IS GOD A TRINITY? ADDENDUM #2
DISCOURSE 1:
CHAPTER SIX: SECTION NINETEEN
In this addendum we will continue to examine Athanasius' first Discourse against Arianism.
In chapter six, section nineteen, Athanasius refers to Jeremiah 2:13 were God is quoted as saying, “they have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters.” He also quotes from the Apocrypha book of Baruch where God is quoted as saying, “Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom.” He goes on to say, “this implies that the life and wisdom are not foreign to the Essence of the Fountain, but are proper to it, nor were at any time without existence, but always were” (Use of capital letters is Athanasius’ as is the case in all quotes of his writing)
Athanasius goes on to say, “Now the Son is all this, who says, ‘I am the Life,’ and, “I Wisdom dwell with prudence.” His first statement is an apparent reference to John 14:6 where Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life.” His second statement appears to be a reference to Proverbs 8:12, "I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion.”
Athanasius then goes on to question how the Arians can say there was a time when the Son did not exist, which he sees as being the same as saying there was a time when the “Fountain was dry, destitute of Life and Wisdom.” Athanasius is saying that not to conclude the Son is eternal with the Father is to conclude there was a time when the Father (the Fountain) was without Life and Wisdom which would be impossible.
Athanasius continues by saying, “God is the eternal Fountain of His proper Wisdom; and, if the Fountain be eternal, the wisdom must also needs be eternal.” He goes on to refer to several scriptures that show it is through wisdom God has made all things. He then associates this wisdom behind the making of all things with the Word of John 1:2 and concludes this Word is Christ. He then quotes 1 Corinthians 8:6: “there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him.” He than writes that, “if all things are through Him, He Himself is not to be reckoned with that ‘all.’ ” Athanasius concludes that Jesus must have existed before all things in order for all things to be through Him and He therefore must be the Word of the Father through whom the Father created.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Athanasius continues to assume the thing to be proved. He assumes the word, as the wisdom of the Father, is a person of a Triune Godhead called the Son. Therefore to say the Son has not eternally existed is, to Athanasius, the same as saying the wisdom of the Father has not eternally existed which is to virtually deprive God of His wisdom.
I certainly agree that the wisdom of God has always been with God. That goes without saying. God certainly can’t exist without His wisdom and be God. The scriptures clearly show God created through His wisdom, as well as his understanding and knowledge. Athanasius sees statements showing Christ to be the wisdom, truth, power and life of the Father as evidence that these attributes are co-eternal with the Father in the person of Jesus the Son. I agree these attributes are co-eternal with the Father but do not see where Athanasius proves these attributes are expressed as a person of a Triune God called the Son.
Jesus is truth, life, the way, power, wisdom, the good Shepherd and a number of other designations as the agent of the Father in facilitating reconciliation with the Father through His death and resurrection. In his role as Savior, Jesus personified attributes of the Father. Attributes of the Father were manifested in and through Jesus. This doesn’t make Jesus God as the Father is God. It doesn’t make Jesus co-equal, co-eternal and Con-substantial with the Father.
As already discussed in this series, the Father is seen as granting life to the Son. A co-eternal Son would not need life granted to Him. He would have it. Trinitarians argue that life is granted to the Son in the sense of the Son being eternally generated by the Father. The concept of eternal generation is not a scriptural concept. Even if the scriptures did teach this, it would still make the Son dependent on the Father for his existence which would negate the ideas that the Son is co-equal with the Father.
As already discussed in depth in this series, it is more scriptural to conclude the word of God is the wisdom, understanding and knowledge of God by which he creates. It is the expression of His thought and power that is seen throughout the universe. This thought and power has existed eternally. It has been with God eternally and in a very real sense is God as Apostle John writes. God is His word and power. God’s word and power are expressed in the generation of all that is. Jesus is also an expression of this thought and power. This doesn’t mean this thought and power existed eternally as a distinguishable person called the Son in a Triune Godhead.
Athanasius quotes 1 Corinthians 8:6 and concludes because Paul says all things are through Christ that Christ must have preceded all things and therefore must be eternal as the Father is eternal. Yet Paul plainly distinguishes between the one God who is the Father and the one Lord who is Jesus in this passage.
