IS GOD A TRINITY? PART ELEVEN
THE NATURE OF JESUS THE CHRIST:
Jesus was certainly separate from the ordinary. The Most High God was His Father. No other human had ever been directly conceived (begotten) in the womb of a human mother by the power of God. In scripture, angels and humans are referred to as sons of God. Jesus was a unique Son of God by virtue of the manner in which He came to be. There is no record of angels or other humans coming into existence in the manner Jesus did. As discussed earlier in this series, the English “begotten” is translated from the Greek monogenes were the word mono means only and genes means to be born or begotten or, as more recent scholarship has identified, genes can mean kind, type or unique. If monogenes is understood in this manner, Jesus is a one of a kind, unique Son of God.
Mary is told to name the Son born to her Jesus because He will save His people from their sins. Jesus is the English translation of the Greek Iesous which is the transliteration of the Hebrew Yashua. Yashua means "YHWH is salvation. Yashua in English is translated as Joshua. Because Jesus means “YHWH is salvation” some have concluded Jesus is YHWH. Yashua, however, is a common Hebrew name found twenty-nine times in the OT as the name of various individuals including Joshua who led
Luke 2:28-32: "Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people
Simeon addresses the Sovereign Lord (YHWH) and acknowledges that in Jesus is represented the Salvation of the Sovereign Lord. This does not make Yashua (Jesus) YHWH any more than the name Yashua when applied to dozens of others in scripture makes them YHWH.
There is nothing in any of the passages cited above that tells us Jesus is God. Jesus is seen to be the Son of God. Was Jesus someone else before becoming Jesus? Did the Son of God exist before becoming Jesus? Was the baby born to Mary a pre-existing distinction of a Triune God who became incarnated in the human Jesus and therefore was God in the flesh having two natures? My conclusions as to the Trinity have already been delineated.
Oneness theologians believe the one Unitarian God became the Son and therefore became God in the flesh with two natures? Position B Non-Trinitarians believe the Son to be the anciently created chief agent of a Unitarian God called YHWH and this Son gave up His exalted position to become a completely human agent of His Father YHWH. Some believe it was the archangel Michael who left his position of power to become Jesus. Those who advocate the “Family of God” concept believe the Son eternally existed with the Father as a separate but lesser God Being in a Binitarian relationship but willingly gave up His position to become the human Jesus. Position A Non-Trinitarians believe Jesus became the Son of God at His human birth having had no pre-existence other than in the purpose of the one Unitarian God.
As stated above, I believe the scriptures firmly establish there is one God who is the Father. Jesus affirmed the monotheism of
Paul makes similar affirmations. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul declares there is but one God who is the Father and he distinguishes between this one God and Jesus. He does the same in Ephesians 4:4-6. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul makes this distinction even more emphatic when he says there is one God and one mediator between God and men and that mediator is the man Christ Jesus. Paul repeatedly in his writings speaks of God as the God and Father of Jesus. Paul shows Jesus to be subservient to the one God in I Corinthians 15:27-28 where it is clearly shown that Christ in His glorified state is subordinate to God.
As discussed earlier in this series, the Greek word gennao is used to identify how Jesus is to be generated. This word means to become the Father of and is associated with being begotten and implies a definite beginning. In Matthew 1:20, the angel tells Joseph that what is begotten (gennao) in Mary is of the Holy Spirit. Luke shows what is begotten will be called the Son of God. Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5 uses gennao to say the Son was begotten by the Father. All these scriptures indicate a beginning for the Son and that beginning is related to the conception of the Son, in the womb of Mary 2000 years ago.
Nowhere do the scriptures definitively teach that the birth of Jesus came about as a result of incarnation where a pre-existing distinction of a Triune God or a Divinity of any kind became incorporated into human flesh resulting in the creation of a “God-man.” In view of the overall evidence examined in this series, it appears much more reasonable to conclude that the Word in John chapter one is the cognitive purpose of God the Father personified in the birth of the man Jesus in
Matthew 1:18: This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
It is interesting that the Greek word translated into the English word birth in modern translations is found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts to be the Greek word genesis which can mean birth but can also mean creation, beginning and origination. In later manuscripts, the Greek word gennesis was substituted by copyists. Gennesis is only associated with being begotten or born. Some scholars believe that copyists substituted gennesis for genesis to hide the idea that the origination of Jesus was at the time of His human birth which would mean He did not pre-exist. It is interesting that Matthew uses genesis at the start of his Gospel when he writes, “The book of the generation (Greek genesis) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (KJV). See Bart Ehrman's, The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture for an in-depth discussion of this issue.
