A RESPONSE TO THE PAMPHLET

"SHOULD YOU BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY"

 

By

N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., MDiv., Th.M.

© 2001

 

 

The pamphlet Should You Believe in the Trinity is online at the official Jehovah's Witness website. Rob Bowman has published a book length response: Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989).

Should You Believe It?

 

This section adequately sets for the issues.  I would phrase it somewhat differently.  To say God is other than what he says he is simply idolatry.  This is the thrust of the second command­ment (Ex 20:2).  The minute we say that God is other than he has revealed himself to be, we dishonor God.  Why are idols wrong?  They attempt to reduce the divine to the human, the infinite to the finite, the incomprehensible to the simplistic (Rom 1:21-23).  Nearly always, the redefinition of God involves denying some important aspect of who God is, and this is in effect blasphemy.  The sinful human tendency is to lessen God, to make him easier to control, to make him manageable in human terms.  Incidentally, as a Christian who takes the Scriptures seriously, I find the attempts by medieval Roman Catholics (among others) to depict pictorially the Trinity as nothing else than idolatry, a violation of the second commandment.

 

How is the Trinity Explained?

 

The main theme of this section is that the Trinity is difficult to understand, even contrary to human reason, and a number of quotes, mostly from Catholic sources, are quoted to illustrate that the Trinity is an incomprehensi­ble mystery.  To begin with, let us admit that there is a difference between what is illogical or unreasonable and what is beyond our understanding. For example, physicists tell us that certain building blocks of reality (quanta) are both waves and particles. How can they be both?  The physicists themselves don't fully understand, but assume that one day we will have sufficient data to explain why a quantum can have the properties of both a wave and a particle.  In other words, there is a solution to the problem that further research may supply.  What I want to suggest to you is that the doctrine of the Trinity is like this.  It is the only explanation that makes sense of what the Bible actually says about God, but God does not give us enough data to fit it all together.  This does not mean that it is unreasonable, any more than electrical theory is unreasonable because an Australian aborigine doesn't understand or believe in electric light bulbs.

In fact, the Bible teaches that God himself is beyond our understanding.  Both the Jehovah's Witness and the Christian admit that God is infinite.  Therefore we can never comprehend him in his totality, because we are finite.  God is unlimited and we are limited.  Consider Ps 145:3, and Isa 55:8-9:

 

Great is the Lord, and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom (NIV). "For as the thoughts of you people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways your ways", is the utterance of Jehovah, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (NWT).

 

Is it therefore any surprise that God might reveal things about himself that are difficult to understand?  Read the final chapters of Job.  Job may not have sinned in attributing evil purpose to God, but he did sin by presuming to understand God well enough to argue a case against him (Cf Job 1:22 and 42:1-6). 

Are there other things in Scripture we have difficulty with?  Consider this.  Scripture reveals that God is all knowing, all-good and all-powerful.  And yet, there is evil in the world.  Why did God permit (cause?) Satan to fall?  Why did God create Adam and Eve with the full knowledge of what they would do and of all the subse­quent misery and sorrow?  Why didn't he create a world that would be perfect from beginning to end?  In reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, praying about an issue very similar to this, Abraham said, "Will not the judge of all the earth do right" (NIV)?  Therefore, there is ultimate solution to the problem.  What God has decreed and done is right.  However, Scripture does not give us this answer.  It does not tell us how a good God can even indirectly bring about evil and yet not be responsible.  In strictly human terms, is this reason­able?[1]

Look at Eph 1:3-14 and Rom 9:10-24 (and Cf. I Pet 1:3-5).  These passages clearly teach that people are predestined. That is, God has chosen a particular group of people from before creation to be his own.  Therefore, if a person knows he is chosen, he can do what we wants, right?  Scripture's answer to that is an emphatic "NO!"  In fact, despite the fact that we are foreordained, chosen before the foundation of the world, either a vessel of wrath or salvation, Scripture treats our moral choices as real choices.  The decisions we make are real decisions.  Can you explain this one?  Does Scripture give you enough informa­tion?  I would venture to say that it does not.  I would also say that again, there is an answer, but this answer is still in the mind of God, unrevealed to his people.[2]

Therefore, you see that Scripture does reveal certain things that are beyond ability of our reason, without further revelation, to fully reconcile.  Remember, Scripture was not written to give us an exhaustive understanding of spiritual things, but to communicate to us what we need to know to be God's people.  It therefore sometimes gives us truths which seem (on the surface at least) contradictory, without bothering to give us the additional information which would enable us to fit it all together (and maybe we couldn't understand the answer anyway).  I would suggest to you that the doctrine of the Trinity falls right into this category.  The Trinity is not unreasonable, but it is beyond our ability to understand, at least without further revelation which God has not chosen to give us.  We will explore this more in the comments on later sections of the pamphlet.

 

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?

 

This is the same as saying, "Why do Christians believe in the Trinity?"  I note that the pamphlet saves a discussion on "Trinity Proof-Texts" to the end, so we won't deal with those in detail here (as these verses form part, but not all of the Biblical data on the subject).  Instead of dealing exhaustively with the Biblical teaching on the subject, this publication instead quotes a number of scholars and leaves it at that.  Rather strange, since Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) would find themselves in disagree­ment with almost everything else that these scholars teach! For example, every source quoted on p. 8 (except perhaps for some of the contributors to The New Catholic Encyclopedia) would deny the inerrancy and historicity of the Scriptures!  They would disagree with most of JW's doctrine and much of traditional (conservative) Christian teaching.  And there are also many scholars who would disagree with their conclusions (in fact, those cited by the pamphlet are often in the minority).

Secondly, what do the quotes mean?  Consider the NIDNT quote on p. 8 Col. 2 para. 2: "As far as the NT is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."  While this seems to support the pamphlet's argument, it really does not.  What this means is that there are no statements in Scripture which expressly mention the Trinity and give a propositional definition, such as "The Trinity is three distinct persons in one God, equal in all the attributes of deity, sharing one substance." 

Why then do Christians believe in the Trinity?  Because the biblical evidence leaves them no choice.  We do so because the unity of God is so stressed in the OT that we must say that God is one.[3]  Even in the OT, however, there are suggestions about God's nature which would prepare one for receiving the doctrine of the Trinity, even though these are veiled, as so much of the OT revelation is.[4]

And revelation is progressive.  The NT gives us more than the Old.  In Heb 1:1-3 there is a contrast between the revelation of the Hebrew times and the revelation which is given through Christ, which is superior, and of which the NT is the witness.  The NT treats the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Spirit as God.  We take these two great truths, the oneness of God stressed in the OT, and the threeness of God revealed in the New, and we conclude that God is three persons who are nevertheless one being, equal in power and glory, all three to be worshipped as one God (as indeed, the NT teaches). 

