Chapter 6

"THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD" ⁽⁹⁾

The Messiah as a manifestation of God

Many believers in the doctrine of the trinity would accept that Jesus was a man such as we are, but insist that at the same time he was 'fully God'. Unable to explain this apparent contradiction in a way that satisfies reason, we are told that it is a mystery that should be just accepted rather than probed in an attempt to resolve the dilemma. The process by which the Messiah was allegedly both God and man is termed the 'incarnation'. Whilst this is not a scriptural word, it is derived from one that is frequently found there. The Greek for 'in flesh' (en sarki) has the Latin equivalent in carne and from this comes 'incarnate', with the same meaning. 'Flesh' in biblical usage, whilst primarily meaning the solid matter that makes up our natural bodies, extends to cover more intangible aspects such as mind and thought. Hence the references that use 'flesh' to describe all aspects of humanity, not just physical bodies (e.g. Genesis 6:12). 'Incarnation' as applied to Jesus refers to the process by which it is claimed that one component of the Eternal Trinity came to earth and took on this complete humanity in the form of the Jesus that people knew. Jesus was, according to this view, the Son of God incarnate.

In this section we look at Jesus as the Son of God and examine the Bible teaching about his sonship and its implications for the doctrine of the trinity and the incarnation.

SON OF GOD

This title occurs much less frequently than 'Son of Man', particularly in the Gospels. A comparison of the usage of the two terms shows that whilst 'Son of Man' was the preferred term when Jesus was speaking of himself, 'Son of God' was used predominantly as a form of address to Jesus. In other words 'Son of God' reflected who people saw him as, rather than whom he proclaimed himself to be.

ARE 'SON OF GOD' AND 'GOD THE SON' THE SAME?

First, the claim is virtually always made by Trinitarians that the appellation 'Son of God' indicates that Jesus was God in a trinitarian sense. In fact 'Son of God' is regarded as a direct equivalent of 'God the Son'. Quoting Gabriel's announcement of the impending birth of Jesus one writer clearly expresses this view: "The power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy one which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God [i.e., God the Son]". ⁽¹⁰⁾

No explanation or justification is given by this author for the juxtapositioning of the words. A similar line is taken by most writers who, having correctly demonstrated that Scripture speaks frequently of the Son of God, assume that they have thereby proved that it is speaking of an eternally pre-existent member of a trinity, God the Son. There is not the slightest justification for the inversion of the words. Son of God is a scriptural title used throughout the Old and New Testaments, whereas 'God the Son' is foreign to the Bible, not occurring even once. It was, moreover, never found in the writings of the early Christians for over a century after the founding of the faith.

J.D.G.Dunn, Reader in Theology at the University of Nottingham, is aware of the misunderstanding that frequently exists when using 'Son of God' in the sense propounded by the creeds:

"These credal formulations have stamped a clear and lasting impression on Christian thought of subsequent generations up to and including the present day. So much so that it is generally taken for granted ... that to confess Jesus as the 'Son of God' is to confess his deity, and very easily assumed that to say 'Jesus is the Son of God' means and always has meant that Jesus is the pre-existent, second person of the trinity, who 'for us men and our salvation became incarnate'". ⁽¹¹⁾

After this very timely warning not to read more into the phrase than was originally intended, he goes on to say that the only way to gain the meaning of the term is to find out what it meant to Jesus and the first Christians, and asks the crucial question: "What would those who first used this language about Jesus expect their hearers and readers to understand by the phrase? ⁽¹²⁾

It is refreshing to find a modern theologian advocating a course of study which seems the obvious way to arrive at an understanding of basic Christianity. It is the invariable rule adopted by the present authors.

'SON OF GOD' MEANS 'MESSIAH'

A careful reading of the New Testament shows that to a first century Christian 'Son of God' never conveyed the idea of God appearing in human form in a trinitarian sense. Dunn comments here: "Certainly 'son of God' as applied to Jesus would not necessarily have carried in and of itself the connotation of deity". ⁽¹³⁾

Rather was 'Son of God' used interchangeably with 'Messiah'. When the Messiah was promised in David's line God said of him "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (2 Samuel 7:14). This Son of God/Messiah was thenceforward expected as the one who would assume the throne of Israel, emancipate God's people and set up the literal kingdom of God on earth. At the birth of Jesus the terms of this promise were alluded to by Gabriel, clearly identifying his Messianic role and equating this with divine sonship:

"He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:32- 33).

Mary undoubtedly saw this as a promise that she would be the mother of the Messiah, who was also going to be 'Son of God'. No attempt was made to explain that the child was to be God incarnate!

Many references confirm the first century understanding that the Son of God was an equivalent term for the Messiah or Christ, with no trinitarian implications. Mark opens his record with "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). John records that early in his ministry first Andrew recognised the role of Jesus" We have found the Messiah (which means Christ)" and then Nathaniel acknowledged that Jesus was at the same time the Messiah and Son of God: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel" (John 1:41,49). Later Peter's confession, that elicited such praise from Jesus, expressed this interchangeable use of the terms: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). In the eyes of the Jewish high priest also the two terms were synonymous, for he asked Jesus at his trial "tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" (Matthew 26:63). The same expectation concerning the promised Messiah was expressed by Martha: "Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world" (John 11:27). And if any more confirmation were needed there is John's clearly stated objective in recording the miracles of Jesus: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).

Thus the 'Son of God' in first century teaching was equivalent to 'the Christ', or Messiah, with no built-in trinitarian suggestions. And on the basis that Jesus of Nazareth perfectly matched the Old Testament predictions, the early Christian preaching was also to proclaim that he was the Messiah or Son of God. Paul testified at his trial that in his preaching he had been "saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ (the Messiah) must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles" (Acts 26:22-23). In the first section of the present chapter some of the predictions concerning the Messiah were examined the 'seed' promised to Abraham, the 'prophet like Moses', the Son of David who would reign eternally on his throne in Jerusalem, the child to be born who would assume government as predicted by Isaiah, and the righteous branch from David's rootstock who would save Judah as promised by Jeremiah. In none of these is there any hint that the Messiah would be God as well as man.

"MIGHTY GOD"

But there are many other prophecies about the Messiah. Do any of these support the contention that the Son of God is in fact God the Son, or Very God, to use the trinitarian term? A frequently used passage is the well known reference in Isaiah:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called 'Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom ... the zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this" (Isaiah 9:6-7).