If the Son had His beginning in the womb of Mary, He did not pre-exist as the Son. If He did not pre-exist as the Son, did He preexist as some other Being and it is this Being that became the Son as a result of the Father facilitating begettal of the Son in the womb of Mary? Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the archangel Michael became Jesus. They conclude this based on associations between Jesus and Michael found in scripture. Let’s look at these associations presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
1 Thessalonians 4:16: For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Michael is not mentioned in this passage. Paul doesn’t identify any particular archangel. Paul speaks of the voice of the archangel. No definition is provided as to what that means.
Daniel 12:1: At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered.
This is the main scripture used to promote Michael as Christ. This passage is seen to parallel statements made in the Olivet Discourse as to conditions extant at the return of Christ. Therefore Michael and Christ are seen to be one and the same. The problem with this perspective is that there is no direct reference to Michael being Christ in all of scripture. While inference that Michael and Christ are one and the same can be made based on the association between Daniel’s statement and statements in the Olivet Discourse, such inference falls short of establishing Michael as Christ. Michael may be involved in the events described in Daniel as a totally separate participant from Christ. Daniel may be using Michael to represent Christ. There just isn’t enough information here to establish Michael as Christ. Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to several scriptures in the Revelation as supportive of their position but these scriptures are even more inconclusive and I will not spend time discussing them.
Oneness theologians believe the Father became the Son which would mean the Father added human nature to His Divine nature. Therefore the Son, while not pre-existing as a Son distinct from the Father in past eternity, nevertheless was/is Divine because of the Father's nature being incorporated into the Son and therefore the Son is seen as God and man.
Oneness theologians use many of the same scriptures Trinitarians use to show Jesus is God. We have examined most of these scriptures in this series and found them to be inconclusive as to proving Jesus is God as God is God. Oneness theologians see Jesus as God and yet are rightly convinced that God is one single Being and not a Trinity or Binitarian God. This has led them to conclude the one God became the Son. This perspective, however, is based on the conclusion that the Son is shown to be God as God is God, a perspective that has been shown to be problematical throughout this series. Furthermore, the idea that the Father became the Son is almost as mysterious as the Trinitarian doctrine of the Father and the Son being one along with the Spirit. This position necessitates God dying. God can't die. God is eternal and immortal by nature.
Position B Non Trinitarians see the Son as being created before the universe was created and therefore God became the Father of the Son at some point in eternity past. The problem with this position is that the scriptures indicate God became the Father of Jesus at the time of His human begettal in the womb of Mary as discussed above. If this is indeed the case, the Son did not become begotten in eternity past but around 2000 years ago.
Position A Non Trinitarians believe Jesus existed in the purpose of the Father and that purpose became personified in the physical birth of the human Jesus. When John speaks of the word becoming flesh, it is believed it is the expressed purpose of the One God becoming manifested in the flesh as the man Jesus. This is seen as fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies that speak of a coming deliverer who would be a descendant of David and in whom the Kingdom would be established forever. Scripture shows this purpose to have been with God from the beginning. This perspective sees the Son of God as being completely human and not in anyway Divine. Upon completion of His earthly mission, however, Jesus is seen as becoming virtually Divine as the chief agent of God the Father.
There are a number of scriptures which strongly point to Jesus, as the Son of God, being only human and therefore totally dependent on God the Father for His ability to fulfill His Fathers will as the anointed one to bring salvation to mankind.
Hebrews 5:7-8: Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
When the author of Hebrews wrote this, it was some years after Jesus had left the flesh and ascended to be with the Father. Yet while Jesus was in the flesh, He is seen as having to work hard at maintaining the necessary ability to remain sinless and to actually learn obedience. This is not a picture of an inherently Divine Being. The scriptures consistently show Jesus to have been dependent on His Father for all He did. Some will argue that the fleshly part of the Son was dependent on the Godly part of the Son that was incarnate in the dueled natured Jesus. Jesus, however, is consistently shown as praying to His Father in heaven and addressing God as His Father in heaven, not some alter ego of his own self.