Remember above that we said truth is chiefly given to communicate salvation and all it means to God's people?  Note that most of the verses which are "prooftexts" for the Trinity come out of contexts where saving truth is being applied to the people of God.  We learn about the Trinity as we see each person of the Godhead in administering salvation to the people of God.  Yet Scripture only reveals what we need to know; it doesn't reveal the answers to all the philosophical problems we might imagine as we try to under­stand "inter-trinitarian relationships" or what it means to have three persons who are one being.  However, what we don't or can't understand is no reason for denying what Scripture teaches.  Also, note that what Scripture does teach about God, while not exactly easy, is not contradictory.  Rightly understood, the Trinity is not, in formal terms, logically contradictory.   I don't mean by this that we understand precisely how it all fits together; what I do mean is that once we see the Scriptural data clearly, and once we carefully define our terms, the formula "three persons, one God" is not logically self-contradictory.  What are contradictory are statements like "Who ran the universe while Jesus was on earth if Jesus is God?"  The question assumes that they are one person, which would be contradictory.  We could look at the answer from more than one perspective.  Certainly, God the Father and God the Spirit would be perfectly capable of running the universe while God the Son is incarnate on earth.  However, this answer is somewhat deficient, for it ignores the nature of the Son as God.  If indeed the Son is God, then he shares all the attributes of deity, including omnipresence.  Christ as God was never absent from heaven, even while specially present in Christ as a human being.  He is no more absent from heaven than when Jehovah made his Shekinah presence manifest over the mercy seat at the dedication of the temple, or during the exodus.[5]

 

How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?

 

I would also like to comment on the subsection of the preceding, concerning whether or not the early church fathers taught the doctrine of the Trinity.  First a general observation.  Many of the quotes used in this section are out of context.  Looking them up in the source will indicate that often they may be saying something quite different.  Also, a number of the modern scholars cited hold to theories not accepted by the majority of scholars, or theories which have been out of date for quite a long time.  Also, this section vastly oversimplifies a very complex subject, the development of doctrine, and particularly the doctrine of the Trinity, in the ancient church. 

How does doctrine develop?  We start with Scripture.  All the elements are there.  However, often our thinking may not be clear on a subject.  We may have some vague ideas on an issue, but often what focuses our thinking is some sort of direct encounter with the problem.  For example, we may have an idea that abortion is wrong.  Suddenly we meet a person who is very strongly "pro-choice".  Soon we are searching the Scriptures to find out what they say about the sanctity of human life, and we find such passages as Ps 139.  After the challenge, our thinking is much clearer than before.  One thing that contributes to this dynamic is that Scripture does not give us a systematic teaching on any one subject.  Instead, we have to look at a number of different verses from all of Scripture to get an idea of the complete biblical teaching.

On a larger scale, this is exactly what happened (and what continues to happen) in the church.  For example, consider the formation of the canon.  Everybody had a good idea of what the books of the Bible were quite early on in the church, although the boundaries were a bit fuzzy, some including one or two books we now reject, others wanting to cut out one or two we accept.  Then along comes Marcion, who denies the validity of the OT, and accepts only Luke's Gospel and 10 Pauline epistles (radically edited).  And he attracts thousands of followers!  This drastically speeds up the church's thinking on the formation of the canon, what books are Scripture and what books are not, until we have our present list.  What we have as the Bible was not firmly set until the end of the third century, yet neither you nor I question the validity of the canon, even though it took centuries to finalize.

The same is true for the Trinity.  If you carefully read the church fathers, you will see all the elements for the doctrine of the Trinity are there. Ignatius, for example, speaks of Jesus being God in the flesh, united with Father, and as "ingenerate" (a technical term which in context means "uncreat­ed").  These examples could be multiplied.  Also, the fact that some of the early Christians may have used different language or had different ideas does not invalidate the truth; it only shows that their own thinking on the issue was not fully developed.  In the first two centuries of the church, the emphasis was still on the unity of God versus the polytheistic religions of the ancient world.  The early church theologians (such as Ignatius) had an idea of the plurality of God, but they did not care to develop it, lest Christianity be seen as a polytheistic religion.  It was in response to people who denied the deity of the Son and the Spirit, or who denied that the Son and Spirit were separate persons (from each other and the Father), that the theological statements concerning the Trinity were formulated in the third and fourth centuries. 

It's also true that this thinking took place in the larger context of the world around the early theologians, even as what is happening now in the world often controls the type of answers we must give people concerning what the Scripture says.  These educated theologians used the language of their time to talk about God.  This happened to be the language of Greek philosophy.  They therefore used such terms as "person" or "sub­stance" or "essence".  This does not invalidate the biblical truth that they expressed; it may mean that this truth may be better expressed, and there are many theologians who seek to do this. 

A couple of more points on this chapter.  Again, many of the scholars quoted are hostile to all biblical religion, and would say that much of the Bible is essentially false.  This is particularly true of the authorities quoted on pages 11-12.  Neither does the writer of the pamphlet inform the reader that the assertions made here are based on controversial and oftentimes outdated theories of the development of Christianity which are denied by many scholars, including a number of whom are hostile to biblical religion.

More importantly, in his discussion of triads, the writer of the pamphlet is making an invalid comparison.  His argument at this point is that because some pagan religions have triads of Gods, therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is pagan.  This is patently illogical.  What must be compared is not only the idea of "three" but also what each religion says about the nature of its deity or deities.   Even a cursory examination of the religions cited who use "triads" of gods will illustrate that what they believed is vastly different from what Christians came to formulate as the Trinity.  In these religions, there are either three gods or one god who expresses him/her/­itself in three ways, all of which is foreign to the Scripture and to Christians' formulation of the Trinity.  This same critique may be made on the writer's discussion on the influence of Platonism.  There is a great gap to bridge between Plato's philosophy and the church's final formulations concerning the Trinity.  There is no doubt about it: Platonism did have an affect on the theological thinking of the church. However, this does not invalidate the doctrine of the Trinity.  The Trinity stands or falls on the basis of the biblical evidence, in which there is no evidence that any Platonic influence ever occurred.

The study of the creeds and councils of the early church is a fascinating one, and well worth the time.  The writers were certainly far from perfect people.  Here, I will just note that what is important is not what people say the Bible says, but what the Bible actually says.  I believe that the great creeds are true to Scripture, and that careful study will confirm this.  The role of Constantine and the fact that certain people were persuaded only with reluctance shows that sinful human dynamics were operating.  But thank God he has given us an infallible Scripture to "test the prophets."  Creeds and confessions are summaries or restatements of Scripture, and at the very best, when good, can be used as guides for the study of Scripture.  But if a contradiction is found, then the creed must be revised.  The Apostles' Creed (though it wasn't written by the Apostles) and the Nicene Creed among others have stood the test of Scripture and time.[6]

Therefore I would not say that the doctrine of the Trinity is an example of apostasy.  Quite the opposite - it is an example of fidelity to Scripture in the midst of a number of different hostile conditions.  Over a period of centuries, unbiblical thought and practice did infect the church to such an extent that it resulted in the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century.  However, the Great Creeds were established before this.  Though the seeds of apostasy had been sown, they would not come to full fruit for centuries after this time of early doctrinal formulation.  Nor even in their other apostasy did the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church deny the Great Creeds, although in many other areas their understanding is unbiblical.

Why did the prophets not teach the Trinity in a developed form?  For exactly the reasons stated above.  Israel, surrounded by pagan nations, with her own propensity toward idolatry, was not ready for this truth.  Also, this truth would not have made a great deal of sense apart from the revelation of redemption in Christ Jesus (Heb 1:1-3).  The revelation of the Trinity was necessary to make full sense out of what God had done in Christ.  The OT, written before the full revelation, but designed to prepare God's people for the coming of the Messiah, was not meant to reveal the Trinity, but to condition people for the full revelation to come in the NT (Lk 24:25-27; 44-49).

 

What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?