1 Corinthians 8:6: 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.
Athanasius assumes, as do other interpreters, that the “all things” referred to in this passage have to do with all things in the creation. Is this the case? Jesus as Lord is identified and revealed in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians as the One through Whom salvation is facilitated. In Paul’s opening remarks in this letter he begins by saying, “Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:3). Paul plainly distinguishes between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. In the next verse Paul says, “I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus.” Here we see Paul speaking of the grace of God that is given through Christ.
If you carefully read through this letter to the Corinthians, you will find the context is Jesus Christ in His role as the One through whom the grace of God comes. Paul goes on to deal with a number of problems and concerns in the Corinthian congregation but it is all set in the context of what God has done for them through Christ. Paul says in verse 30 of chapter one, “It is because of him (God the Father) that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.” Paul is referring to spiritual dynamics in this passage and they are seen as coming from God the Father, through Jesus. Paul clearly identifies God as the Father at the start of his letter in contrast to Jesus who is identified as Lord.
The context of Paul’s letter would appear to limit “all things” to those things pertaining to the salvation God has granted through Christ. We must be careful with broad statements such as “all things.” It is imperative we place such statements in their context in order to understand what is meant. Nowhere in this letter does Paul allude to the creation. The context is what God has done through Christ and we should understand “all things” within that context. The phrase “all things” is used a number of times in NT scripture and by context can be seen to apply to a limited and defined number of things. For example in Philippians 3:6, Paul says he has lost all things for the sake of Christ. Obviously Paul did not lose all things in some kind of universal sense. The context is all about Paul losing his former status as a religious leader among the Jews.
The immediate context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is Paul teaching that eating meat sacrificed to idols is not the same as worshiping these idols which Paul associates with false gods. Paul then says there are many gods and lords, but for the Christian there is but one God and one Lord. Paul identifies that one God as the Father and that one Lord as Jesus. There is nothing in Paul’s statement to suggest that the one Lord is also the one God.
Jesus is the one Lord through Whom we have access to the one God. Paul makes this very clear in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
CHAPTER SIX: SECTION TWENTY-ONE
In this section, Athanasius makes a big issue of Jesus having to be God because scriptures say Jesus is the image of God. He says that since “the Father is eternal, immortal, powerful, light, King, Sovereign, God, Lord, Creator and Maker, these attributes must be in the Image to make it true that he ‘that hath seen’ the Son ‘hath seen the Father.’ ”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: This is a Non Sequitur argument. A Non Sequitur is where the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It is in Hebrews 1:3 where Christ is said to be the image of the Father. The Greek word for “image” is karizomai and appears just this once in the NT and in Greek means a mark or stamp, such as in engraving, imprinting or etching. As discussed in part one of this series, that which is engraved, imprinted or etched is not one with the engraving, imprinting or etching device.An engraving device produces a likeness of something. The likeness isn’t the same as the device that produced it.
Images are similes. They represent something or someone. They do not become that something or someone. A simile is symbolic of something else but is not the substance of that something else. My image in a mirror is certainly not me. It doesn’t have my attributes. It is a representation of my attributes. As pointed out earlier in this series, all three gospels record the account of Christ asking whose image is on the coin that was handed to Him. It was the image of Emperor Caesar. The coin represented Caesar as the imperial ruler of
Jesus came to reveal the purpose and will of the Father. In seeing Jesus, one was seeing the mind of God being expressed. This is no different than my son reflecting my will in what he does. When people see my son they see me through the behavior of my son. It therefore can be said that those who see my son see me. This doesn’t make my son me. In the same manner, those seeing Jesus were not seeing God but seeing attributes of God represented in the behavior of the Son.
CHAPTER SEVEN: SECTION TWENTY-FIVE
In this section, Athanasius continues to teach that since the Father is eternal, His “Radiance ever is, which is His Word.” He writes, “God who is, hath from Himself His Word who also is; and neither hath the Word been added, whereas He was not before, nor was the Father once without Reason.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Athanasius speaks of the radiance of God being His word. Nowhere do the scriptures teach the radiance of the Father is His word. The word radiance is used only once in all of scripture in association with God and the Son.