The full passage clearly is Messianic, looking forward to the time when the promised ruler will reign for God. What must not be done here is instantly to read the trinity into this passage, especially in view of the monotheism of the Jews to whom it was written. It is worth noting that in the original Hebrew there is no indication of the capital letters which appear in many translations. Does 'mighty god' and 'everlasting father' of necessity say that the Messiah is and always has been God? It is frequently stated in support of this assertion that the first of these titles appears to be applied to God Himself in at least one other passage (Isaiah 10:21). Does this then indicate that Isaiah regarded the Messiah as a pre-existent God, equal to the Creator Himself?

First, note the use of the future tense. The child 'will be called' by these titles; implying that they did not so describe him in Isaiah's day. This is hardly the language describing an eternally pre-existing God taking human form. Secondly, we ask whether the Jews would have understood 'mighty god' to describe the Messiah as a co-equal and co-existent person of a trinity. Certainly the original word translated 'god' does not imply this of itself. It is used of human rulers and judges, (Exodus 21:6), warriors (Exodus 15:11), angels (Psa 8:5A.V.) and the idols of the heathen (Exodus 12:12), as well as of the supreme God. ⁽¹⁴⁾  Jesus himself used 'god' in a human sense in quoting a psalm addressed to evil rulers in the past: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? (John 10:34, quoting Psalm 82:6). As shown on p.58ff the use of the word 'god' is not necessarily a reference to God Himself. It is also used of 'men of might and rank'. ⁽¹⁵⁾  Dunn, in following his path of trying to look at the new Testament through first century eyes, confirms that a wider use of the term was common:

"The language of divine sonship and divinity was in widespread and varied use in the ancient world and would have been familiar to the contemporaries of Jesus, Paul and John, in a wide range of applications. When used in reference to individual human beings it could denote anything from a righteous or pious man ... to a heavenly or semi-heavenly being, including on the way particularly kings and rulers and especially wise or gifted or inspired men". ⁽¹⁶⁾

So the use of the word 'god' to describe the Messiah does not of itself necessitate, or even indicate, membership of the Godhead.

The word translated 'mighty' is regularly used in scripture to describe a valiant man, a warrior. So The Oxford Hebrew lexicon defines 'mighty god' as a "mighty hero or divine hero, as reflecting the divine majesty". ⁽¹⁷⁾ Indeed, in confirmation of this, one translation of this passage reads "in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like" ⁽¹⁸⁾ which certainly gives no hint of a trinitarian meaning.

When did the 'child' that was to be born become the 'mighty god'? Paul tells us. He says Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power .... by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:3-4). So the Son became mighty or powerful after his resurrection, when he was invested with divine nature. He said then to his disciples "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Matthew 28:18 AV). He thus became a full manifestation of God in might and power in addition to his previous manifestation in disposition and character. There is no indication of pre-existent power. We may safely say therefore that there is nothing in the phrase 'mighty god' that suggests the Messiah was a second person of an eternal trinity taking human form.

"EVERLASTING FATHER"

Similarly this phrase is sometimes glibly quoted and given a completely unwarranted trinitarian meaning. Even a trinitarian would say that it was not the Father but the Son who assumed human flesh! The Hebrew literally means 'Father of eternity', ⁽¹⁹⁾ and is so translated in many versions. ⁽²⁰⁾ When the Jews translated this passage they rendered it 'father of the coming age'. ⁽²¹⁾ This is a very apt description of the role of Jesus, for by his redemptive work he has made possible, or 'fathered' the completed purpose of God.

But many scriptural allusions speak in a more particular sense of Christ's role as a father, without in any way having a trinitarian connotation. Isaiah in ch 53 says "when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days" (Isaiah 53:10). The New Testament, quoting Isaiah, puts a similar expression into his mouth: "Here am I, and the children God has given me", ⁽²²⁾ and speaks of him "bringing many sons to glory (Hebrews 2:10,13). These spiritual sons of Jesus are those who believe and obey him. This is the sense in which Jesus is 'the father of the future age'.

This passage has been examined in detail because it is one of the main Old Testament references used to support the doctrine of the trinity. Close examination shows that such claims do not have the backing usually assumed for them. The Messianic prophecies never suggest that the Messiah, the Son of God, was God coming in human form as envisaged by the doctrine of the incarnation.

FATHER AND SON

The very use of the terms Father and Son deny the trinitarian concept of co-eternity and co-equality between the two. A son as old as his father is a manifestly absurd concept. Jesus is described as God's "only begotten Son". Luke says this was achieved by the Father's power, the Holy Spirit, causing Jesus to be formed in the womb of Mary:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Begettal implies a beginning, and there is no hint in the narrative of Christ's birth that the event was anything other than a new life commencing. Truly, the conception of the infant was exceptional, but neither here nor in the continuing use of the terms Father and Son is there a hint that expresses the doctrine of the incarnation, or suggests that the child was already in existence.

"My Father"

A notable feature of the gospel records is the term employed by Jesus to address God: "My Father". This is an unexpected expression if the relationship is really one of equality. Especially damaging to the trinitarian view is its continued use by Jesus after his resurrection and glorification, where he repeatedly speaks of God as "my Father":

"Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17).

"I will give him power over the nations ... even as I myself have received power from my Father" (Revelation 2:27, see also 3:5,21).

Can the conventional view of equality between Father and Son be possibly read into these words? The first quotation seems to be expressing a similar relationship between God and both Jesus and his disciples. And, remember, both occasions were after Christ's resurrection and glorification. ⁽²³⁾

How did Jesus express his relationship with his Father? Was it that of an eternally pre-existent and co-equal son who was temporarily experiencing human nature? Far from it. Christ's consistent claim was that he was subordinate to God: he was the one sent, the one speaking God's words, not his own. It is revealing that the gospel of John, used so much in an attempt to justify the trinitarian position, is the gospel above others that emphasises the subordination and dependence of the Son.