 

The plain truth of the matter is that people reading the Bible on their own did come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, though it took quite a while to think through all the implications of what the Bible taught. In terms of what this pamphlet says in this section concerning the OT I don't have much to argue.  We've already gone over this in the above sections.  The real question is whether there is anything in the OT which is inconsistent with the idea of the Trinity, or in fact are there statements which would lead one to accept the Trinity when that doctrine is revealed?  I would say the latter.  See the discussion above, note 2. The OT obviously teaches the unity and uniqueness of God over against various pagan notions, and no Christian would argue against this.

I also agree that the Hebrew word elohim does not by itself imply the plurality of God.  It simply comes into the Hebrew language as one of the words for God.  But the Hebrew Scriptures have a number of passages that stop and make one think about the nature of God, and greatly exercised the Rabbis as they attempted to make sense out of them.  I have listed some in n. 2.  As a further example, consider Ex 23:20-21

 

See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.  Pay attention to him and listen to what he says.  Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him (NIV; emphasis added).

 

Who is this angel of the Lord, who bears the name of the Lord, and who must be treated as the practical equivalent of Jehovah?  Compare this with Dt 18:18-19, where very similar language is used to describe the prophet who will take Moses' place:

 

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.  If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account (NIV).

 

Interesting to say the least, and cf. Acts 3:22-23 where the latter passage is applied by Peter to Christ.  A passage like this doesn't prove the fully developed doctrine of the Trinity, but it does suggest that there is more to the nature of God that is yet to be revealed.  Other passages could be cited.  And remember that the emphasis on God's oneness does not contradict his existence as three persons.

We now get into a discussion on Jesus.  The biblical revelation concerning him is rich and varied.  I agree with you that Jesus had pre-existence.  Where we disagree is on the nature of that pre-existence. 

First of all, neither Christian nor JW is going to disagree that Jesus was human (although others in the history of the church have done so - this is one of the errors combated in I John).  Matt 1:18-25 and Jn 3:13 adequately prove Jesus' pre-existence.  Note also that Matt 1:18-25 terms Jesus as "God with us", in a quote from Is 7:14.  By itself, this verse could simply be interpreted to mean that God is present in saving power in the person of the Messiah.  And it certainly means at least that.  But in a later reference to the Messiah (9:6) Isaiah says

 

For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder.  And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace (NWT).

 

All of these titles are simply telling us what a certain name means.  Out of context, any unprejudiced reader would apply them to Jehovah, but in context they are used of the Messiah.  Remember, there is no God but Jehovah - he shares his glory with no one (Is 42:8; 43:10-11; 44:6-8).  Mighty God would make any monotheist think of Jehovah, and in the NT "Father" is never used of Jesus, only his Father.  For Isaiah to say this is to show how closely he views the relationship of the Son and the Father.  They are so closely identified that they share the same name!

The pamphlet then discusses Col 1:15ff and simplistically interprets "firstborn", (prototokos) as "first-created".  In fact, as reference to any standard Greek lexicon will prove, the word in Greek, while it can refer literally to firstborn, comes to be used of anyone who is in a special position, either a position of special closeness to a father or a king, or a relationship of superiority to followers.  Cf. Ps 89:27, where God says of the Davidic King "I will appoint him my firstborn" (NIV).  Obviously, a literal meaning of firstborn won't do here, and the meaning is that God will highly exalt him.  This is the meaning here; Jesus is in an exalted position over creation, because he is in fact the creator.[7]

Also, Jesus is called "the image of the invisible God."  This word translated "image" means in context "exact representation".  In other words, in Jesus the invisible God has become visible (Cf. Heb 1:3 and Jn 14:9).  You may be interested to know, by the way, that in the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity, these were key verses which informed the church fathers.  They saw these verses speaking of the equality of the Son with the Father, yet a term such as "image" suggesting a different person.

The pamphlet also discusses Col 1:15ff and its relationship to Proverbs 8.  I fully believe that there is a relationship, and that Prov 8 does prefigure Christ in a general way.  Christ is the perfect fulfillment of wisdom, the Word of God.  But the primary teaching of Proverbs 8 is not about Jesus, but about wisdom.  Wisdom is like this, therefore seek it.  Seek God's wisdom.  Paul picks up on this language, and points out that Jesus is the Wisdom incarnate (Cf. I Cor 1:24).  The point I am making is that Prov 8 is only an indirect reference to the Messiah.  It can function as an analogy helping us to understand what Jesus is like, but the analogy doesn't hold true at every point.  In fact, the language of Col 1 suggests the opposite conclusion to what this pamphlet teaches.  The OT must be interpreted in the light of the NT.

In Rev 3:14, the Greek word translated "beginning" (arche - incorrectly transliterated arkhe in the pamphlet) can bear several senses, depending on the context.  It can mean "province" (an area which is ruled), "rule" (the abstract concept) or  "beginning", either in the sense of "the beginning of a book" or "that which begins" i.e., source.  Considering the close identification of Jesus with the Father in Rev (Cf. Rev. 1:8 with 1:17), and passages like Jn 1:3 and Col 1:16f, many translators (and I agree with them) feel that it is this last sense which is appropriate here (Cf. NIV Rev 3:14).

A number of OT scholars have suggested that Gen 1:26, and so forth, where the first person plural is used, is a plural of majesty, or perhaps Jehovah addressing the heavenly court.  And certainly if the NT had not been written this would be a possibili­ty.  But one question: whose image are we created in?  According to Gen 1:27, it is his, that is God's, image, singular.  If the plural of 1:26 includes Jesus as a lesser being, are we also created in the image of another created being?  How can "our" image and "his" image be reconciled?  According to the pamphlet's interpreta­tion, "Let us make man in my image would make sense, but not our image.  In the light of NT revelation, in which the Father and the Son are equally God but distinct persons, such a "contra­diction" is easily reconciled.

In the following sections, much could be resolved if we remember that Jesus is both fully human and fully God, one person, yet without confusing (or mixing up) his human nature and his divine nature.  Jesus' humanity does not lessen his deity (in him dwells bodily all the fullness of deity - Col 2:9) nor does his deity make him any less human.  We might look at it this way: Jesus, fully God, took on to himself everything that was fully human.[8]  As a result, each nature of Jesus has properties which are peculiar to that nature.  Therefore, as man, Jesus could be tempted.  And Scripture never says that he could have fallen.  What was required was a "second Adam" (Rom 5; I Cor 15) who could be the perfect representative as the first Adam was the imperfect representative.  As all men are fallen in Adam so all men live in Christ, because Christ was perfectly obedient.  This was what was required.  Therefore, whether or not he could have fallen is irrelevant, though I believe that Jesus was predestined to succeed.  This does not make his temptation and his suffering any less real!

In fact, what was required is that the mediator be acceptable to both God and man.  As a human being, we can be "in Christ" even as we were "in Adam."  As God, Christ can perfectly represent God in the transaction of salvation.  Rather than making him too big a mediator, the fact that he is the God-man makes him the perfect mediator, because both parties are equally represented.  Remember, sin is an offense toward an infinite God, and that infinite God must be represented perfectly in the mediation.  In Jesus, man is perfectly represented to God and God is perfectly represented to man.