As already pointed out, If Jesus is God as God is God; it makes no sense for Him to be addressing God as His God. He not only does this during His fleshly existence but also after leaving His fleshly existence to be with the Father. We see Jesus after His resurrection and later in His Revelation to John still referring to God as His God and Father no different than He did when He walked the earth before His crucifixion and resurrection.
John 20:17: Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, `I am returning (Ascending in most translations) to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Revelation 1:4-6: John, To the seven churches in the province of
If the Son first became the Son at the time of the birth of Jesus, what about scriptures that appear to plainly say Jesus had a pre-existence with the Father? In this series of essays, we have addressed dozens of scriptural passages that on the surface indicate pre-existence of the Son. Upon close examination, however, we found these passage to be inconclusive in establishing pre-existence of the Son as these passage can be understood in other ways. Consequently, there is not a preponderance of evidence to establish the Son existed prior to His human birth. Is their a preponderance of evidence to establish that the Son first became the Son at the birth of Jesus? What about scriptures that appear to provide a straightforward indication that Jesus existed prior to His human birth?
John 17:4-5: I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world (Greek kosmos) began.
John 17:24: Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
These statements by Jesus appear to clearly indicate He had glory with the Father and was loved by the Father before the world began. While these statements don’t say anything about Jesus being God, they appear to indicate He pre-existed.
Some theologians, in writing on John 17, believe Jesus is speaking of things that were in the purpose of the Father from the beginning and seen as accomplished from the beginning even though such things had not yet been accomplished in actual fact. It is pointed out that the scriptural writers often speak proleptically. Proleptic language speaks of things as already existing though they have not yet come to actually exist. Paul said to the Roman Christians that God “calls things that are not as though they were” (Romans 4:17).
The scriptures speak of Jesus being crucified from the foundation of the world even though He wasn’t actually crucified until the first century A.D. (Revelation 13:8) Paul speaks of the grace that was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9). This grace was not made effective, however, until the Christ event actually occurred. Jesus speaks of the Kingdom having been prepared for us since the creation of the world (Matthew 25:34). The Kingdom wasn’t actually available to enter into until the Christ event. Paul told the Ephesian Christians that God “chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight” (Ephesians 1:4). This didn’t come to fruition until the first century.
A review of the NT scriptures shows the sacrifice of Christ, salvation, establishment of the Kingdom and other events were in the purpose of God from early on but first became manifest in the first century in and through Christ who, Himself, was in the purpose of God and became manifest in the first century as the begotten Son of God. Paul, in addressing Christians of His day, says in Ephesians 2:6, “God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Christians were proleptically seated in heavenly places. This is anticipatory language which is found throughout scripture. Some feel Christ uses this kind of rhetorical mechanism when He says things that appear to show a pre-existence but in actuality is showing what was in the purpose of God from the beginning which included the existence of the Son and the glory which would be afforded to the Son.
Anglican Bishop Samuel Parker (1640-1687) wrote in 1667, “It was a proverbial form of speech among the Jews to express matters of great moment, resolved upon only in the divine decree, as they were really existing. Thus they say that the Messiah is more ancient than the sun and the Mosaic order older than the world, not as if they understood them really as such, but only to express their absolute usefulness and necessity…The glory which Jesus prayed for in John 17:5…was that honor with which God had from eternity designed to dignify the Messiah.”
Proleptic language appears to have been common among the Jews and it is believed proleptic language was also used by Jesus, including His various statements about coming down from heaven and going to heaven.
John 3:13: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of
John 6:62: What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
In both these scriptures Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, the same designation He uses consistently in speaking of His impending crucifixion as seen in Mark 8:31, 9:12 & 13, 14:21 and Matthew 26:24. Since “Son of Man” refers to Jesus’ humanity, in what respect is the human Jesus to be seen ascending and descending heaven? Here again, it is felt Jesus is using proleptic language. In Daniel’s vision, Daniel sees someone like a son of man come before the Father to receive a Kingdom.
