Is Jesus God Almighty? Is the Trinity Scriptural?
A Reply to “Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics ask About the Christian Faith,” by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart
By Gordon Coulson
Does it matter to God what we believe, as long as we are sincere? Or does God demand that we make an effort to ensure what we believe is the truth, in the light of His Holy Bible? What do the scriptures say about this?
“Now a certain Jew named A·pol'los, a native of Alexandria, an eloquent man, arrived in Eph'e·sus; and he was well versed in the Scriptures. This [man] had been orally instructed in the way of Jehovah and, as he was aglow with the spirit, he went speaking and teaching with correctness the things about Jesus, but being acquainted with only the baptism of John. And this [man] started to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Pris·cil'la and Aq'ui·la heard him, they took him into their company and expounded the way of God more correctly to him.” (Acts 18:24-26, NWT)
So Apollos, although knowledgeable and sincere, was in need of correction by the disciples so he would understand and be able to teach others more correctly.
“These [the Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessolonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11, KJV)
The Bereans are praised by Paul for being careful to search the scriptures before believing what he taught them.
On the other hand, Paul counsels some of the Corinthians for having false beliefs:
“Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” (1Cor 15:12-14, RSV)
Paul says, in effect, that if you do not believe there is a resurrection, then your faith serves no purpose.
These scriptural examples show the principle that beliefs must be based on accurate scriptural knowledge. They also show that holding on to wrong beliefs could jeopardize our precious relationship with God. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all Christians to continually analyze what they believe in light of scripture and be prepared to make adjustments and changes where necessary.
In the book Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics ask About the Christian Faith by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, the authors present answers to many commonly asked religious questions regarding Christianity and the Bible. We will examine the authors’ answers to two questions in particular:
· Did Jesus claim to be God? (page 39)
· What is the Trinity? (page 71)
The authors argue that Jesus did in fact claim to be God and that He was God and that the Trinity is a Bible teaching. We will examine these assertions in the light of the scriptures.
The following principles will be used in the reply:
· The Bible is the word of God and is the only inspired source of truth available today.
· Any doctrine or belief must be supported by the entire Bible. If a doctrine or belief seems to be supported by some scriptures but clearly contradicted by others, the doctrine or belief is assumed to be in error.
· Scriptures must be read in context to determine their true meaning.
· No one Bible translation is “the best” translation. All are subject to the beliefs and prejudices of their respective translators. Therefore, in cases where the original meaning is in dispute, several translations, and in some cases the original language, must be consulted.
Translations Used
KJV King James Version
NASB New American Standard Bible
CEV Common English Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
NIV New International Version
LB Living Bible
PME Philips Modern English
TEV Today’s English Version
JB Jerusalem Bible
NEB New English Bible
ED Emphatic Diaglott
AAT An American Translation
MT Moffat’s Translation
NWT New World Translation
Did Jesus Claim to be God? Even if He did make the claim, why should I believe it? (page 39)
The arguments put forth by the authors can be summarized as:
1. He who has seen Him (Jesus) has seen the Father (John 14.9)
2. Jesus existed before Abraham (John 8:58) and was equal with the Father (John 5:17,18)
3. Jesus could forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which only God could do (Isaiah 43:25)
4. Jesus is equated with the Creator of the universe (John 1:3) and holds everything together (Colossians 1:17)
5. God was manifest in the flesh (1Tim 3:16) and the Word was God (John 1:1)
6. The Jewish authorities accused him of claiming to be God (John 10:33)
7. Jesus performed miracles so is therefore God (John 20:30,31)
8. Jesus proves he is the Son of God by coming back from the dead (Romans 1:4), and since He raised Himself from the dead, He must be God.
1. He who has seen Him (Jesus) has seen the Father (John 14:9)
This seems to prove that Jesus is God. However, John 1:18 says “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (KJV)
Since no man has seen God at any time, this includes Jesus’ disciples who were with him in the first century. Therefore, John 14:9 must mean something else. At Hebrews 1:3 we read “He [Jesus] reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature…” (RSV) Since he is an exact “reflection” or “representation” (NIV) of God, those who saw Jesus would be seeing an exact reflection or representation of God, but not necessarily God Himself. This is what Jesus meant—that he perfectly models God’s personality. Those that see him and listen to his teachings are indirectly observing God’s personality and hearing His teachings.