Just a few words on the next section.  Both Vine and Kittel (if quoted correctly) are on the wrong track with the meaning of "only-begotten."  The compound elements are as suggested, but checking the lexicons will show that by the time the NT was written the term has come simply to mean "unique."  Also, in the ancient church, the theologians came to the conclusion that "begotten" did not mean "created", that in fact it meant "eternal generation" so that the obvious scriptural truth of the uncreated nature of Jesus would be preserved.  Also, the human analogy, like all analogies when pressed too far, loses its validity if pushed.  Sure, a human father precedes a son, and for a time that son is in an "inferior" position to the father.  But he might grow up to be smarter and stronger than his father, and have greater accomplishments to his credit.  The fact that Jesus is called the Son and the Father the Father shows that they are indeed different persons.  It also suggests that the closest analogy to their relationship in the Trinity is the relationship of Father and Son (more on this below).  But other Scriptures inform us as to their equality in essence/being.

As to whether Jesus claimed to be God, we will examine this under the later chapter "What about Trinity 'Proof Texts?'"  But what does the pamphlet mean by citing Jn 1:18 in this context?  It seems to be saying that Jesus is not God because no on has ever seen God, but the very next words in the verse assert that Jesus has seen him (and hence can reveal him).  Perhaps they mean that since no one has seen God, and they have seen Jesus, that Jesus is therefore not God.  Yet seeing Jesus is the same as seeing God (Jn 14:9; Col 1:15; Heb 1:1-3; cf. Jn 20:28).

 

IS GOD ALWAYS SUPERIOR TO JESUS?

 

I note that in this section a number of Scriptures are cited out of context and a number of others which give a different perspective are not cited at all.  First of all, a few general comments.

In the first subsection, "Jesus Distinguished from God" had the writer(s) kept in mind the fundamental definition of the Trinity, he would not have written this.  Jesus is a different person than the Father.  He shares the same nature and substance, but as a separate person he can speak to the Father and be spoken too; he can (and does) have a relationship with the Father that involves "I" and "you".  Saying that Jesus is the same person as the Father is a heresy known as modalism or monarchianism (advanced in ancient times by such people as Sabellius).  One God in being, he is three persons who have relationships with each other.  The Scriptures quoted are simply evidence that Jesus is a separate person.  They prove, as it were, one half of the Trinity doctrine, that Jesus is a separate person.  In forming a doctrine, all of the scriptural data must be examined.  Many verses, some already examined, point to the equality of the Son (and the Spirit) with the Father.[9]

In fact, the next subsection gives insight into the nature of the relationship of the Father and the Son, though not into their being.  Remember what was said above, that the closest analogy of the relationship between Jesus and the Father is the relationship of Son to Father.  As one being, one essence or substance, they are equal in power, eternity and glory.  They are equally worthy of worship.  But in terms of their relationship, as this relationship has been revealed to us in their saving activity toward us, there is an order.  Jesus submits to the Father, and the Spirit submits to them both.  This has nothing to do with their deity; it has everything to do with their relationship as persons.  And of course, this "division of labor" implies no contradic­tion of will whatsoever.  Subchristian medieval catholic theology (as expressed in a variety of passion plays) sometimes portrays God the Father as reluctantly persuaded by Jesus to forgive sinners.  Nothing could be farther from the truth!  In fact, Scriptures such as Jn 5:19; 6:38 and 7:16 do not prove that Jesus is inferior to the Father (though they do suggest his willing submission to and willing dependence on the Father); rather the emphasis is on the unity of will between the Father and Jesus.  Jesus is the one who knows the Father's will better than anyone else, and who does the Father's will without question.  In fact, at least one implication (and, contra Calvin, I think there are more implications) of Jn 10:30 is that Jesus and the Father are absolutely united in will and purpose.  To summarize the argument, there is no contradiction between Jesus' equality with the Father in terms of his being and his willingness to submit in the person of the Son.  The Scriptures quoted by the pamphlet do not prove that the persons of the Godhead are not equal, they simply prove that there is an order in their relationships as they relate to humanity.[10] 

It is true that Jesus is viewed as God's servant, as the Scripture quoted in this section prove.  But note, as the argument above suggests, that service does not mean inequality (Phil. 2:5-11).  An employer and employee might be equal in intelligence, they might be equal before the law, but one chooses voluntarily to serve the other.  Moreover, in the context of prayer, how are Christians instructed to pray?  Scriptures such as Jn 14:12 indicate that we are to pray in the name of Jesus.  To pray in the name of a god, in ancient times, is to pray according to his will, purpose and authority.  So closely related are the will, purpose and authority of Jesus and the Father that to pray in the name of Jesus is equivalent to praying in the name of the Father. 

Much of what was said above, particularly with reference to the incarnation and the relationship of the persons pertains to this next subsection.  As a human being, Jesus could pray as a human being.  As the Son, the second person of the Trinity, he could submit to the Father, the first person, without compromising his equality with the Father.  It was the man Jesus who died, not the second person of the Trinity, and it was the sinless human spirit of Jesus that he committed to the Father.  It was the human Jesus who experienced the total wrath of God revealed from heaven so that his people might experience instead eternal life.  Scripture does not give us all the details as to how these truths fit together: it simply gives us the data and invites us to confess with Thomas concerning Jesus "My Lord and my God".

The study of the miracles that Jesus performs is a fascinating one.  Jesus does more and greater miracles than any of the other prophets and than the apostles (who are Christ's post-resurrection representatives, empowered by the Spirit).[11]  Miracles are meant to reveal, and in the case of Jesus, particularly to reveal the presence of the kingdom of God with Jesus as the King.  I believe that the way Jesus does the miracles he does and the types of miracles he does prove that he is the ultimate prophet, priest and king (and thus indirectly point to his deity), but I would have to write a paper many times longer than this one to prove it.  As one example, you might want to consider Mark 2:1-12, where Jesus, by healing the paralytic, proves that he has the prerogative of forgiving sins, something no other prophet or apostle ever claimed, because this power, as the Jews rightly noted, belonged only to God.

In this subsection, "Jesus Had Limited Knowledge", I merely reference you back to the discussions above on the incarnation.  In his human nature, Jesus could have limited knowledge.  Nobody really knows all the details about how the two natures of Jesus relate, only that there is no intermixture even though they are combined in one person.[12]  As truly human, Jesus could also grow in obedience, though note that in this growth Jesus never sinned.  With regard to Revelation 1:1, the fact that Father is pictured as giving the revelation does not necessarily imply that the Son didn't know about this revelation; it simply pictures the Father as commission­ing the Son to pass on that revelation.  We've already noted how in the Gospel of John the Son is pictured as having perfect knowledge and perfect agreement with the Father's will. 

In the next section, consider what Jesus' humility meant.  As God, he becomes human.  He does this to redeem his sinful people from an eternity of separation from God.  As Phil 2 puts it, he suffered even to the point of the most humiliating death possible in the ancient world, a death reserved for slaves and the worst sorts of criminals, death on a "torture stake."  His exaltation has to be seen in terms of his humiliation.  It is all bound up in what the incarnation means.  In the exaltation, Jesus receives back all the honor and privileges that he voluntarily gave up to become a man.  Though we don't have time to explore the connection here, there is a thread of biblical thought (seen particularly in the Gospels and Acts) which links Jesus' exaltation particularly to his office of Messiah as the Davidic King.  From this perspective (see e.g. Mt 28:18-20 cf. Ps 2) Jesus exaltation is seen as his enthrone­ment, his reception of the crown rights over his people and ultimately the universe.  In Paul, as we've seen, his exaltation is seen in contrast to his humiliation,  and in Hebrews[13] it is viewed in terms of his heavenly session (seated at the right hand of God).  Both of the latter therefore emphasize Jesus' equality with the Father, whereas the Gospels and Acts emphasize his fulfillment of the Davidic Kingship.  I note that in the comment on Heb 9:24 the pamphlet once again accuses Christians of being modalists.  Jesus is not the same person as the Father; he is nevertheless one God with him.