"My Father is greater than I"

First, the definite statement by Jesus which of itself effectually demolishes the trinitarian claims: 

"If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

This clear affirmation of the Father's superiority has been a thorn in the side of Trinitarians since earliest times. Many ingenious circumlocutions have been used over the centuries to square it with trinitarian dogma. ⁽²⁴⁾

It is interesting to note that the 'official' trinitarian explanation has varied over the years. From the third to the fifth centuries the consensus view was that God was greater than Jesus in the sense that every father is greater than his son, yet they were equal in that they shared the same 'essence'. This then changed to the view similar to that advanced today that only during his incarnation was Jesus temporarily inferior to God. But both of these distort the obvious meaning of the words. The second view is negated by the fact that Jesus' reference goes beyond his earthly life to his ascent to the Father. Even after Jesus had gone to heaven the Father was still greater. In a similar passage Jesus re-affirms the Father's supremacy: "My Father ... is greater than all" (John 10:29). Original Christian teaching confirms that the subordinate relationship continued even at the time when Jesus was gloriously enthroned at the Father's right hand in heaven: "The head of Christ is God" says Paul (1 Corinthians 11:4). If the original Christians had set out to demonstrate that the Father was always greater than the Son, they could hardly have chosen more explicit terms.

Throughout his conversations with the Jews, Jesus was at pains to stress that he was not acting on his own authority, implying his subordination to the greater position of his Father. Carefully examine these references:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord ...". "I can do nothing on my own authority" (John 5:19,30).

"But I have not come of my own accord" (John 7:28).

"I do nothing on my own authority, but speak thus as the Father taught me" (John 8:28).

"For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak" (John 12:49).

There is clearly no hint of co-equality here.

It is true that Jesus has since been given his own power and authority, but he carefully points out that even then it is a derived authority, not an innate possession, and one that will be used after his resurrection and glorification:

"For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man" (John 5.26-27).

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18).

"Even as I myself have received power from my Father" (Revelation 2:27).

Similarly, in conformity with the express predictions of the Old Testament (e.g. the prophecy of the coming of the one like unto Moses, Deuteronomy 18:18, that we considered on pages 150 and 158), the teaching of Jesus was not his own but the Father's. When the Jews were astounded that an apparently untutored man could have such understanding, Jesus expressly stated the source of his knowledge:

"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me; if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority" (John 7:15-17).

"The word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me" (John 14:24).

It is impossible to harmonise these words with the belief that Jesus was a member of an all-knowing and co-equal divine trinity.

As well as the gospel of John, the synoptic gospels also provide evidence from Christ's own lips that he never claimed equality with God. Matthew records the request of the mother of James and John for places of honour for her sons on either side of Jesus in his kingdom. Christ's reply shows that he recognised God's higher authority:

"To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father" (Matthew 20:23).

Referring to the timing of the second coming and that future kingdom, Jesus gives another indication of lack of information that is incompatible with his being the all-knowing God:

"But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32).

If Jesus was God incarnate it is impossible to conceive of one part of an all-knowing trinity concealing information from the other. On another occasion a ruler addressed Jesus as "Good Teacher". Christ immediately replied:

"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19).

The straightforward meaning of this reply clearly indicates the superiority of the Father with regard to the Son.

"NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE"

Another strong indication in the gospel narratives of the essential distinction between God and Jesus is the fact that there was the possibility of a conflict of will between them. This is expressed in the poignant words of the Master in the garden of Gethsemane, when he in effect asked if there was any way of achieving human salvation other than the cruel trial ahead:

"Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt" (Mark 14:36).

Jesus recognised the fact that there were things possible for God but not to him, and submitted himself to the superior will of his Father. These are not the words of a co-equal deity. The apostolic comment on this shows that in the minds of first century Christians the Son certainly was not God:

"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear (Hebrews 5:7).

Prayer implies subordination and submission. No man prays to an equal. If the trinity is true the concept implicit in this passage is of one member of an eternal trinity praying for salvation to another member of the same tri-unity of gods, and subordinating his will to that member. This is difficult to reconcile with the trinitarian doctrine.

"ANOINTED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT"

Similar arguments apply to the bestowal by God of the Holy Spirit on Jesus. The Holy Spirit has elsewhere (p.91) been shown to be the power of God rather than a third member of a tri-une godhead. Recipients of this power are able to do supernatural things such as perform miracles, speak God's words and give infallible advice. The process was explained by David as "The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue" (2 Samuel 23:2). And just as God could bestow the Holy Spirit, so he could withdraw it. After his grievous sin David prayed that this might not be so in his case: "Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me" (Psalm 51:11). The bestowal of the Holy Spirit was sometimes marked by special divine action, as in the case of Jeremiah:

"Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth; and the Lord said to me, Behold, I have put my words in your mouth" (Jeremiah 1:9).

The prophets foresaw that the Messiah would also be given the power of the Holy Spirit:

"Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him.. (Isaiah 42:1).

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted ... (Isaiah 61:1).

Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit on the occasion of his baptism, when

"the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17).

Thus, as in the cases of the prophets of old, but in much greater measure, the Son was invested with the power of God. Peter comments on this in his preaching:

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38). 

There is nothing in this record to suggest that here was the third person of a co-equal divine trinity being involved, any more than the prophets believed that they were under the influence of a separate divine person when they displayed the power of God. Indeed the reverse is the case. The bestowal of a gift on Jesus, in this case the anointing with the Holy Spirit, implies genuine subordination rather than equality. Jesus recognised that the Spirit was a gift from his Father, donated in fulness:

"It is not by measure that he gives the Spirit; the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand" (John 3:34-35).

Surely an all-powerful God cannot receive something that he already possesses in fulness: for according to trinitaran theory "sameness of nature, equality of power and glory, oneness in purpose and affection" exists between the members of the Godhead. ⁽²⁵⁾

FATHER AND SON IN THE EPISTLES  

Continuing our review of the relationship between the Son and the Father we come to the New Testament epistles. Here a clear distinction is always made between the two in a way that is irreconcilable with the trinitarian concept. The force of this argument is heightened on realisation that all the epistles were written after Christ's resurrection and ascension, when according to the trinitarian view he had resumed his heavenly position of equality and power as the second person of a co-equal trinity. Why then the continual distinction as expressed, for instance, in the salutations of almost every epistle? The majority of Paul's epistles have this salutation:

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" ⁽²⁶⁾

The clear distinction between the Father and Son strongly suggests that in the Apostle's mind the two were not co-equal members of a 'trinity in unity'. This is confirmed by the list of the fundamentals of the Christian faith in his letter to the Ephesians:

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:4-6).