Hebrews 1:3: The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
The Greek word translated radiance (NIV) in this passage appears only this once in the NT. Its basic meaning is “reflected brightness.” Some translations, such as the KJV, translate it as brightness. Jesus was a reflection of God, His Father. Being a reflection does not mean Jesus is God as His Father is God any more that my son reflecting me means my son is me as I am me. Athanasius takes this Greek word to mean effulgence. Jesus is God’s effulgence. Effulgence pertains to innate brilliance. Since God has always existed, His effulgence would have had to always been and therefore Jesus must have always existed because God, who is eternal, would always have effulgence.
Effulgence, however, is not what this word means. While Jesus did see Himself as coming from the Father, Jesus did not see himself as the effulgence of His Father but as a reflection of His Father. Jesus told his followers that by seeing and believing in Him one sees the Father. People were not literally seeing the Father, but they were seeing the character, will and very mind of the Father represented (reflected) in Christ.
John 12:44-46: When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
The writer to the Hebrews points out that Jesus is the representation of God’s Being. This does not mean He is the Being God. Much of the focus of the letter to the Hebrews is to show the superiority of Christ over angles, and the Aaronic Priesthood. The writer speaks of Christ becoming superior to the angels (Hebrews 4:1). Wouldn’t the Son already be and always have been superior to the angels if He is God? The writer says that because Christ has loved righteousness and hated wickedness, His God will set Him above his companions (Hebrews 1:9). If Jesus is God as God is God, He would already be and always would have been above His companions. This verse shows the Son to have a God which makes no sense at all if the Son is God as God is God.
For discussion of passages in Hebrews chapter one that appear to show a pre-existence for the Son, I refer the reader to part seven of this series.
CHAPTER EIGHT: SECTION TWENTY-SIX & SEVEN
Athanasius writes that Arians had raised the question, “Had you a son before you begot him?” Arians were apparently comparing the generation of a human son to the generation of the Son of God and saying that a human son does not pre-exist before being generated as a son. Why then should we conclude the Son of God pre-existed before being generated as a Son by the Father.
Athanasius answers by saying that humans have their offspring residing within them from the time they are alive. He writes, “When then man comes to that age at which nature supplies the power, immediately, with nature unrestrained, he becomes father of the son from himself.” He refers to Hebrews 7:5, which speaks of the sons of Levi being in the loins of their great grandfather Abraham. He goes on to say that since God the Father is eternal, the Son has always been with the Father. There isn’t a place in time when the Son is generated as is true with temporal humans and therefore the Son is eternally generated.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: The argument that the Son of God has always been with God being parallel to humans always residing in their ancestors better lends itself to seeing the Son as always existing in the will and purpose of God and God generating the Son as the Christ at the appropriate time in the plan of God. While the genetic potential is always there for human conception, it is still only potential and doesn’t become realized until certain things happen. Athanasius is saying that because God the Father is eternal, the Son is eternally realized. This conclusion doesn’t parallel the human example Athanasius provides. With humans a son is an unrealized potential until the starting point of conception (begettal) takes place. By Trinitarians insisting the Son has eternally existed, there is no begettal. Begettal implies a beginning. Postulating begettal for an eternally existing Being is an oxymoron.
CHAPTER ELEVEN: SECTION FORTY-FOUR
In chapters nine and ten, Athanasius deals with various scriptures that on the surface appear to teach Jesus is a pre-existent Being. I have discussed all these passages earlier in this series and found nothing in Athanasius’ treatment of them to warrant further discussion. In chapter eleven, Athanasius discusses Paul’s statement to the Philippians about God exalting Christ subsequent to His death.
Philippians 2:8-11: And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that 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.
Arians teach that since Christ was exalted by God, He must at one time not been exalted and therefore has not existed eternally as God. Athanasius takes the Arians to task for this but does not offer a viable explanation as to what Paul was saying.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Paul speaks of God exalting Jesus and that such exaltation should lead to every one confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord which is all to be done to the glory of God. It is again to be noted that Paul thinks and writes in terms of God on the one hand and Jesus Christ as Lord on the other hand. Paul does this throughout his writings. As has been shown in this series, when Paul dichotomizes between God and Jesus, it is God the Father Who Paul is referring too. This agrees well with what we see in Psalm 110:1 where the word translated LORD is YHWH and pertains to the Father and the second word Lord in this passage is adoni which pertains to the Son. Adoni is not used in the Hebrew Scriptures to identify Deity but always references man in some position of granted authority and power. See a detailed discussion of Psalm 110:1 in part two of this series.