I would like to see a copy of this article from the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library.  We've already answered many of the charges it makes, and will answer them more fully in our examina­tion of the Scriptural data below.  If the article is cited correctly, then we will see that the Bible refutes it.  I also suspect that the scholar denies the truth of Scripture in general. I Cor 15:24 is another Scripture that reveals that Jesus is in a relationship with the Father that includes order and distribution, and even something similar to what we call submission, but this does not challenge his equality with the Father which is taught in other passages of Scripture.  The issue of whether or not Jesus claimed to be God will be examined in more detail below (and has been partially looked at above).

I do, however, want to comment briefly on Jn 14:28.  We have noticed before in John how Jesus submits to the Father and obeys him, but this does not contradict who he is in his being.  "The Father is greater than I" must be understood in this context.  In terms of their present position, the Son in his humiliation, the Father still in heaven, the Father may be considered greater.  The Father's glory is in the Spiritual realm unveiled.  The Son has hidden his glory until his exaltation.  And as the Son has chosen, from all eternity, to submit to his Father, the Father may be called greater.  This does not make him any less God, any more than a colonel who obeys a general is any less human.  In being he is just as human as the general, but the general is greater due to his position and office.  So the Son is no less God than his Father.

 

THE HOLY SPIRIT - GOD'S ACTIVE FORCE

 

We have talked quite a bit so far about human analogies that must be used to understand divine truth.  The analogy of the father and son are a primary analogy used to help us understand the relationship of Jesus and the Father (though Scripture uses other analogies as well).  For understanding the Spirit, Scripture uses a number of different analogies, perhaps because the Spirit has fewer items in creation which correspond to him in a direct way.  It is true that the Hebrew and Greek terms for "spirit" originally referred to breath or wind, perhaps viewing God's Spirit in his power and unpredictability (cf. Jn 3:8), but they have lost that connotation when applied to God's Spirit.[14]

In fact, I have no problem characterizing the Spirit of God as God's active force.  It is certainly used that way in Scripture.  When God accomplishes something Scripture often pictures him as doing it with the involvement of the Spirit.  However, I would say that the Spirit is more than simply an impersonal force.  It is the Person who particularly applies God's power in a variety of situations.

If we examine all the Scriptural data in context, we are forced to come to the conclusion that God's Spirit is in fact a person.  It is true that the writers of Scripture sometimes use the literary device of personification to communicate truth in an especially vivid way, and the pamphlet quotes some of those Scriptures.  However, a comparison between the way such things as sin or wisdom is personified and the way in which the Scripture (and particularly the NT)[15] speaks of the Spirit will demonstrate that the Spirit is not simply personified in a literary way, but is actually viewed in a personal way, i.e. as a person.

For example, sin is pictured in a variety of ways in Scripture, and compared to rulers and robbers (or demons, as the NEB has it), as the pamphlet correctly notes.  However, it is obvious that these are just comparisons.  Sin is never treated consistently as a person. The Holy Spirit, however, is.  This comes out especially clearly in the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles.  Read carefully John chapters 14-16.  In 14:15-17 and 26, The Spirit is shown to be the replacement of Jesus.  Instead of Jesus, the church is going to have the Spirit.  We know that Jesus is personal; the parallel strongly argues for a personal replacement.  How is the Spirit described?  Don't just look at the nouns - though Counselor (NIV; NWT "helper") is a very personal term - but look at the verbs.  The Spirit can be accepted, he can be seen, and he can be known.  Of course, so may abstract concepts, such as the Gospel, but the Spirit can also remain in us and we in him (this is identical to our relationship with Jesus: John 15:4).  This is all language used of personal relationship.  In v 26, the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father (even as Jesus was sent) teaches and brings things to mind, even as Jesus all along has taught the disciples (in fact v 27 shows that it is Jesus' teaching of which the Spirit will remind them).  In 15:26 the Spirit testifies of Jesus, even as the disciples are also instructed to testify.  The Greek may be translated "give witness or testimony", something that only a person is capable of doing.

Much the same may be observed in chapter 16:5-15.  The helper comes even as Jesus goes, and Jesus sends this helper even as he was sent.  What does he do when he comes?  He convicts (NWT "gives convincing evidence") the world.  The word so translated refers to supplying evidence which results in a verdict of "guilty", which is again something that only a person can do.  The Spirit will also guide his disciples into all truth and speak the truth which he hears.  Only a person can both speak and hear.  It is true that he only speaks that which he hears, but this is the same as Jesus, who only reveals what the Father reveals and does the Father's will perfectly, as discussed above.  Again we see that the Spirit is precisely parallel in his function with regard to the Church as Jesus.  Note that at the end of this passage, we have a powerful testimony to the deity of Jesus as well.  The Spirit literally will glorify Jesus.  While this at least means that he will glorify Jesus by revealing him as he is, the use of the term elsewhere and the following verse indicate that the reference is deeper than this (though it certainly includes this).  The Spirit will make known Jesus' glory, a glory which in turn Jesus shares with the Father, because all things which belong to the Father belong also to Jesus, including the glory which belongs to the Father.  Yet we know that Jehovah shares his glory with no one (Is 42:8; Cf. Jn 17).[16]  Again, only a person can glorify another person, and only a personal being can receive and declare, but the Spirit does all these things.  Nor is there any suggestion here that the language is intended figuratively.

Does that sound like an impersonal force?  Yes, the Spirit is often compared to impersonal things, but Jehovah in the OT is compared to a rock, or a chicken that protects her flock.  This does not mean he is these things, or, for example, that he cannot speak because he is like a rock, but rather each metaphor emphasiz­es one or two important truths about God.  So it is with the Holy Spirit.

Scripture teaches us important truth about the Spirit by these analogies.  But Scripture also gives us truth about the Spirit which is more direct, such as the passages we have been consider­ing.  Another passage you may want to examine (and I note is left out in the pamphlet's consideration) is I Cor 2:9-16

 

However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" - but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.  The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.  For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?  In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.  We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.  This is what we speak...in words taught by the Spirit....  The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him...

 

Notice again the verbs of which the Spirit is subject.  He searches, he knows and he teaches.  Note the objects of especially the first and second verbs.  What does the Spirit search?  Even the deep things of God.  What does the Spirit know?  Even the thoughts of God.  As infinite as God is, the Spirit of God has exhaustive knowledge of his innermost thoughts.  Once again, the Spirit is presented to us as a person, yet a person who is as intimately related to God as the spirit within a man is related to a human person, and as man's spirit is co-extensive with him, so is God's Spirit co-extensive with him.  And you might want to ask this question: is man's spirit an impersonal force?

 

Another interesting passage in this regard is II Cor 3:17-18. 