“…I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28, KJV)
If the Father had to teach Jesus so Jesus could teach his disciples, how could they be the same person? Does God teach God what to teach others? Clearly this is absurd. God knows all things and is in no need of being taught anything.
2. Jesus existed before Abraham (John 8:58) and was equal with the Father (John 5:17,18)
The fact that Jesus had a pre-human existence is not disputed. What is disputed is that this proves he is God. The angels also existed before Abraham but it is not argued that they are also God.
John 5:17,18 says “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (KJV)
Jesus certainly said God was his Father, but it was the wicked Jewish religious leaders that were saying he was making himself equal with God. Since these leaders wanted Jesus dead, and were not above lying or using false witnesses, anything they have to say on the matter must be viewed with suspicion at best.
Jesus himself said at John 14:28 “…my Father is greater than I.” (KJV). We will choose to listen to what the Son of God said about himself, not the wicked Jewish leaders.
3. Jesus could forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which only God could do (Isaiah 43:25)
At Isaiah 43:25, we read “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake; and I will not remember thy sins.” (KJV)
This scripture says that God forgives sins, but does not say that for all time this will be an exclusive privilege of God, never to be granted to anyone else. It was the scribes who said “Who can forgive sins except God?” (Mark 2:7), not Jesus or the scriptures. At Mark 2:5-7 Jesus says that he wanted the scribes to know that “…the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (RSV).
We cannot use the testimony of the wicked religious leaders, especially in the context of them trying to find an excuse to kill Jesus. Instead, we must conclude that Jesus was given the authority to forgive sins on earth from the Father.
4. Jesus is equated with the Creator of the universe (John 1:3) and holds everything together (Colosisians 1:17)
John 1:3 reads:
“All things were made by him” (KJV)
“He created everything” (LB)
However, other translations read:
“All creation took place through him” (PME)
“all things were made through him” (RSV)
“Through him God made all things” (TEV)
“Through him all things were made” (NIV)
“Through him all things came to be” (JB)
“Through him all things came to be” (NEB)
Most popular translations do not equate Jesus with the Creator. Instead, they declare him to be the person through whom God the Father made the universe. Proverbs 8:30 suggests that Jesus, in his pre-human existence, was the “Master Worker” alongside God. If this is taken literally, as some scholars suggest, then this would further explain his position relative to God: His Son, the Master Worker, through whom the universe was created.
5. God was manifest in the flesh (1Tim 3:16) and the Word was God (John 1:1)
1 Timothy 3:16 in the King James Version reads:
“God was manifest in the flesh”
This is a mistranslation by the King James Version. The authors of “Answers to Tough Questions” must certainly be aware of this. The word God (theos or ton theon) is not even present in the original Greek!
Other popular translations read:
“He appeared in a body” (NIV)
“the one who appeared in human flesh” (PME)
“He was manifested in the flesh” (RSV)
“He who was manifested in the body” (NEB)
“He was made visible in the flesh” (JB)
“Christ came as a human.” (CEV)
We know that Jesus had a pre-human existence but emptied himself and became a man (Phillipians 2:7) through the miraculous operation of God’s power. This is what the scriptures mean by “He [the pre-human Jesus] was manifested in the flesh”.
John 1:1 is usually translated “…and the Word was God” in popular bibles. To unpack this controversial verse, we must look at the original Greek (from Wescott/Hort Greek Interlinear):
John 1:1
en archee een ho logos kai ho logos een pros
IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS TOWARD
ton theon kai theos een ho logos
THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD.
Whether or not the word “God” is capitalized is not implicit in the Greek language. This is left to the discretion of the translator, who must decide if the word God refers to God the Father or some other god. Even Satan is referred to as “god [theos] of this world” (2Cor 4:4). In this case the translator has correctly used small case “g”. But note this is the same word (theos) that is translated God (capital “G”) when referring to the Word in John 1:1. This is a judgement call by the translators entirely.
