to You, guilty or not guilty, are You the Son of God?' Now what did He mean when he was asking Jesus, 'Are You the Son of God?' He didn't mean, 'Are You created by God?'.....[or]....'Have You received eternal life...?' He meant, 'Are You saying that You are Deity?'...that You have the essence of Deity? That's what the term 'Son of God' meant in the mouth of the high priest. Now we know this from the verses which follow:
(v. 64) "Jesus said to him, 'You have said it yourself; ............"
"And when He [Jesus] said "You have said it yourself" He is saying in the affirmative: 'Yes, I am the Son of God', which is the same as saying, 'Yes, I am God.........'
(v. 63 cont.) "But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, 'I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.' "
(v. 64 cont.) "Jesus said to him, 'You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.'
["the Son of Man" = when it is applied to Jesus Christ in the context of the unique Son of Man - no one else like Him - it is then the technical term for God in His humanity, cp Dan 7:13-14]
[Dr Danish, (cont.)]:
"Now the Lord Jesus not only said to him, 'Yes, I am God' but He said...'I am ...[the]...GodMan...and someday you will see Me sitting at the right hand of God the Father in all the power and majesty of Diety."
[This was such a loathsome statement for an unbelieving Jew to hear that he would tear his clothing in disgust and horror]:
[Mt 26:63-66 cont.]:
(v. 64 cont.) "Jesus said to him, 'You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.'
(v. 65) "Then the high priest tore his robes,
"[This was] a Semitic expression of horror"
(v. 65 cont.) "Then the high priest tore his robes saying, 'He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;
(v. 66) what do you think?' They answered and said, 'He is deserving of death!' "
"[So, Dr Danish continues to say] the term 'Son of God' as it applies to Jesus Christ refers to His Diety. It is a technical word used in a specialized way and the Sanhedrin which was trying Him understood it very very well. So Jesus claimed both the titles: He claimed the title, 'The Christ', He claimed the title, 'The Son of God', both of which are equated to diety.........
[Jn 19:7]:
"The Jews answered Him, 'We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.'"
"Now what did they mean? Should He die because He claimed salvation? No! Should He die because He had been adopted into the family of God [By saying He was a Son of God] No! They were saying He should die because He made Himself the Son of God because that meant He made Himself God............."
Consider what Scripture defines as the meaning of the term: 'Son of Man'.
C.I. Scofield states in footnote #4 in the Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible, NIV,
C. I. Scoffield, Editor, Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 819:
"The expression 'son of man' is a common Semitic way of indicating an individual man (Ps. 4:2; 57;4; 58:1; 144:3; Jer 49:18, 33; 50:40; 51:43). God addresses Ezekial about ninety times by this title. In Dan. 7:13 the term is used to show that an actual man [Who is at the same time God] will come in the clouds of heaven to receive a worldwide kingdom. From this use in Daniel it came to refer to the glorious Messiah [Who is defined in Scripture as God Himself], and in such a sense Jesus utilized it calling Himself 'the Son of man eighty times in the Gospels."
[Notice: singular + THE = definite article = THE unique - one and only - Son of man singular:indicating Diety]
[Compare Jn 9:35-38]:
(v. 35) "Jesus heard that they had put him
["him" = the blind man who was healed by Jesus]
(v. 35 cont.) "Jesus heard that they had put him out [of the Temple]; and finding him, He said, 'Do you believe in the Son of Man?
(v. 36) He answered and said, 'And Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?
(v. 37) Jesus said to him, 'You have both seen Him, and He is the One Who is talking with you.'
(v. 38) And he said, 'Lord, I believe.' And he worshipped Him.' "
So the man who was given sight recognized that the One Who claims to be the Son of Man is to be worshipped. And the blind man who was Jewish, (v.35), knew full well that only God is to be worshipped. The term 'the Son of Man' when it refers to our Lord in Scripture means God the Son in His role as the representative Man with respect to His mission, (Mt 11:19; Lk 19:10); His death and resurrection, (Mt 12:40; 20:18; 26:2), and His Second Coming, (Mt 24:37-44; Lk 12:4). A passage in Daniel confirms this:
[Dan 7:13-14]:
(v. 13) "In my [Daniel's] vision at night I liiked and there before me was One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven.
["clouds" = here refer to angels, (Ps104:1-4]
(v. 13 cont.) He approached the Ancient of Days.....
["Ancient of Days" = a special name for God referring to His eternality - in this passage it refers to the Personality of the Father, (Dan 7:9)] (v. 13 cont.) He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence.......
[So God the Son, Who is God and Man at the same time, appears in heaven in Daniel's vision of the future in His glorified human body. He is thusly led by angels into the throne room and the presence of God the Father before hosts, i.e. armies, of angelic beings and believers of ages past, (vv9-12)]
(v. 14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped Him....
["worshipped Him" = indicates our Lord's Diety, for only God is to be worshipped, (Dt 6:13; Mt 4:10)]
[Dan 7:13-14 cont.]:
(v. 14 cont.) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away; and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
[It is in the name of the Son of Man in which universal judgment is committed to Him, (Jn 5:22,27). And in the Son of Man is fulfilled the Old Testament foreview of blessing and salvation through a coming Man, (Gen 1:26: 3:15; 12:3; Ps 8:4; 80:17; Isa 7:14: 9:6-7; 32:2). All of this is a function of God and God alone. So He Who bears the title of the Son of Man is God Himself]
Only God can possess the qualities of God
[Jn 1:1-2 cont.]:
(v. 1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(v. 2) He was with God in the beginning."
"and the Word was God" = These words in verse 1b of John chapter 1 were written by the Apostle John in koine (everyday, common) Greek as inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). They can only mean that God and the Word are the same...for that is what the words say..............................
especially in the order in which John wrote them which emphasizes God in His essence:
"..and God was the word"
According to Jn 1:1, Jesus Christ the Word has the qualities of God. And there is no being that can possess the qualities of God unless He is God Himself. For these qualities must come from a nature which is eternal - which has no beginning and only God has no beginning.
For God is exclusively and uniquely called: "THE EVERLASTING GOD" - "THE ETERNAL ONE" (Gen 21:33; Isa 57:15)
SUMMARY POINT #7 ON THE TRINITY:
Exclusive attributes and prerogatives of God which are true of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is eternal as God is eternal:
[Jn 1:1-2 cont.]:
(v. 1) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(v. 2) He was with God in the beginning."</