Now the Lord [NWT Jehovah] is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.  And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever increasing glory which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

 

The expression here is different from John 4:24, where Jesus claims that "God is Spirit" (without the article, in either English or Greek).  Nor is Paul confusing the persons of the Father and the Spirit.  Rather, he is making such a close identification of their work as to say that when the Spirit works, Jehovah works, and when Jehovah works, so does the Spirit.  In other words, the Spirit is a practical synonym of Jehovah, and Jehovah a synonym of the Spirit.

One more, this time from the synoptic Gospels.  In Matt 12:31-32 Jesus says:

 

And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.  Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

 

This is the famous "unforgivable sin" passage, and in context this blasphemy seems to be attributing the works of the Spirit to another spirit, Satan, and utterly denying the Kingdom of God.  This is certainly an extreme form of blasphemy.  But in Scripture, how is blasphemy defined?  Consider Exod 20:3 "You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way..."(NWT).  That's as good a definition of blasphemy as any, and the case in Matt 12 is simply a concrete realization of this.  Blasphemy is saying false things about God, but in the Matt 12 passage, it is saying false things about the Spirit.  Compare this with Acts 5:1-11, where lying to the Holy Spirit is equal to lying to God, and bears the penalty of death.[17]

There are a number of other passages that could be considered, but time is limited.  Some will be discussed in the last section below.  One thing I want to point out.  Using the logic of this pamphlet, I can argue that Satan is not a spirit, but an impersonal force of evil within us.  It's true that Scripture sometimes uses personification to talk of Satan, but that is only a literary device meant to show us how powerful this force really is.  Therefore Satan is not an external adversary, but a principle within ourselves which must be combated, the principle of evil.  However, most JW's and Christians will find this argument uncon­vincing, and will point out a number of Scriptures in which Satan is unambigu­ously presented as a personal spirit-being by the words used to describe him and by the verbs of which he is subject (though no where does Scripture come right out and say "Satan is a personal spirit-being").  Scripture similarly describes the Spirit of God as a person who is equal to God the Father and Jesus the Son.

 

Note on the pronoun "he" in reference to the Spirit

 

The pamphlet's comment on p. 22 under "The 'Helper'" (first para.) is correct as far as it goes.  Greek nouns have something that English nouns have lost: grammatical gender.  There are in Greek masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns.  In English we do not have these categories: rather we have personal and impersonal nouns.  People (and sometimes animals) are considered personal and referred to with gender qualified pronouns "he/she" and so forth; things do not and are referred to by the impersonal, gender free "it" (ships as "she" is a holdover from the time when English nouns did have grammatical gender).  The problem is that often impersonal nouns in Greek will be masculine or feminine, but in translation we have to render them with the impersonal pronoun in English (a fact which gives beginning Greek students no end of trouble).  For example, "truth" in Greek is grammatically feminine, but must be referred to in English as "it" (though the Greek pronoun will be feminine).  "Trinitarian translators" are not trying to obscure the use of the neuter pronoun by translating it as "he."  It is only grammatically neuter, not necessarily impersonal.  Because of the strongly personal descriptions of the Holy Spirit in passages such as John 14-16, it is felt necessary to use a personal pronoun in English (and since God is usually described as masculine, "he" is em­ployed).  It is the context and the thing the pronoun refers to which must determine its translation into English, not the grammatical gender.

 

 

What About Trinity "Proof Texts"?

 

Hopefully by now, even if you do not yet agree with the biblical teaching of the Trinity, you at least realize that the doctrine of the Trinity rests on more than just a few proof texts.  We have looked at a number of passages which are not normally considered proof texts and seen how consonant they are with a trinitarian understand­ing.  Before reading any farther, why not stop and pray that the Almighty Jehovah God will by his Spirit grant you true understanding as you consider from a different perspective the Scriptures discussed in the pamphlet? 

As to the sources quoted by the pamphlet, I could easily assemble a host of commentators and scholars who disagree with their interpretations, at least as cited here.  Rather, let us examine the texts cited, and judge each case by its own merits.

 

2 Cor 13:13 and I Cor 12:4-6

 

Look at what is actually being said in these passages.  In the first passage, there are six nouns; three are in the nominative, or subject case, and three are in the genitive case  (which in English is often translated with the preposition "of")[18] and used to modify the three nominative, or subject nouns.  The three nomina­tive nouns are grace, love and fellowship.  The three genitives are the Lord Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.  In this particular instance, the three genitive nouns are used to indicate the source of the three nominative nouns.  Jesus is pictured as the source of grace (elsewhere in Scripture it often speaks of the grace of God); God is the source of love, and the Spirit the source of fellowship.  Note that the three pairs of nouns and genitives are grammatical­ly parallel and equal.  Parallelism in the Scrip­tures is one way of using different clauses to define each other.  In other words, by using this parallel construction in his closing benediction, Paul is essentially saying that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are equal.  The blessings of grace, love and fellowship come equally through each one.  In no way are these three subordi­nated to one another.[19] Similar parallel constructions deal with the Father and the Son and may be found, for example, in Paul's greetings, such as at Eph 1:2 "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."  That word "and" is quite telling.  It does not say "through" the Lord Jesus Christ or use some other subordinating word.  Rather, it puts the two on equal footing as the source of grace.

In I Cor 12:4-6, the situation is slightly different but very similar.  The Spirit, the Lord, and God are all equally involved in the distribution of spiritual gifts among the Corinthians.  Each seems to have his own sphere of activity in gifts, ministries, and workings.[20]  They are distinguished by their activities, but are put on an equal plane.  Each person of the Godhead is involved in some aspect of the application of salvation (and gifts are just one aspect of salvation) to the people of God.  It is the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God who each has his own particular work to do with regard to spiritual gifts.  It is possible that the last phrase, "the same God who works all things in all" is a summary of the above, so that the phrase actually modifies (in sense) all three persons, although God the Father is particularly responsible for whatever "workings" are.  There is a similar passage in Eph 4:4-6, where Paul is discussing the unity of the church.  There is one Spirit, one Lord and one God, and a careful study will indicate that he is again using his terminology in a parallel fashion to indicate equality.

 

Matthew 28:18-20

 

The pamphlet is correct.  This verse does not give a proposi­tional statement concerning the Trinity any more than any other verse in Scripture does.  It does, however, add to the evidence supplied by the rest of Scripture.  Earlier in the pamphlet, in reference to the Spirit, the argument is made that "name" is equivalent to "authority".  This completely ignores the immediate context.  Often enough "name" can have this implication.  We are instructed to pray in the name of Jesus; a Roman soldier might have given commands in the name of Caesar; a modern policeman might tell a thief to "halt in the name of the law."  But notice the word just preceding "into", "baptize".  The nations are to be baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  One of the major implications of baptism in the NT is repentance; another is entering into a personal relationship with God.  "Baptize into the name of" therefore means to "cause to enter into a relationship with" what or whom the subject is baptized into, and this relation­ship is one characterized by wholehearted commitment to obedience; it implies a shift of allegiance.  The preposition translated "into" when used in such contexts indicates movement into the sphere of relation­ships.  Hence the word "name" here doesn't mean authority, but is used to represent the person.  The only conclu­sion we can draw in the light of the linguistic evidence is that the Father, the Son and the Spirit share one name.  The believer is equally baptized into all three.  Let me suggest that in the OT the name that would be used is "Jehovah."