In John 1:1, “ton theon” means The God in English, because of the definite article “ton”. The second “theos” does not have the definite article “ton”. If it did, this would clearly equate Jesus with God. If John wanted to leave no doubt that Jesus was The God, he would have used “ton theon”. Since the second “theos” does not have the definite article, some translators have translated this passage as:
“he was the same as God” (TEV)
“what God was, the Word was” (NEB)
“a god was the Word” (ED)
“the Word was divine” (AAT)
“the Logos was divine” (MT)
“the Word was a god” (NWT)
Some scholars conclude that what is meant in the original Greek was that the Word was of the same quality as God. As a human father has a human son, so a Divine Father would have a Divine Son. Jesus was God-like in love, justice, power, wisdom and creative ability—the highest personage in the universe next to his Father. However, he was not The God (ton theon). This title is reserved for the Father exclusively.
God (theos) in scripture can also mean one with great power and authority. When Satan is called god (theos) of this world, it does not of course mean he is part of the Trinity, but rather that he has been given power and authority over the world for a time. Likewise, Jesus can also be called god in the sense that he has been given great power and authority by the Father. In fact, he has been given all authority (Matthew 28:18). Thus, when Thomas says “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28 – note the translator has capitalized the ‘g’ in God; it’s not in the original text), he is recognizing this authority granted to Jesus by the Father. However, Jesus cannot be called God Almighty, as this title is reserved for the Father exclusively in scripture. Thomas, being a Jew, knew that Jesus was not Yahweh, the Almighty God, but was the messiah, God’s Son.
6. The Jewish authorities accused him of claiming to be God (John 10:33)
The Jewish authorities were prepared to lie and to use false witnesses against Jesus in order to accuse him and kill him. Their testimony is suspect at best.
When we examine the text, we see that Jesus did not in fact claim to be God at all.
33“We [the Jewish authorities] are not stoning you for any of these [miracles and good works],” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken– 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God's Son’? (John 10:33-36, NIV)
The scripture Jesus cites in the Law is Psalm 82:6:
6 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' This scripture calls gods those “through whom the word of God came”—that is, faithful men of God who spoke for Him. What Jesus is illustrating is that even humans can be called gods in scripture. The word god in the bible can mean one with great power and authority, or one who is representing God. And yet, Jesus never even claimed this for himself, but simply said, “I am God’s Son.”
7. Jesus performed miracles so is therefore God (John 20:30,31)
John 20:30,31 says “And many other signs truly did Jesus...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” (KJV)
Note it doesn’t say “that ye might believe that Jesus is God”, but that “ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” If miracles prove that Jesus is God, then it would also prove that Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, Paul, Peter, and many other prophets and disciples were God, since they also performed miracles.
8. Jesus proves he is the Son of God by coming back from the dead (Romans 1:4), and since He raised Himself from the dead, He must be God.
Romans 1:4 says “And [Jesus was] declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead;” (KJV)
So he is declared to be the Son of God, not God, by his resurrection, as the scripture clearly states.
The scriptures show that it was God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead (Gal 1:1, Col 2:12, 1Pt 1:21). The idea that Jesus raised himself from the dead is a contradiction in terms. If he raised himself from the dead, then he was not dead. If he was not dead, then there was no sacrifice made for our sins. It was God the Father that raised Jesus from the dead.
Conclusion
The authors have presented several arguments as a proof that Jesus was God. We have seen that each of these arguments is either logically invalid, not taught in scriptures, or in the case of John 1:1 (the Word was God) is open to other valid interpretations when we consider the original text.
The authors make a strong assertion as a conclusion:
· If He [Jesus] is God, as He claimed, we must believe in Him, and if He is not, then we should have nothing to do with Him. Jesus is either Lord of all or not Lord at all.
What the authors present here is known as a false dilemma. They give you only two choices, both which are incorrect, and demand that you choose one, as if there are no other choices. Thankfully there are.