This is a most important statement. Notice that the Lord (i.e. Jesus) and God are separated in the list clearly there was no thought of a tri-unity in Paul's mind here. If Jesus was the uncreate God he should not be mentioned separately from Him. Indeed at the end Paul emphasises the supremacy of God as 'above all', including Jesus. And remember, this is after Christ's exaltation to heaven.

"A SON OVER GOD'S HOUSE"

One of the New Testament themes relating to the redemptive purpose of God is the building of a spiritual house in which God will dwell in the future. Jesus alluded to this when he said "in my Father's house are many rooms (John 14:2), and the apostle takes up the theme when he says that the believers were

"members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22).

In any large establishment in those days there were several tiers of organisation. Lowest were the servants, usually slaves, who did the menial tasks. Then came the children of the house, who occupied a more privileged position; especially the firstborn son who was often given authority over the household. Above the whole house was the owner, whose word was law. In the letter to the Hebrews we are told that God's spiritual house has these same three tiers of responsibility:

"Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ was faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope" (Hebrews 3:5-6).

Notice the position of the Son of the house: greater than Moses the servant, yet still not the 'householder', who is God himself. If Jesus was God in the trinitarian sense, then the whole point of this analogy would have been ruined, and we cannot conceive of this perceptive author making such an elementary error. Again, it must be remembered that this epistle was written many years after Jesus had attained his position of exaltation at his Father's side. It is clear that the co-equality of Father and Son found no place in first century theology.

Whilst we are looking at Hebrews it is worth noting that if Jesus were 'Very God' then the Apostle failed to advance what seems to be the most powerful argument in support of his thesis. The purpose of the letter was to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus Christ's ministry over the Law given through Moses. The writer shows that Jesus was greater than the angels who gave Israel the Law, was greater than Moses who received the Law, and was greater than the levitical priests who administered the Law. Detailed arguments and what to us might seem rather obscure Old Testament references were adduced to support this claim of the superiority of Jesus. If the writer all the time believed that Jesus was God incarnate, and that the Old Testament undoubtedly taught this fact, it is legitimate to ask why he did not advance it clearly and boldly as a major argument in support of his case. It would have been a master stroke! This Jesus was God! There all discussion would cease! Instead he is introduced as a Son who whilst now greater than the angels is still dependent on the Father (Hebrews 1:4,9,13).

"HE LEARNED OBEDIENCE"

Continuing in the same letter, there is another clear indication of New Testament teaching about the position of the Son of God. We read:

"Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect (literally: having been perfected) he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Hebrews 5:8-9).

If Jesus was God in a trinitarian sense it is inconceivable that he would have to learn anything, let alone learn how to be obedient through the medium of suffering. And note that it was subsequent to this obedience that Jesus was perfected. Notice the sequence of ideas here. Just as Jesus "learned obedience" so those who seek redemption must be obedient to him. The parallelism demands that the conditions in which obedience is shown should be the same for the believers as in his case.

"MY GOD"

Another series of references that are fatal to the trinitarian view shows that, even after his resurrection, glorification and ascent to the Fathers right hand, Jesus himself and the apostles still regarded the Father as his God. This is incredible if they were co-equal. The evidence for this is incontestable. At the tomb he said to Mary" "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17).

Similarly in the course of his last message from heaven he refers to the Father as "my God" no less than four times in a single verse (Revelation 3:12). Comparable language is employed by the apostles. Paul speaks of the "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 1:3), and in Hebrews, quoting the Psalms, says "therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness" (Hebrews 1:9).

THE TRINITY ADMITTED NOT TO BE A SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE

In view of these repeated and consistent statements and inferences of the subordinate position of Jesus one can understand why most Trinitarians admit that their doctrine of God cannot be found in the Bible. The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". ⁽²⁷⁾

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". ⁽²⁸⁾

FATHER AND SON IN THE FUTURE

It is in reference to Christ's future glory when, according to trinitarian concepts, the Son should have resumed his position of co-equality shared with the Father from eternity, that we have one of the most clear scriptural demonstrations of the true relationship between God and Christ, the Son of God. Paul is writing of the Messianic kingdom that Jesus will set up at his return to the earth, and says that during that reign all opposition will be eliminated, at last even man's grim enemy of death. In support of this he quotes "Thou hast put all things under his feet" (Psalm 8:6). The only power that will not have become subject to the Messiah is God himself. Then Jesus will be able to present to his Father a flawless earth that will offer no barrier to his perfect fellowship. But the key point is that even in this state of sublime unity between God and his creation, Jesus will remain in subjection to God. This is the way Paul expresses it:

"Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 'For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.' But when it says 'All things are put in subjection under him' it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

Here is a statement of the completed purpose of God with the earth. This is the state of things that is to exist throughout eternity. The Son having presented to God the Father a perfect earth, then will be subjected to the One whose power enabled him to achieve victory over all enemies. Notice that even during the Kingdom Age the Son will still need to draw on the unlimited power of the Father" the Son himself will also be subjected to him (God) who put all things under him". How then is it possible to suggest that the Father and the Son are equally powerful and that neither is superior to the other? Is it being honest with scripture to maintain that, in the words of the Athanasian Creed, "none is afore, or after other: none is greater or less than other. But the whole three persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal"?

ALLEGED SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY ⁽²⁹⁾

In reply to this cumulative Scriptural evidence that the Son of God is not God the Son, a component of a co-equal trinity of Gods, what evidence do Trinitarians adduce in support of the doctrine? First it must be repeated that many supporters of the Trinity admit that the doctrine as such is not found in the Bible, and that first century Christians did not know of it. For example, one writer says "it is important to be clear that the fully articulated doctrine of the Trinity is not to be found in the New Testament ... this notion of an always existing God the Son is not part of the truth. ... The concept of the preexistence of Christ as an eternal Being distinct from God the Father is an unhelpful myth, akin to a fairy story". ⁽³⁰⁾

Another writes: "Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching. ... The dogma of the Trinity owes its existence to abstract speculation on the part of a small minority of scholars. In Tertullian's day, he said that the ordinary rank and file of Christians think of Christ as a man". ⁽³¹⁾

But even so it is insisted by some that the doctrine can be deduced from scripture even if not explicitly taught there. "The doctrine is an interpretation and development of the witness of the New Testament, not a direct transcription of its words". ⁽³²⁾

There are several lines of argument that are used, the majority being discussed below.