 

Matthew 3:16 and I John 5:7 (KJV)

 

I don't have a lot to say here, except that in the light of all the other evidence in Scripture for the Trinity it is difficult not to see the Trinity in a passage such as this.  By itself, the passage does not prove the Three are one; this must be inferred from other passages such as discussed above and below.  The descent of the Holy Spirit is the public anointing of Jesus for his ministry; it is the Spirit's empowering Jesus for ministry much as he empowered the prophets of old.  Remember that Jesus is also functioning in the very human office of the Messiah; as God he had a relationship with the Spirit from all eternity, but in his humility, in the offices of prophet, priest and king, it was necessary for him to identify with his people and receive a public anointing and approval for his ministry.

I agree that I John 5:7 (KJV) is a much later addition.  It appears only in the Vulgate (the ancient Latin translation) and a few other ancient translations.  The only Greek manuscripts in which it appears were both copied in the 16th century, apparently so that Erasmus, the first editor of a printed Greek text, would include the passage in the second edition of his Greek testament (he had refused to do so in the first edition because he could find no Greek manuscript with the verse; the Catholic church then "discov­ered" two such manuscripts!).

 

John 10:30

 

There is no doubt that at the very least in this passage Jesus' unity with the Father in terms of thought and purpose is underscored.  This is easily discerned from the context.  But note that the unity which is suggested is unity of thought and purpose concerning the saving activity of God.  In v. 28 it is Jesus, not the Father, who gives eternal life.  The Father's hand and Jesus' hand function the same.  What the Father has given Jesus is greater than all other things.  All of these ideas lead up to the statement that "the Father and I are one."  While this statement, as Calvin rightly observes, does not directly state that the two share one essence, it does, from the context leading up to it, suggest strongly an equality between the Father and Son concerning their respective roles in the salvation and preservation of God's people, which in turn implies the deity of both.

The writer of the pamphlet completely misinterprets the following verses.  He claims that in 31-38 Jesus denies the Jews interpretation.  But does he?  A careful reading will reveal that Jesus' response is much subtler than this.  He first of all points out that his works are good, which of course implies that the doer is good and worthy of no punishment such as the Jews want to inflict.  In response to their charge that Jesus is blaspheming by making himself out to be equal with God (they may have been thinking that Jesus was setting himself up as a rival God) Jesus does not give a straightforward "no, your wrong, I wasn't saying anything of the kind, I just meant that God was my Father because he created me a few thousand years ago".  Instead he gives an answer that is designed to make them think about what his equality with (yet distinction from) the Father might mean.  He argues from the lesser to the greater.  If the scripture can call mere humans "gods"[21] then what about the one who has an absolutely unique relationship with the Father, a relationship best designated by the term son?  The Father has set him apart and sent him into the world to perform has saving office.  In fact, the Father dwells in the Son and the Son in the Father.  Again, Jesus gets back to the fundamental equality that was suggested by the context above.  And once again the Jews get the point and seek to kill him, for any mere man claiming equality with God is blaspheming, and must receive the death penalty.  While sonship in itself does not necessarily imply equality, the language used of Jesus' sonship here and elsewhere strongly suggests a uniqueness and an equality that exists only between these two.

John 17 has been dealt briefly with above.  Here I will remind the reader that the unity of the Father and the Son is pictured as both the model for the believers' unity and also that which actually brings it about.  Another way of saying this is to say that our unity is analogical of the unity found within the Trinity, but like all analogies, is not identical with it.  When believers are dwelling together in harmony and love, that unity should reflect who God is in his own unity (Jn 17:20-23; cf. Jn 13:34-35).

 

John 5:18

 

The answer to this is very similar to the above, so that we will not dwell on this passage long.  First of all, the language of dependence does not necessarily suggest inequality in terms of being; it does suggest strongly voluntary submission, a role of service which the Son eternally and willingly has in relationship to the Father.  Jesus wants the Jews to realize that he is not claiming to be the Father nor is he claiming to be a separate God.  He wants them to think about this relationship.  In fact, Jesus answer stresses a relationship so close that we have to say for all practical purposes that Jesus is God.  The Father reveals all things to the Son.  Whatever the Father does Jesus does.  The Son raises the dead to life even as the Father.  The Father has entrusted all judgment to the Son.  Then observe the concluding clause of v. 23:  "that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father."  All of these parallel statements reveal that the Father and Son function in parallel and equal fashion.  Again, Jesus stresses not only dependence on his Father (he is a separate person) but functional equality (He does the sorts of things which in the OT are particularly reserved for Jehovah).  And not only do they function in an equal fashion; they are to be treated in an equal fashion (cf. Is 42:8).

 

Philippians 2:6

 

The pamphlet has correctly argued the point of the passage.  The Christians in Philippi are to have the same humility that Christ exhibited.  How remarkable was this humility?  Jesus existed in the "shape" (Gr.,  morphe) of God.  He did not consider equality with God either a) something to be grasped or b) something to be held on to.  Option "a" would look at things in terms of his humiliation.  There is a sense, discussed above, in which during his incarnation Jesus could say "the Father is greater than I".  Jesus did not grasp for that kind of equality but willingly endured being treated as a mere man, a slave, who suffered a slave's torture and death.  He had all the rights and privileges of God, but did not grasp for them.  With regard to option "b" this translation would merely emphasize the equality which he never gave up: He was always equal to the Father in being, but he voluntarily submitted himself in the incarnation.  He did not need to hold on to the outward trappings of deity.  By the way, the quote from Martin does not support the pamphlet's point (and I suspect, neither does the quote from the Expositor's Greek Testament).  Martin, a convinced trinitarian, is arguing for option "a".

There is much more in this passage that we could discuss.  Entire books can and have been written about it.  But here note the last verse of the passage, 2:10-11.  Here language written by Isaiah of Jehovah is directly attributed to the Son — Is 45:23.

 

John 8:58 and 1:1

 

Entire books have been written about these passages also.  I am going to make just a few comments and then recommend one such book.

I am not so sure that John 8:58 has as its background Ex 3:14 only.  You might want to compare Ps 90:2, where the grammatical structure is identical in the Greek (LXX) translation of the OT, which is also a faithful rendering of the Hebrew text.  Part of the background may also be the "I am" statements of Isaiah, such as 41:4; 43:10; 46:4 and 52:6.  In all of these, the LXX translates the Hebrew ani hu with the Greek ego eimi.  The main point is that the terminology is applied to Jehovah God in the OT, but Jesus applies it to himself in the New.

As to the translation of ego eimi, these are very simply the Greek words "I am" something a beginning Greek student learns in the first chapters of his textbook.  Jesus is obviously teaching his pre-existence here, with language which in the OT is applied to Jehovah exclusively.  Some translators have used the English perfect to translate this, feeling that this better captures the force of Jesus' eternal pre-existence.  By the way, the Jews would not have stoned Jesus for simply claiming pre-existence or even antiquity; they would stone him for claiming to be equal to God, and thus abusing the name of Jehovah.

John 1:1 is another rich verse that would require many pages of writing.  Briefly, a few points:

The wording of the verse is designed to make us think of Gen 1:1ff.  Jesus is the creator in John as Jehovah is in Genesis.  "In the beginning" means that those present at creation preceded all created things.  Otherwise, we have to imagine a creation of which Scripture does not speak.

The lack of the article before "God" in the final clause "and the Word was God" is designed to indicate that the Word is a separate person from God listed in the second clause ("the Word was with God") but is still equal to him.  He is as much God as God with whom he had pre-existence.