If Jesus is not God, but God’s Son, our Redeemer, our Lord, our Teacher, glorified, divine and sitting at the right hand of the Father, King of God’s Heavenly Kingdom and Heavenly High Priest, and this is clearly taught in the scriptures, and it is God the Father’s purpose and will that we submit ourselves to this arrangement in order to be approved, are we justified to “..have nothing to do with Him”, because this conflicts with our church tradition? The scriptures are very clear on who the Father is and who the Son is. We should be also.
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6, NIV)
The course of wisdom is, when we discover that we hold a wrong belief, to change that belief, not try to force an interpretation on the scriptures to support it. If we have the faith, strength and courage to do this, we will be further blessed and approved by God. If it is the true, actual case that Jesus is not God Almighty, but God’s Son, and we believe this, the scriptures will be opened further to us just as a key unlocks a hidden door. To stubbornly cling to false doctrines in the face of contrary scriptural evidence invites God’s displeasure. The fact that the majority of churches may consider us 'heretical' is irrelevant. It is God we must please, not men. Don't forget that Jesus himself was considered a heretic in his time.
What is the Trinity? Do Christians worship three Gods? (Page 71)
The argument put forth by the authors can be summarized as:
1. “Let us make man in our image” (Ge 1:26, KJV) and “Behold, the man has become like one of us” (Ge 3:22, RSV) prove that there were three Gods, not one.
2. The Bible clearly shows that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
3. The analogy of theoretical physics is presented: Matter can have wave, particle and quantum properties but is the same matter.
1. “Let us make man in our image” (Ge 1:26, KJV) and “Behold, the man has become like one of us” (Ge 3:22, RSV) prove that there were three Gods, not just one.
The quoted scriptures say nothing about three persons. “Our image” and “one of us” does not imply three individuals. It implies two or more.
As discussed in the previous question, Was Jesus God?, the scriptures clearly teach that Jesus had a pre-human existence and was the agent through whom all things were created. So when God says “Let us make man in our image”, He is speaking to the pre-human Jesus in heaven, and perhaps to the angels as well. He is saying in effect, let us design man to reflect the qualities of Me that have been perfectly reflected in you [the pre-human Jesus]. And so man was originally created with the capacity for love, justice, widsom and creative power in the image, albeit on a much smaller scale, of God.
There is no mention of the Holy Spirit present as a third person, so we cannot not assume this. This would be arguing from silence.
2. The Bible clearly shows that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
In the preceding topic, we demonstrated that the Bible does not clearly show that Jesus is God, which is sufficient to prove that the Trinity is not scriptural. However, is it possible that the Holy Spirit is God? Is this a scriptural teaching?
The authors quote Acts 5:3,4 (RSV):
“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?…You have not lied to men but to God.” Does this mean that the Holy Spirit must be God?
To understand what Peter meant here, we have to look at what the scriptures teach regarding the Holy Spirit.
The Hebrew word for spirit is ruah, the Greek word is pneuma. Both words mean wind or breath. The idea is the wind, or breath of God. These words do not indicate that the Spirit is a person separate from God.
The Holy Spirit was used by God during creation
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God (ruah) moved upon the face of the waters. (KJV)
This does not indicate that the Holy Spirit is a person, but rather an instrument of God that He used during creation.
The Holy Spirit can reside within or come upon individuals
“And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom the spirit of God is? (Genesis 41:38, KJV)
“But the Spirit of Jehovah came upon Gideon; and he blew a trumpet; and Abiezer was gathered together after him.” (Judges 6:34, KJV)
“and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.” (Luke 1:15, KJV)
This implies that the Holy Spirit is a force or power used by God to aid and strengthen faithful individuals. It would not make sense to speak of Jesus being filled with the person of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15), which would not be physically possible, but rather being filled with God’s Spirit of power and wisdom to perform miracles and to teach God’s truths.
Portions of the Holy Spirit can be taken from an individual and distributed to others
And Jehovah came down in the cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did so no more. (Numbers 11:25, KJV)
You would not think of a person being taken from an individual and distributed to others, but rather a force or power being taken and redistributed.