1. Jesus is said to have existed before his birth to Mary

The pre-existence of Jesus is considered in detail in a later section of this chapter. ⁽³³⁾


2. Jesus is spoken of as the creator, and the plural word elohim is used in Genesis in describing the acts of creation.

The New Testament teaching on the creative work of Jesus forms the subject of another section of this chapter, ⁽³⁴⁾ but the use of elohim to describe God in the Genesis account of creation can be considered here. "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Genesis 1.26). It is claimed that the use of the plural pronouns together with the plural divine title elohim indicates more than one person in the Godhead, and is therefore an indication of the Trinity. The doctrine of God manifestation (see chapter 4) supplies the understanding of this and similar passages. The actual agents of the creation were the angels, the immortal beings through whom God manifested his power. These were the 'Sons of God' that rejoiced at the laying of the foundations of the earth (Job 38:7). In fact in some cases elohim is translated 'angels' (Psalm 8:5 A.V., Hebrews 2:7). There is no suggestion of equality among the angels, and the One who energises them, namely God himself, is styled 'the Most High El' (singular).

Another example of the use of the plural is found in Isaiah's record of the vision of the enthroned God surrounded by the seraphim:

"And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here I am! Send me. And he said, Go, and say to this people: Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive" (Isa 6:8-9).

It is said that the use of the word "us" indicates plurality in the Godhead. This is assumption only. The "us" could refer to God and the Seraphim.

3. Only God can forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins: therefore he is God.

Sin, by definition, is ultimately an offence against God. Therefore only God can forgive sin, and there are numerous passages that teach that He is willing to extend mercy to sinners on certain conditions. It is true that Jesus also forgave sins, one occasion being when he healed a paralysed man:

"My son, your sins are forgiven. Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:5-7).

But was this forgiveness extended of Jesus' own right, or was his authority to show mercy derived from his Father? The answer is given as the account proceeds:

"But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say Rise and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins he then said to the paralytic Rise, take up your bed and go home. And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matthew 9:4-8).

Clearly, even the crowd recognised that Christ's ability to forgive had been given him by God, and was therefore not an intrinsic possession. The same authority extended to Christ's immediate disciples on receipt of the Holy Spirit from Jesus:

"He breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:22-23).

On the basis of the trinitarian argument that power to forgive sins makes a person God, the disciples too were members of the eternal Godhead a proposition that is manifestly absurd.

4. Only God is sinless. Jesus was sinless: therefore he is God.

It is difficult to believe that this is seriously put forward as a proof of the trinity. The case for the defence must be a weak one to be forced to present such evidence! God just cannot sin "Your heavenly Father is perfect" said Jesus (Matthew 5:48). Therefore if Jesus were God, it also would have been impossible for him to sin. Temptations would have been meaningless to him, and succumbing to them out of the question. Yet the wonderful achievement of the Saviour, praised in such appreciative terms by the New Testament writers, was that, whilst possessing sinful human nature, he completely overcame its promptings. All the passages that exult Christ's victory, and all the references to a 'lamb without spot or blemish' in both Old and New Testaments, would be meaningless if Jesus had not the potential to sin. Jesus was faultless in his earthly life not because he possessed divine nature, but because with his Father's help he fought and won the battle against sin. It is gravely lessening his achievement to suggest otherwise.

5. Jesus exercises the divine right of judgment, therefore he is God.

Again the question is whether Christ's rôle in this respect is innate or derived. If the latter the argument loses its point. Whilst God is the ultimate judge, it is obviously within his power to confer his authority on another. This is exactly what he has done. Jesus said:

"The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22).

Once it is accepted that Jesus had to be given the authority to judge, the argument that the possession of such power proves his divinity is completely nullified. Scripture also clearly says that when exercising judgment in the future Jesus does it on God's behalf, not on his own:

"On that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:16).

6. Jesus accepted worship, therefore is God  

t is claimed that because Jesus said "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve" (Luke 4:8), then Jesus must be God in a trinitarian sense as elsewhere he is described as being worshipped.

A clear distinction needs to be made here between events in the mortal life of Jesus and those after his resurrection and glorification. In the first case we frequently read that various people 'worshipped' him, particularly those who had been the recipients of his healing power. The wise men and the shepherds at his birth (Matthew 2:2,11), and the man born blind (John 9:38) are some examples. But did they worship Jesus as God or was it simply an act of homage to a superior? A passage in Acts is decisive. When Cornelius received a visit from the Apostle Peter he "fell down at his feet and worshipped him" (Acts 10:25). Does this suggest that Peter too was God? Obviously not. On the majority of other occasions where the AV describes people as 'worshipping ' Jesus (or for that matter their fellow men), more recent versions simply say they 'knelt down before him'. The action is obviously one of respect or gratitude to a superior rather than an act of worship to a deity.

But whilst the edict to worship God and no-one else applied up to a certain stage in God's purpose, this does not exclude the later modification of the command. After Christ's resurrection and glorification there is every reason for Jesus to receive "power and wealth and wisdom and might and honour and glory and blessing" ⁽³⁵⁾, although this still need not imply that he is of equal status to God. God himself commands even the angels to worship the Messiah in the future:

"And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, Let all God's angels worship him" (Hebrews 1:6).

This quotation is from Psalm 97, and clearly relates to the second coming of Christ. ⁽³⁶⁾

The fact that the angels receive from God a request to worship the Son demonstrates that the Father and Son are not co-equal. As Paul says to the Philippians, Christ's future worship will be "to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:11).

7. Jesus is addressed as God

On several occasions Jesus is either called or addressed as 'God'. Examples such as the following are invariably quoted in support of the trinity:

"His name will be called ... Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6)

"Thomas answered him, My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

"But of the Son he says, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (Hebrews 1:8).

In addition there are a few occasions where alternative translations or variant manuscript readings use 'God' for 'Lord' when referring to Jesus.

The phrase 'Mighty God' and the use of the word 'God' in a non-divine sense have already been considered (pp. 173-176) to which the reader is referred. To use the other passages as proof of the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father it needs to be shown that in Scripture the term 'God' is used exclusively of the Father. This cannot be done. As has already been shown (p. 58) in the Old Testament the original word for God, elohim, is used of angels, rulers, judges, mighty men, and the idols of the heathen, and its application to the Messiah is therefore no proof of his deity.