Athanasius writes that a possible explanation of Paul’s statement about Christ being exalted is that Paul may be speaking of God’s resurrection of Jesus from the dead, seeing that his statement about being exalted follows on the heels of a reference to the death of Jesus. The wording of Paul’s statement, however, appears much more wide-ranging in that he speaks of God exalting Jesus to the highest place and elevating His name to be above all names.
CHAPTER TWELVE: SECTION FORTY-SIX
In this section, Athanasius quotes Psalm 45:6-7: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, has anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.” The writer to the Hebrews quotes this Psalm in reference to Christ (Hebrews 1:8-9). Athanasius sees the expression “thy fellows” as relating to that which has been created and writes that the Psalmist speaks of Christ as “the eternal God, saying, ‘thy throne O God, is forever and ever…” Christ could not have been part of the created order and therefore must be “distinct from originated things (created things) and He only the Father’s veritable Word, Radiance, and Wisdom, which all things originate partake.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Athanasius has not done his homework on this passage. First of all, this passage does not speak of Christ as “the Eternal God” as Athanasius writes. Second of all, this Psalm is a song in praise of a human king on his wedding night. By reading the introduction to this Psalm and the entire Psalm, it can be seen as obviously referring to a human king. As discussed earlier in this series, it was not uncommon for human rulers to be referred to as god (elohim). The phrase “forever and ever” was a common expression in respect to kings in the OT. The fact that the writer to the Hebrews uses this Psalm to refer to Christ is instructive. Since the first use of elohim in Psalm 45 6-7 is referring to a human king and not to the eternal God, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the writer to the Hebrews, in using this Psalm in reference to Christ, is using the word god in the same manner as it was used in the Psalm.
The kings of
Since “companions” appears to be referring to angels in this passage, and since the angels are created Beings, Athanasius extrapolates from this that the writer is saying Jesus is of a different substance than the created and therefore is uncreated. This passage has nothing to do with showing Christ to be uncreated (unoriginated) as opposed to created (originated). This Psalm, as quoted in Hebrews 1:8-9, shows the Eternal God, the God of Jesus, anointing him and therefore setting Him above His companions. He is set above His companions because of the anointing given to Him and not because He is of a different substance than His companions as Athanasius implies. This passage has nothing to do with substance. This passage is speaking of granted power and authority over and above His companions no different than a king of
Since God is referred to as the God of Jesus, Jesus can’t be that God. Jesus is a god in the sense that He has been anointed by His Father, (YHWH Elohim), to have great power and authority. This does not make Jesus YHWH Elohim. This does not make Jesus God as God is God. It makes Jesus the Christ, the anointed one of the one and only true Creator God. Jesus plainly said His Father was the only true God (John 17:3). I again refer the reader to part seven of this series for an in-depth discussion of Psalm 45:6-7 and Hebrews 1:8-9.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: SECTIONS FIFTY-THREE TO SIXTY-TWO
In this final chapter of Discourse #1 Against The Arians, Athanasius cites a number of scriptural passages put forth by the Arians in defense of their position that the Son is a created Being. He proceeds, however, not to discuss any one of them except the passage in Hebrews 1:4 where the writer records, “So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs” (NIV). The Arians teach that because the writer says Jesus became superior to the angels it shows there was a time when this was not the case and therefore Jesus was at some point created. Athanasius takes great issue with this conclusion and spends the rest of Discourse #1 arguing against it.