God was Jesus’ Father, not the Holy Spirit
When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18, KJV)
…from the Holy Spirit. (NIV)
…through the Holy Spirit (JB)
…by holy spirit (NWT)
Since the scriptures clearly teach that God, not the Holy Spirit, was the Father of Jesus, this scripture must mean that God the Father caused Mary to become pregnant through the operation of the Holy Spirit; that is, God’s creative, active force or power.
Holy Spirit is a gift; it can be “poured out”
Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:18, KJV)
And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38, KJV)
You would not properly speak of “pouring out” a person or giving a person as a gift. If we assume the Spirit is God’s power or active force, then He can give it as a gift and pour it out as it pleases Him.
Does the Bible speak of the Holy Spirit as a distinct personality?
Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·ra'kle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13)
However, to harmonize with the earlier quoted scriptures, showing the spirit to be an active force or power, we must conclude that the texts employ a figure of speech personifying God’s holy spirit, his active force, as the Bible also personifies wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood.
3. The analogy of theoretical physics is presented: Matter can have wave, particle and quantum properties but is the same matter.
The analogy is only valid if the Trinity is scriptural. Since the scriptural support for Trinity has not been established, the analogy is meaningless.
Conclusion
So, back to the original question, What did Peter mean by the statement, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? ...You have not lied to men but to God.”?
In what sense did Ananias lie to the Holy Spirit, and therefore to God? In the sense that Ananias had seen the miracles God had performed through Holy Spirit, had been a witness to the powerful operation of Holy Spirit upon the newly spirit-baptized Christian congregation, and yet had tried to deceive the disciples and God Himself. He had lied to, or resisted the operation of, God’s Holy spirit, his breath or wind (ruah, pneuma), his active force or power, which He uses to accomplish His purposes.
The authors have tried to prove that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God, and therefore the Trinity is a biblical teaching. I believe we have shown that the proofs they have put forward are not supported by the scriptures. Instead, the scriptures more clearly teach that Jesus is God’s Son, not God Himself, and is the second most high personage in the universe through whom all things were created. The Holy Spirit is God’s active force or power, His “hands” that he uses to accomplish His purpose.
The authors, after presenting their argument for Trinity, quote How Do We Know There is a God as a summary:
“The choice is clear: either the Trinity or a ‘God’ who is only a pale imitation of the Lord of biblical and confessional Christianity”
Again, the authors resort to a false dilemma.
If the Trinity is not a scriptural doctrine, then indeed the choice is clear. The choice is to believe that there is one God and Father over all, who is by no means a pale imitation of anything, but is the Eternal Grand and Glorious Creator and Heavenly Father. To suggest that His stature will be significantly reduced if we discard Trinity is not rational. In fact, it is the Trinity that reduces God’s stature by preventing people from coming to an accurate understanding and appreciation of Him.
Instead of perceiving Him as a kind, loving Father with a distinct personality who loves and cares for us, they are instead confronted with an abstraction that is not possible to understand, a “mystery”. This in fact dishonors God by misrepresenting Him.
The conclusions presented in this paper may appear shocking to those of us who have been taught 'orthodox' theology. We may even view non-Trinitarians as heretics or unchristian. However, we must try to understand that God's truth is found in his Word the Bible, not necessarily in the doctrines of men and traditions of churches. Please see Appendix II for a discussion on the historical development of the Trinity doctrine. Many will be surprised to learn that it was not a teaching of the early church.
The question for us is: Do we have the courage and faith to relinquish doctrines that are not taught in the scriptures in our perpetual quest to serve our God more fully? Even if this invites ridicule or isolation from so-called ‘orthodox’ Christians? If we do, then we will prayerfully and seriously consider the questions of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity doctrine, in light of scripture.
Appendix I - Jesus has a God, his Father
The scriptures clearly teach that Jesus has a God.
46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" (Matthew 27:46, NASB)
17Jesus 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 to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” (John 20:17, NIV)
12 ” ’“The victor I will make into a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will never leave it again. On him I will inscribe the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, as well as my new name. (Revelation 3:11-13, NAB)
5May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5-6, NIV)
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3, NASB).