Hebrews 1:8 is quoting Psalm 45:6. where the phrase is variously translated "Thy throne, O God" (AV,NIV), "Your divine throne" (RSV), and "Your throne is like God's throne" (NEB), only the first of which would appear to give any trinitarian inference. In the New Testament Christ himself clearly shows that 'God' need not always refer to the Father. Quoting another Psalm (82:6) Jesus said to the Jewish leaders:

"Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken) do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said 'I am the Son of God'?" (John 10:34-36).

The exclamation of Thomas "My Lord and my God" does not therefore automatically mean that he was equating Jesus with God. It could have been a confession that by the resurrection he had become convinced that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and therefore a perfect manifestation of God. ⁽³⁷⁾

Thomas knew that both titles were attributed to the Messiah in the Old Testament (Psalm 45:6, 110:1), and so he could have been expressing his belief in Jesus in these terms. Thus Thomas's avowal can be seen as a further example of John's declared intention to use his gospel record to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31).

It is noteworthy that the context of these words of Thomas and those in Hebrews 1:8 excludes the use of God in a trinitarian sense. Prior to the meeting with Thomas Jesus referred to the Father as 'my God', implying his inequality of status (John 20:17). And the Hebrews passage goes on to make a similar point "therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness" (Hebrews 1:9). The views of the first-century Christians are therefore clear. They came to realise that Jesus, in a much greater sense than the ministry of the angels as recorded in the Old Testament, was a complete manifestation of the Father, so that divine titles could be appropriately ascribed to him without making him God's equal, any more than the angels who on occasions took God's Name were the Deity Himself. As one writer says:

"When Jesus said "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also" he did not contradict the statement that "no man hath seen God at any time," but simply expressed the truth contained in the following words of Paul: "Christ is the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1.15), "the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person" (Heb. 1.3). Those who looked upon the anointed Jesus, beheld a representation of the Deity accessible to human vision." ⁽³⁸⁾

The New Testament English translation is derived from a wide range of ancient manuscripts of Greek and Latin origin, and there are very many copies of the same passage that the translator has to compare, together with scriptural quotations by ancient writers. Over the centuries some slight variations have occurred, usually due to copyist error, but occasionally deliberately done to make a doctrinal point. A notable example of the latter is the fraudulent insertion, probably in the 4th century, of the passage in 1 John 5:7 that asserts the tri-unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (see also p. 32). All commentators without exception now accept that this verse is spurious and recognise that it was a later attempt to demonstrate the trinity. Inferentially the fact that a later hand felt it necessary to insert the passage is of itself an indication that Scriptural support for the trinity was lacking! As Hanson says of this text:

"It was added by some enterprising person in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy the defect". ⁽³⁹⁾

Gibbon in chapter 37 of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire attributes the forgery to the North African school, followed by a willing connivance by those who saw its propaganda value:

"Even the Scriptures themselves were profaned by their rash and sacrilegious hands. The memorable text, which assert the unity of the THREE who bear witness in heaven, is condemned by the universal silence of the orthodox fathers, and authentic manuscripts. ... After the invention of printing, the editors of the Greek Testament yielded to their own prejudices, or those of the times, and the pious fraud ... has been infinitely multiplied in every country and every language of modern Europe."

We can therefore ignore this spurious passage, whilst noting that if the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly taught in the early Church the forgery would not have been needed.

In other instances where Jesus appears to be addressed as God the position is not so clear-cut, and variant readings occur. Hence in the footnotes of more modern translations there are comments such as "other ancient authorities add ...", or "other ancient authorities read ...", or "some witnesses add ...", or "some manuscripts say...". Sometimes the original itself is perfectly capable of being translated in more than one way: here the footnote often gives the alternative. It must be emphasised that these occasions are few, and in the vast majority of general cases make no difference to the sense or the message of the passage for us. But some consider that when fine points of doctrine are being debated such variations can be crucial. It must also be remembered that the translators of the Bible were in the main Trinitarians, and in cases of ambiguity would quite understandably translate in favour of the established beliefs.

As a result of this uncertainty there are half a dozen or so passages that have been translated, or as some allege could be translated, to indicate that the first century Christians understood that Christ was God. One example is the AV of Paul's address to the Ephesian elders, which we will examine in detail as an example of the problems, and to show the inadvisability of attempting to establish dogma on the basis of passages where more than one legitimate translation is possible. The passage runs:

"Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

The trinitarian argument here is that the Saviour who shed his blood is called God. But there is doubt as to whether the original reads 'God' or 'Lord'. The RV margin notes "Many ancient authorities read the Lord", as does the NIV footnote . The RSV puts Lord into the text and gives God as an alternative in the footnote, as does the NEB. In fact the early manuscripts are almost equally divided between the two renderings. The variation is a long-standing one, for it existed in the days of the early fathers. In quoting the passage Ignatius (who died AD109) and Tertullian (AD155-222) use God and Irenaeus (born AD130) uses Lord. The rest of the verse can also be differently rendered. One translator (Darby) has: "Shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own", and adds as a footnote "I am fully satisfied that this is the right translation". This immediately resolves any dilemma, suggesting that God purchased his church with the blood of his own Son, and thus removing any possible trinitarian inference. But whatever the correct version, translators are agreed that this verse should not be used in support of the trinitarian arguments. Darby's footnote continues "to make it (v28) a question of the divinity of Christ is absurd". And Speaker's Commentary, warning of the danger of attaching importance to such passages, notes on this verse "the eternal Godhead of Christ cannot be adequately set forth by any number of isolated texts."

Other similar verses can now be examined more briefly. In each case the translation that appears to support the trinity is placed first, the alternative translations appended, and a brief note or comment is appended (usually in the form of translators' or other scholars' explanations).

"The appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13, RSV, RV, NIV, NEB).

Alternatives: "the great God and our Saviour" (AV text; RSV, NEB footnote, RV margin)

Note: "The words will also bear the translation 'of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ'. It must be admitted that the omission of the article before 'Saviour' does not necessarily require 'God' and 'Saviour' to be understood of the same person" (Speakers Commentary).

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, for ever praised" (Romans 9:5, NIV, NEB, RSV footnotes, RV margin).

Alternatives: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever" (AV, NEB footnote).

"To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever" (RSV, NEB similar).

Note: The absence of punctuation in the Greek has possibly led to uncertainty as to how this passage should be rendered.

"No-one has ever seen God, but God the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (John 1:18, NIV).