Although certain beings in Scripture are sometimes called "gods" it is obvious that this is either a false attribution or some metaphorical comparison.  Isaiah chapters 40-50 make it abundantly clear that the term God is safely applied only to Jehovah. 

In John 20:20, it is almost certainly a form of address.  An exclamation would almost certainly go into the accusative case, and the vocative has for all intents and purposes dropped out.  The presence of the article with the nominative case in such contexts almost always indicates the form of address in koine Greek.  John is calling Jesus "My Lord and my God" a combination which in the LXX always refers to Jehovah (and often translates the tetragramma­ton).

These are just a few a few notes to stimulate your thinking on these verses.  Let me recommend this book: Robert M. Bowman Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ and the Gospel of John (Baker, 1989).  The commentaries by D.A. Carson (Eerdmans, 1990) and Beasley-Murray (Word, 1987) are also very helpful.

 

I am in wholehearted agreement with the theme of the last section of the pamphlet.  Let us worship Jehovah on his own terms, as he has revealed himself.  The above should help you to realize that his revelation of himself is far richer and deeper than you have been taught.

 


[1]. The claim that man has free will, that God did not make robots, may have some merit to it, but it does not solve the problem.  To state it in different terms, how can God "permit" evil and still remain good?  If you see a crime being committed, and allow that crime to continue, you are responsible.  Why, or how is God not responsible?  Scripture makes abundantly clear that he is not, but it does not answer the questions of how and why.

[2]. The Biblical teaching of predestination is simply one aspect of its teaching on God's sovereignty.  What God purposes he always accomplishes, and no individual or group can frustrate God's purposes.  Cf. Is 55:10-11; Jer 1:9-10; Mt 13:13-15; Lk 50:50-55; Phil. 1:6 for different perspectives on God's ability to bring his purposes to pass.

[3]. The stress on God's oneness in the OT is primarily due to the pagan, polytheist environment of the Ancient Near East.  If you study the passages which talk about God's oneness (such as the Shema in Dt 6) you will see that the emphasis is on God's unique­ness and singularity, not on his nature.

[4]. Consider Gen 18, where it is quite confusing exactly who Abraham is addressing.  In Ex 24:9-11, in what sense do the Israelites see God?  Consider also Is 7:14 and 9:6.  A number of other texts could be cited, and some will be considered below.

 

[5]. In other words, if Jesus as Son of God is infinite, he can do more than one thing at a time, so that running the universe while incarnate in Jesus wouldn't be a problem.  I have seen machine shop workers keep several different complex operations going at the same time.  How much more an infinite God?

[6]. Note that your own organization produces many publications which restate what the writers see Scripture saying.  You use these as guides to study the Bible.  Creeds and confessions are really the same thing: statements concerning what the Bible says.  They should be used as summaries and guides to study Scripture, but not as a substi­tute for it.

[7]. Note the parallel statement in v. 18, that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead.  Enoch and Elijah were taken directly into glory, never experiencing death, and Moses was perhaps resurrected (this is a possible inference from the Transfiguration - Cf. Mk 9), so that he is not literally the first one to partake of resurrec­tion life (Cf. also Matt 27:51-53).  But the resurrection of all is dependent on him (I Cor 15).  The following clause emphasizes his preeminence, not his priority in time.

[8]. We arrive at these conclusions much the same way as we derive our understanding of the Trinity, by comparing a number of different Scriptures.  Scripture speaks in a number of places of the deity of Jesus (see the references cited and explained throughout these notes), but it also speaks frequently of his humanity (he retains this humanity even in his resurrected state - Lk 24:36-43). 

[9]. Mark 10:18 does not support the contention made.  As far as the "rich young ruler" was concerned, Jesus was a human teacher (the full revelation of Jesus' person was just beginning).  Jesus, in typical middle eastern teaching style, rebukes him and makes him think about what he is really saying.  He does not deny his deity; he rather wants the young man to reflect on who God is, especially in relationship to what he is asking.

 

[10]. I have been stressing how they relate in reference to their saving relationship to us because that is the context in which Scripture does so.  This relationship is analogical, i.e. by way of analogy.  This is the only way we can begin to understand it.  The closest analogy between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity is the analogy of Father and Son.  The Spirit will be discussed below.

[11]. In other words, the miracles done by the apostle's are really the miracles of Christ, done by the Spirit through Christ's representatives the apostles.  They are used to validate the message of Christ as it is announced throughout the world.  The miracles of the prophets, used to validate their message, also look forward to the time when Christ will be present in power.  I have not proved this, but careful study will show the assertion to be true.

[12]. I would say that Jesus, as a human being, had not had this revealed to him.  I think it is fair to say that the human nature of Christ is finite, and therefore is limited in knowledge to what the divine nature reveals to him.  This could also apply to Rev 1:1 discussed below, though I don't think it does.

[13]. I note that the writer(s) of the pamphlet makes Paul the author of Hebrews.  Actually the epistle is anonymous, and scholars disagree over who the author was.

[14]. A Hebrew or Greek speaker would no more have thought of "breath" or "wind" when using these terms in these contexts than you would think of breathing when you talk about your own spirit, or God as Spirit (Jn 4:24), even though the English word spirit comes from the same Latin root from which we get spiration, inspiration, and expiration.  We have to examine how the word is used, not its etymology.

 

[15]. Most of the citations of scholars in this section (with one exception) refer to the OT.  Even in the OT, there are hints as to the personality of the Spirit, though what is chiefly in view in the OT is the Spirit as God's power working his purposes in the world.  But the OT revelation is incomplete without, though never inconsistent with, the NT.  The NT must control our interpretation of the Old.  What was said above about the NT's treatment of Jesus applies also to the Spirit.

[16]. A study of the word glory in this chapter is fascinating.  It may be defined as the splendor of God's character and purpose.  So close is the union of God's people with Jesus, that they reflect this glory in a very unique way, so that we may be said to share in that glory.  The Son actually possesses the Father's glory; he is then said to give us that glory in the sense that we, as God's people, reveal his character and purpose in a special way.  It is particularly tied in with the unity of God's people.  The glory in chapter 16, however, is the glory which is peculiar to the Father and the Son, which the Spirit will reveal to God's people.

[17]. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira is very similar to the sin of Achan, who took spoils from Jericho under the ban and hid them, thus not only disobeying the ban but lying to God (Josh 7).

[18]. Where English uses word order and prepositions to indicate the use of a noun in the sentence, Greek changes the ending on the word.  The endings of the nouns are called cases.  There are four major cases in Greek: The nominative, genitive, dative and accusative.  Of these, the genitive and dative are the most fluid, and may be, according to the context, translated by any one of several prepositions in English, even when that preposition is not present in the Greek.  For more information, consult any beginning Greek grammar, such as J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, (Ontario: Macmillan, 1923),  24-25.

[19]. For that matter, which would be subordinate to the other - grace, love or fellowship?

[20]. These are probably not different types of gifts, but the same gifts viewed from the different perspective of the Father, Son and Spirit.

[21]. Theoi  in Greek and elohim in Hebrew (Ps 82:9).  There has been a great deal of discussion in the history of interpretation on exactly what elohim meant in Ps 82:6.  It is obviously a highly metaphorical application, but its precise nuance does not affect the point Jesus is making.