Daniel 7:13-14: "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
This is a vision of the human Jesus ascending to the Father to receive authority, glory, sovereign power, everlasting dominion and a Kingdom that will not be destroyed. Here is the climax to the Christ event. Jesus was born a human son of man through Mary that resulted from Divine begettal making Him also a directly conceived Son of God. He grew in wisdom and knowledge (Luke 2:52), came to realize He was a unique Son of God fulfilling the Messiah promises, demonstrated His Messiahship through signs and wonders, was crucified and resurrected to fulfill God’s purpose and then ascended to the Father to receive what Daniel sees in vision.
Jesus came from heaven as a directly begotten of God human. He ascended to the Father after completing His earthly mission and received what Daniel saw in vision. This was all in the purpose and plan of God from the beginning and seen to be already accomplished even though it didn’t become accomplished until the actual birth, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. Some theologians believe Christ is thinking and speaking in accomplishment terminology common to the Jews of His day when He speaks of being in heaven and going to heaven.
It is interesting that the scriptures don’t speak of Jesus returning to the Father but of ascending to the Father. The NIV translation incorrectly uses the English “return” in place of “ascend” in their rendition of John 20:17 where Jesus asked not to be touched because He has not yet ascended to the Father. Most translations use the English “ascend” which is the correct translation of the Greek anaaino which means to go upward. There is nothing in the meaning of this Greek word that suggests returning to where you were before. The word simply means to go up and is used in this manner some eighty-one times in the NT narrative.
The NIV translation tends to give the impression that Jesus was returning to the Father in their rendition of John 13:3 where they wrongly translate the Greek hupago as “returning.”
John 13:3: Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come (Greek: exerkomai, which means to come forth or proceed) from God and was returning (Greek hupago) to God.
The Greek hupago does not mean to return to somewhere you were before but means to withdraw oneself, depart or simply to go somewhere. The KJV translates it as “went.” The NKJV and RSV translate it as “going." Jesus had proceeded from the Father in so much that God directly facilitated His human birth. Now Jesus was about to depart from the world and go to be with His God and Father.
When I began this series, my expressed goal was to go where the evidence takes me as to the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. My goal was to establish evidence beyond reasonable doubt as to how we are to understand the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As already discussed in this series, the evidence leads me to the conclusion that there is but One Eternally Existing Supreme God called the Father. The evidence shows the Son is not God as God is God but was directly begotten by this One God as the human man Jesus who is God’s Christ (the anointed one), the promised Messiah to Israel. The Holy Spirit is the cognitive function and power of the One God through which everything is sustained.
At first look, there appears to be scriptural evidence that the Son had a pre-existence. Upon careful examination of the scriptures that suggest this, not one of them provides conclusive evidence the Son pre-existed. All these scriptures can be understood in other ways. These scriptures do not provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Son existed prior to His appearance as the man Jesus. What does appear to be conclusive and evidential beyond reasonable doubt is that Jesus was begotten in the womb of Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit of God and thus God became the Father of Jesus. Luke plainly says that because of this Divine begettal, Jesus is to be called the Son of God.
As we have seen throughout this series, being called the Son of God doesn’t make one God as God is God. Neither does it require Jesus to have existed as the Son or anyone else prior to His conception in the womb of Mary. Jesus saw Himself as a Son of God in the same sense as human sons of God in OT times who had been granted power and authority and had been sent by God to administer just government. Thus, Jesus distinguishes Himself as a Son of the Most High God, just as these human leaders whom God was addressing as “gods” were seen as sons of the Most High God. As discussed in installment five of this series, in Psalm 82, God (Elohim) is speaking to an assembly of gods (elohim) who are seen as appointed by Him to administer justice but have failed to do so. The second occurrence of elohim is followed by a plural predicate “you” thus signifying a plurality of Beings called “gods” who are being addressed.