Alternatives: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known" (RSV. RV, AV, and NEB similar)

Note: Some original manuscripts have 'God' and some 'Son' "Two readings of equal antiquity" (Speakers Commentary). Darby affirms with considerable emphasis that the translation 'God the only Son' is very doubtful. "In John 1.18 BCL (the texts in question), almost unsupported except by a few versions, and, as to be expected, by many ecclesiastical writers, have the astonishing reading of "God" for "Son" after "only begotten". It is scarcely conceivable that Tregelles and Wescott and Hart should have followed so manifest a corruption and the Revisers have given it a place in their margin". ⁽⁴⁰⁾

The NIV is clearly wrong here.

"In the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1.1, RV, RSV; NIV, NEB similar).

Alternative: "The righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (AV, RV margin, RSV footnote).

Note: "The translation should be 'of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ'. It is indeed possible to explain both God and Saviour here as titles given to Jesus Christ ... but as the Father and Son are spoken of in contradistinction in the next verse, it is better to preserve the distinction here also" (Speaker's Commentary).

In view of these ambiguities it is difficult not to agree with one writer who, in a passage outlining the alleged Biblical teaching on the trinity, says: "Admittedly, the name 'God' is not often applied to Jesus. We find it in only seven or eight passages, some of which can be translated in a different way. ⁽⁴¹⁾

But in distinction to those 'seven or eight' passages which 'can be translated in a different way' there are literally dozens of occasions in the New Testament where the Father and the Son are mentioned as separate entities and without any hint of ascribing divinity to Jesus. This is particularly true of the salutations to the Epistles, where, if the trinitarian concept were true, it would be the most logical place to indicate that Jesus was in fact God. The almost universal formula, far outnumbering the passages with the ambiguities considered above, is "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ". (For further examples the reader is directed to pp.100-101).

8. Many New Testament passages bring the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in close proximity and sometimes speak of them operating in unison, especially for man's redemption.

The fact that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are frequently mentioned together is undeniable, but the question has to be asked whether this of itself demonstrates their tri-unity in the sense stated in the creeds. The occasion of Christ's baptism and Paul's benediction to the Corinthians are often mentioned in this connection:

"And when Jesus was baptised, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:16-17).

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14).

It would be fair to say that only those who had been previously indoctrinated with trinitarian opinions would deduce from such passages the co-equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The view has to be read into the words rather than derived from them. And even such passages themselves contain indications that the trinitarian view is untenable. How, for example, could the Father be well pleased with his Son if they had been all the time co-equal and co-eternal as part of the same indivisible trinity?

9. "In the form of God"

The passage in Philippians that contains this phrase is regarded by Trinitarians as conclusive proof of the pre-existent equality between the Father and the Son. It is the one reference that is immediately quoted whenever scriptural justification for the doctrine is requested. It is now stated, it seems without any real evidence (apart from the possibility of a metrical construction), that the passage was a fragment of an existing and well-known hymn of praise to God the Son which Paul incorporated in his letter. But how substantial is the trinitarian support when it is examined in context and with careful attention to what Paul is actually saying? Here is the full passage:

"Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:3-11).

This passage is regarded by Trinitarians as incontrovertible proof that the pre-existent Jesus divested himself of his divinity and assumed human form for the salvation of mankind. But is that what Paul intended?

An exhortation to humility

By putting this passage under the theological microscope it is easy to lose sight of the reason why Paul wrote it, so it would be as well to consider his intentions before commencing a detailed examination. What circumstance in Philippi called for this comment? How would its original recipients have read these words? Would they have pored over the meanings and nuances of the individual words in an attempt to deduce the relationship between God and his Son? Surely not. They would have seen Paul's argument to be primarily an exhortation to humility" count others better than yourselves" with Paul urging his converts to follow the example of Christ's self abasement. So the first question is: would it be appropriate to reinforce the lesson of humility by using the example of one who was eternally God but chose to become man? It was hardly an example that they could follow! This point was made by A.H. McNeile, Professor of Divinity, who had grave reservations about the application of this passage to a pre-existent Christ:

"Paul is begging the Philippians to cease from dissensions and to act with humility towards each other ... It is asked whether it would be quite natural for him to enforce these simple moral lessons by incidental reference (and the only reference that he ever makes) to the vast problem of the mode of the incarnation. And it is thought by many that his homely appeals would have more effect if he pointed to the inspiring example of Christ's humility and self sacrifice in his human life". ⁽⁴²⁾

Or as Buzzard comments:

"Looking afresh at Philippians 2, we must ask the question whether Paul in these verses has really made what would be his only allusion to Jesus' having been alive before his birth. The context of his remarks shows him to be urging the saints to be humble. It is often asked whether it is in any way probable that he would enforce the lesson by asking his readers to adopt the frame of mind of one who, having been eternally God, made the decision to become man" ⁽⁴³⁾

In all our thinking about this passage it is vital to keep in mind this salient fact that Paul's purpose was to induce humility after the example of Jesus.

Both the above writers also make the point that if in fact the Philippians passage taught that Jesus was eternally 'Very God' it would be the only place in Paul's writings to do so. If Paul really did believe and teach even the basic essentials of the trinitarian view, and that this concept of Jesus being God was the one great difference between Judaism and Christianity (as we are now asked to believe), then it is surprising that no clear statement of the doctrine can be found in his writings, and the only place in which it might be even hinted at is hidden in a plea for believers' humility.

It is often argued by Trinitarians that the Apostles played down the deity of Jesus in their preaching so as not to put off the strictly monotheistic Jews. This is a grave reflection on the integrity of the divinely appointed agents of first century preaching, who in other instances disregarded all consequences in the preaching of what they considered to be the truth. It is an even worse reflection on the power of the Holy Spirit which guided these men, for it suggests that the Holy Spirit was unable to meet and successfully deal with any opposition its new teaching might cause. But even this doubtful argument does not apply to Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. The world at large had none of the prejudices, if they were so, of the Jews concerning monotheism. Indeed, brought up in a culture that paid homage to many gods, the concept of three Gods in one would be neither new nor objectionable. It also could be reasonably expected that if the basis of the new Christian religion indeed its one distinctive feature was that Jesus was a member of an eternal trinity of Gods who assumed human form and later died for the salvation of mankind before resuming his place in heaven, then a clear definition of this was needed for these new converts. Paul would have been failing in his duty to them had he not provided this information. Yet, as has been shown above, there is not a hint of the deity of Christ in this sense throughout the Pauline epistles, let alone the clear statement of the doctrine that it would be reasonable to expect. And when it is found that all other essential aspects of Christ's person and mission are elaborated fully in the epistles, this omission becomes the more remarkable.