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3, KJV).
Jesus, when dying on the cross, after his resurrection, and after his ascension to heaven (Rev 3:11-13) clearly and unequivocally says he has a God, his Father. Additionally, the apostles, after Jesus’ death, refer to the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”. They also understood that the Father was Jesus’ God.
If God the Father, our God, is also the God of Jesus Christ, as the scriptures clearly teach, then Jesus cannot be God Almighty, equal to his Father in power and glory. He can be
divine and glorious, having been raised to this position by his Father, but he cannot be equal to the Father in power and glory.
The Apostle Paul summarizes this for us in Phillipians:
5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phillipians 2:5-11, NASB)
Note that:
Jesus “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”; i.e., he did not want to be equal to God.
Jesus “humbled himself by becoming obedient [to God his Father]. Jesus is subordinate to his Father.
God highly exalted him. He receives his position from the Father.
Jesus is Lord “to the glory of God the Father.” He lives to glorify his Father, not himself.
Does Hebrews 1:8 Negate the Scriptural Teaching that the Father is the God of the Son?
But of the Son He [the Father] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom”. (He 1:8, NASB)
Note that there is another valid translation of this verse, for example, as found in the footnote to the RSV: "God is thy throne, for ever and ever, the righteous sceptre is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Both translations are possible and are equally valid. However, Trinitarians, for obvious reasons, prefer the first, so we will examine this having noted that an explicit doctrine cannot be derived from an ambiguous passage.
The argument used by Trinitarians is as follows. In Hebrews 1:8, the Father calls the Son “O God”. Therefore the Son is the God of the Father. Since the Son is the God of the Father, and the Father is the God of the Son, they are still co-equal and both God.
But clearly this is absurd! How can they be Gods of each other? Do they worship each other? Ridiculous! Not only does this violate the orthodox definition of Trinity (three co-equal Gods in one “Godhead”), but does violence to our sense of reason. A sincere truth-seeker would want to resolve this apparent contradiction, but unfortunately Trinitarians go no further. For them, this scripture is a “proof text” to refute the idea that the Father is the God of the Son, even though it is an explicit scriptural teaching, repeated over and over again in the bible, as outlined by the above quotations.
If we simply read the next verse, the problem is resolved.
“You [the Son] have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.” (He 1:9, NASB)
So again, the scriptural teaching that the Father is the God of Jesus Christ is maintained. Jesus' God, his Father, has anointed him, and raised him above his companions. In verse 8 the Father does not call the Son "My God", but calls him by the title, "O God". If this translation is correct, it refers to a title bestowed on the Son by the Father. Additionally, we noted that this passage can also be translated as "God is thy throne...", rather than "Thy throne, O God..." The former may be closer to the actual thought of the writer of Hebrews. In either case, we conclude that since this passage cannot be used as an explicit doctrinal statement (because of the ambiguity of translation), it does not negate the teaching that the Father is the God of the Son. If it did, the bible would be contradicting itself. Instead, we see that the apparent contradiction only occurs when Trinitarians attempt to read into the scriptures what is not there.
Appendix II – Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
If the doctrine of the Trinity is not a Bible teaching, where did it originate?
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. 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.”—(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.
According to the Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.
So we see then, that the doctrine of the Trinity was not a teaching of the original Christians, who were either with Jesus himself or taught directly by the surviving apostles. It is simply not a biblical teaching. If it was a fundamental, core doctrine of such great importance to the early church, it would have been clearly and unmistakably stated in scripture. The fact that it was developed centuries later by a corrupt church in a sinful union with the Roman state should cause us to examine it with the utmost suspicion.
The fact that the vast majority of professed Christians and church doctrinal statements today maintain a belief in the Trinity does not prove it is correct. Rather, it suggests that the corruption of Christian doctrinal truths is widespread and deep. This is a striking conclusion, but one that cannot be denied if we are to take the inspiration of the bible seriously. The challenge for the Christian is to pursue biblical belief, even if it invites ridicule or even persecution from religious authorities. It is the God our Lord Jesus Christ we must please, not them.