Athanasius begins by quoting Hebrews 1:4 as “having become so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” He then discusses the word “better” and concludes the writer is saying Jesus is better as to the ministry that He brought as compared with the ministry of the prophets before Him and the ministry of angels through whom the law was given. He concludes that Jesus, as the human messenger from God, became better than the angels as to ministry. He concludes the writer’s use of “better” is to contrast the ministry of angels with the ministry of Christ and not compare Jesus to the angels as to substance. Since the writer is seen as not comparing Jesus to angels as to substance, Athanasius sees nothing in this passage to suggest Jesus is or was at any time less than the angels in substance and therefore continues to maintain Jesus is and always has been God and therefore superior to all other Beings.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: I agree with Athanasius that there is no reason to believe that the nature (substance) of Jesus or the angels is being addressed in this passage. The Arian suggestion that the Son at some point in history was equal to or less than the angels as to substance is not what is being discussed in this passage. The writer could very well have been saying that because of what Jesus accomplished as the anointed of God the Father, He is now seen as being superior to the angels. This being said, however, we must consider what the writer to the Hebrews wrote in chapter two:
Hebrews 2:9-10: But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Here the writer speaks of Jesus being made a little lower than angels. In what way was Jesus made a little lower than the angels? Was being made a little lower than angels being made to have a temporary period of less power and authority than angels? Is the writer saying Jesus was created to be a little lower than angels as to substance? If as to substance, was it only pertaining to human substance while Jesus, as "God incarnate," became flesh? Or was it pertaining to a strictly physical Son of God who through resurrection from the dead became superior to angels by being given a spiritual body and power, glory and authority far above angels and all other created Beings? I believe the evidence, as discussed throughout this series, demonstrates the latter.
The writer says Jesus suffered death. If the Son is God as God is God, He could not die. An eternal God cannot die. That’s an oxymoron. Jesus died. Because He died, and was resurrected, He has been crowned with glory and honor. Jesus, the Son of the Eternal God was dead. There is no scriptural reason to believe that only the physical Jesus died while His God self did not and there certainly is no scriptural reason to believe the one and only Eternal God died. The scriptures teach that the physical man Jesus died and was brought back to life and was elevated to great glory and power at the right hand of God the Father.
As previously discussed in this series, the scriptures teach that Jesus, in order to be our Savior, had to be like us humans in every way. The writer to the Hebrews plainly said, “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).
To be made like us in every way is to preclude Jesus being God in the flesh. Humans are completely physical. Jesus was completely physical. Jesus was the unique Son of God, empowered to accomplish His Father’s will and once completed was elevated to a status far above all other Beings. This is why we worship Jesus as god. Jesus is not God as God the Father is God for whom and through whom everything exists as expressed in Hebrews 2:10. Jesus is the Son of the one and only Supreme God who was dead but is alive and the one and only mediator between us and God.
1st Timothy 2:5-6: For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men
In a 2007 book entitled, “The Shack,” the author presents God as a Trinity. As if quoting God, the author writes, “When we three spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also choose to embrace all the limitations that this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood.” The author then compares this phenomenon to a bird whose nature is to fly but who can limit itself to walking when it chooses while all the while maintaining the ability to fly. Therefore, the author concludes God is always God but can at the same time be human by limiting Himself to human dynamics.
The author of “The Shack” does not see the contradiction his analogy presents. A bird has both the ability to fly and walk as complementary dynamics of its nature. It can either fly or walk anytime it wants. It is not a self imposed limitation for the bird to walk rather than fly. A flying bird by nature can fly or walk. God, on the other hand, is by nature eternal. He has neither beginning nor end. God has innate immortality. God has no mortality. Humans are by nature temporal, having innate mortality. God cannot be eternal and temporal at the same time. He cannot impose a limitation of mortality upon Himself and remain at the same time fully immortal. These cannot be complementary dynamics of God’s nature. These are contradictory dynamics. It’s like asking God to create a rock so heavy that He cannot move it and then concluding that because God can’t move the rock He is not all powerful and if He can’t create a rock He can’t move He likewise can’t be all powerful (This is a standard atheist argument against the existence of God) .
God does not exist in contradictions. In order for God to become fully human, He would have to give up being fully God. Being fully God involves being fully eternal while being fully human involves being fully temporal. God can’t be both at the same time. Being fully human excludes being fully God. The Son of God was able to be fully human because He wasn’t fully God. This is the only way Jesus can be seen as being just like us without there being a contradiction. Because Jesus was fully human He is able to identify with our humanity and be the mediator spoken of in 1st Timothy 2:5-6.
This concludes a review of Discourse #1 in Athanasius’ defense of his position against Arianism. A review of Discourse #2 begins with Addendum #3
ADDENDUM #3