But, even so, is this Philippians passage the exception? Is it the unambiguous statement of the incarnation that places Paul in the ranks of the Trinitarians? A detailed examination shows the weakness of this view.

"God has highly exalted him"

First some general comments on the passage that throw doubt on the trinitarian interpretation. As a result of Christ's humility and obedience unto death "God has highly exalted him". Jesus could not therefore have been God prior to his exaltation. Also, as a result of his humble obedience, Jesus was given the name which is above every name". This implies he did not possess it before his exaltation. There is only one Name higher than any other, the Name of God, Yahweh. To have received that Name subsequent to his resurrection suggests that Jesus was not a component of the Yahweh Name before then. ⁽⁴⁴⁾ But on receiving it Jesus became the first of the 'mighty ones' in whom the Name Yahweh Elohim' He who shall be mighty ones' would be revealed. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ And it must also be pointed out that Christ's exaltation was to the glory of God the Father, implying the lesser status of the Son.

"He was in the form of God"

Even so the passage is invariably used by Trinitarians who place much emphasis on the phrase "was in the form of God", stating that it refers to the nature of Jesus prior to his birth, at which event he assumed the "form of a servant". The meaning of the original words are crucial to this discussion, particularly the words translated 'form' and 'was'.

Trinitarians insist that form conveys the idea of 'essential nature'. The NIV translates the phrase as "being in very nature God", and relegates "in the form of God" to a footnote. The word Paul used was morphe, a Greek word that basically means 'form, fashion, appearance, external shape, sort'. ⁽⁴⁶⁾ The idea is of an external shape that can make identification possible. It has been transferred into English in such words as morphology, the study of shape or appearance, and metamorphosis, a change of shape. Despite many claims to the contrary, the internal nature or condition of that which is being described does not seem to be implied in the word morphe, particularly in everyday speech (the so-called koine or 'common' Greek).

But it is the Scriptural use of morphe and related words that should be our best guide to their meaning. This usage includes the incident after Christ's resurrection when he "appeared in another form (morphe)" to the disciples after his resurrection (Mark 16:12). Luke's account of this (24:13-35) shows their failure to recognise him on this occasion was due to the altered appearance of Jesus, not an altered 'essential nature'.

In what sense, then, was Jesus in the form (morphe) of God? Obviously not in physical appearance. A clue as to Paul's meaning is in the subsequent phrase where Jesus is described as "taking the form (morphe) of a servant", i.e. a bondslave (verse 7). 'Form' here cannot mean 'essential nature', for in respect of 'essential nature' there is no difference between the slave and those he serves. What distinguished a slave from his master, and that made him instantly recognisable, was his demeanour and lowly position his disposition. There was no biological difference. So one cannot take Paul's use of the word morphe to imply that Jesus had the same physical nature as God. Jesus was 'in the form of God' in the sense that (as has already been exhaustively discussed) he was a reflection of the Father's character and attributes. "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) accurately describes the situation, or to use another of Paul's descriptions of Jesus, "Christ, who is the likeness of God" (2 Corinthian 4:4). In other words, in Christ God's character was being revealed to man.

"Was"

The word translated 'was' is another that Trinitarians claim supports the view that this passage speaks of an eternally pre-existent Christ. They contend that "he was in the form of God" implies that Jesus possessed God's nature from the beginning of time. Other versions have "being" or "being originally" or "was from the first". The basic meaning of the Greek word (huparcho) means 'to exist', but it is the tense of the verb that indicates the timing of the existence. In this case it is the imperfect tense, which is defined as expressing "an uncompleted action or state, especially in time past". Thus 'being' or 'was' implies a continuing existence or an existence prior to the present. But the length of the previous existence is in no way defined. It is gratuitous to make the existence eternal just on the basis of this word, as other Bible usage shows. When the young man Eutychus fell out of the window "being overcome by sleep" (Acts 20:9) none would suggest that he had been asleep eternally. And when Peter said of David "being therefore a prophet" (Acts 2:30) it would not be assumed that he had been a prophet from all time. Normal usage demands that the continuing action described had a commencement Eutychus fell asleep and thus could later be described as 'being' asleep. David was not a prophet from birth, but from the time of his anointing. Similarly Christ's 'being in the form of God' does not imply eternal pre-existence in possession of the divine nature, but only that at some time previously he had assumed the 'form of God' and was still so at the time of writing.

"Did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Continuing with the examination of this passage we come to the phrase "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (verse 6). In the AV this reads "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", and has been understood by Trinitarians to assert that by right Jesus could claim equality in the Godhead. "Inasmuch as he was pre-existent God, He held it as his right to claim equality of Godhead". ⁽⁴⁷⁾  But again, this is reading the Trinity into the words rather than allowing them to speak for themselves. Whilst 'robbery' is a perfectly valid translation, the underlying idea is of snatching or grabbing at something, and therefore the RSV 'grasping' is to be preferred. The phrase thus translated could mean just the opposite of the trinitarian assertion that Jesus refused to seek equality with God, implying that he did not have it before. This reading is more consistent with Paul's exhortation for the believers to copy the humility of their Lord.

One of the frequent themes of Paul's writing is the comparison between the events in Genesis and the redemptive work of Christ. ⁽⁴⁸⁾  The old creation contained the symbols of the new creation: the first Adam who brought sin into the world provided a contrast with the last Adam who removes it. Adam was created 'in the image of God', and in Philippians Jesus was described as 'in the form of God'. Paul is here continuing this theme of contrasting Adam with Christ. Thus, in the passage still under consideration, seeking 'equality with God' is clearly a reference to the subtle temptation by which the serpent in Eden induced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit:

"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5).

It was this desire to be equal with God that was the alluring prospect, and so Eve reached out and grasped the fruit, with disastrous results. The relevance to Paul's theme of humility is clear. Adam through pride grasped at the opportunity for equality with God, but Jesus, the Second Adam, although a perfect manifestation of the attributes and character of God, did not seek to grasp any short cut to divine equality. Clearly this was the message Paul wanted to get across. Christ, unlike Adam, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, or snatched. Paul's allusion was to Christ's humility, not to the incarnation.

"Emptied