Jesus, in John 10, identifies these “gods” as those to whom the word (logos) of God came. The word or speech of God is seen as given to these Beings called “gods”. The context of Psalm 82 shows these “gods” are of the human realm as human conditions such as weakness, being fatherless and needy and needing deliverance from the wicked is what God is discussing with these “gods.” This passage is referring to human leaders, in positions of rulership, power and authority, failing to properly fulfill their responsibilities. God tells them that, even though they have been granted powers of rulership, they will die like every other ruler, which shows their humanity. Jesus, in answering the accusations leveled against Him in John 10, is virtually comparing Himself to this type of god. He is saying that He too has been granted power and authority and has been sent by God. Thus, Jesus distinguishes Himself as a Son of the Most High God, just as these human leaders whom God was addressing as “gods” were seen as sons of the Most High God.
While it is true that Jesus was a unique Son of God because of His direct begettal by the Spirit of God, nowhere do the scriptures show this unique status to mean Jesus is God the Son. The phrase God the Son is not found in scripture. It is always the Son of God.
In installment two of this series we discussed Psalm 110:1 and Acts 2:34-36 where Jesus is seen as lord (adoni) as opposed to Lord (Adonai). Adonai is equivalent to YHWH in meaning and is always found to designate the Most High God whose name is YHWH. Adoni is always associated with a non-deity in OT scripture. Peter, in Acts 2:34-36, confirms that Psalm 110:1 is speaking of Christ. Since Christ is designated as adoni in Psalm 110:1 and adoni does not refer to Deity, we have clear revelation that Christ is not God as God is God but is an agent of the Most High God just as those described in Psalm 82.
It is apparent when reading through the scriptures, Jesus was a human like any one of us with the major exception that He was directly begotten by God as opposed to being begotten in the normal way. The scriptures clearly show Jesus was begotten by God. The Greek word gennao is associated with the birth of Jesus in the scriptures. This word means to become the Father of and is associated with conception and being born. Gennao implies a definite beginning and that beginning is seen to be the conception that began in the womb of Mary. The writer to the Hebrews uses gennao to say God became the Father of Jesus as a result of Jesus' human begettal. All this strongly indicates the begettal of Jesus, and therefore His beginning, took place at the time God generated a pregnancy in Mary some 2000 years ago.
As discussed above, Jesus is seen in the NT narrative as completely dependent on the Father for having the spiritual wherewithal to fulfill his mission. We get the sense that Jesus prayed to His Father often for the strength to succeed as we saw in Hebrews 5:7-8. Jesus prayed all night before He chose His twelve disciples (Luke 6:12). He arose early in the morning to pray (Mark 1:35). He prayed for hours before His crucifixion. He explored with God the possibility of having His pending ordeal mitigated. All this indicates that Jesus was not God in the flesh but a totally human man, experiencing purely human emotions and feelings and totally dependent on His heavenly Father. The recorded behavior of Jesus clearly suggests He was totally human having one nature.
If Jesus was God in the flesh, where is the evidence that He was? We see Jesus in total reliance on God the Father for all He did, including the miracles He performed. If Jesus is to be looked upon as having Divine nature at all, it would have to be in the same sense that we can experience the Divine nature through the presence of God’s Spirit within us as discussed in 1 Peter, chapter one. Having the Divine nature doesn’t mean we are God as God is God but that we are in a close relationship with God and express His character.
Jesus was given a full measure of the Holy Spirit of His Father God. He maintained constant contact with His Father through prayer. Therefore, He had a relationship with God that no other man has ever had. He could rightfully say He and the Father were one. Jesus totally expressed the character of God the Father. He was an exact image of what the Father is like. They were one in purpose and after Jesus accomplished God’s purpose here on earth, He was elevated to the right hand of power and authority next to God Himself as clearly seen in Daniel’s vision. God rewarded Jesus with the glory that had been ordained for Him from the beginning. If Jesus was already God, having all the prerogatives of God, His receiving the glory seen by Daniel would be superfluous.
Some see, in Daniel's vision, Jesus being given back the glory He previously had with the Father. The problem with this perspective is that what Jesus is shown to be given is glory, power and authority as administrator of the Kingdom. Scripture shows the Kingdom to be established in conjunction with what Jesus accomplished as the promised Messiah to Israel. Scripture does not show a preexisting Son having a Kingdom in past eternity that He gave up to become the human Jesus. Jesus is seen as being exalted as a result of what He accomplished as the promised Messiah and not as having returned to a previously held position of power and glory.