IS GOD A TRINITY? ADDENDUM #3
DISCOURSE 2: CHAPTER FOURTEEN: SECTIONS ONE THROUGH ELEVEN
In this second discourse against Arius, Athanasius takes the Arians to task for what he perceives as their misuse of certain scriptures in support of their contention that the Son has not existed eternally but was created at some point by God. As in addendum's one and two, I will italicize and place quotation marks around all quotes of Athanasius including his scriptural quotes.
Athanasius cites the Arian use of Proverbs 8:22 where the writer says, “The LORD had created me a beginning of His ways for His works.” Athanasius says the Arians use this passage to say wisdom was created and since wisdom is believed to be the Son, the Son was created. Athanasius also cites Hebrews 3:2, “Who was faithful to Him that made Him.” as being used by the Arians to defend their position that the Son was made and therefore not without beginning. Athanasius writes that on the basis of these scriptures, the Arians argue that “the Son of God is a work and a creature.” He goes on to write “the Son is not from nothing nor in the number of things originate at all, the Truth witnessing it (for being God, He cannot be a work and it is impious to call Him a creature…”). Athanasius is saying that since the Son is God He could not have been made or created.
He goes on to allude to John 1:1 and associates the “word” with the wisdom of God. Since he believes the “word” of John 1:1 is the Son, he concludes the wisdom of God is the Son. Therefore, when Proverbs 8 speaks of the wisdom of God it is speaking of the Son. He writes, “But if it be He who is the Word and the Wisdom, by which all things come to be, it follows that he is not in the number of works, nor in short of things originate, but the Offspring of the Father.” Athanasius is saying the Son is the uncreated word and wisdom of God the Father.
In section 6 of chapter 14, Athanasius says, “For consider how grave an error it is, to call God’s Word a work. Solomon says in one place in Ecclesiastes, that ‘God shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil’ If then the Word be a work, do you mean that He as well as others will be brought into judgement?” In this statement, Athanasius is asking if the Son be of the created order, will He be brought into judgement like everyone else. He speaks of judgement as going on trial in a judicial sense where punishment is doled out. He says the Son could never be brought to trial. Since every work of God will be judged (brought to trial), Christ could not be a work of God. He goes on to say that the Son, who scripture shows will be the judge of humanity, could not Himself be judged and therefore cannot be among the created things of God.
In section seven, Athanasius refers to passages in the second chapter of Hebrews where the writer speaks of Christ being made lower than the angels, and being made like His human brothers in every way. He says these statements refer to his humanity and not His Divine essence. Athanasius continues to maintain Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. He explains these statements in Hebrews by comparing what the Son did with what Aaron did in putting on his priestly garments and thus being made High Priest. He points out that Aaron was not born High Priest but was made such when putting on the priestly robes while maintaining his fleshly essence. In like manner, Athanasius sees Christ, not having been created flesh, but having put on flesh while remaining consubstantial with the Father as to essence.
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Athanasius suggests that Arians use Proverbs 8:22 to prove that wisdom was created by God and since the wisdom of God is believed to be the Son, the Son was created. An examination of the entirety of Proverbs 8 reveals that wisdom is being personified and spoken of in figurative terminology throughout this chapter. Wisdom is seen as having been with God from the beginning and existing eternally. Proverbs 8 shows God as the creator of all things and wisdom being an ever present dynamic in the process of creation. There is nothing in this passage to indicate wisdom is a “person” within a Triune Godhead. Wisdom is seen as an attribute of God. It is something He possesses and is instrumental in all He does. Several other translations of Proverbs 8:22 support this view.
The Lord (YHWH) possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old (KJV).
Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old (ASV).
The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. Verse 23: From everlasting I was established (NAS)
The Hebrew word translated “possessed” in the above translations and “created” in some translations is qunah which means to erect, to own and to possess. In view of the overall context of Proverbs 8 showing wisdom to be an attribute of God expressed in the creative process, it would appear that wisdom is what God possesses and “possessed” is the more accurate rendering of qunah in this passage. Therefore, it is false for the Arians to use Proverbs 8:22 to support the position that the Son, as the wisdom of God, is created and equally false for Athanasius to use Proverbs 8 to show the wisdom of God is the uncreated eternal Son. Proverbs 8 is not dealing with the identification of the Son. Proverbs 8 is telling us wisdom is the attribute of God’s nature by which He creates. It is part of His cognitive function whereby He does what He does. Wisdom is what God possesses and has always possessed. There is nothing in Proverbs 8 that suggests the wisdom of God is the Son of God.
Athanasius’ quote of Hebrews 3:2 is problematical. “Who was faithful to Him that made Him.” Every English translation I have reviewed speaks of Christ being faithful to Him who “appointed” Him, not “made” him. The context of Hebrews 3 certainly indicates that “appointed” is the correct translation as it speaks of those things which Christ was purposed to do in fulfilling His Father’s will. This verse is not addressing how Christ came to be but what He was appointed to do. If the Arians were indeed using the translation cited by Athanasius to support their position as to how the Son came to be, it is an inappropriate use of this verse.
Athanasius’ quote from Ecclesiastes is also problematical. This passage is talking about judging deeds and is so rendered in most modern translations. To judge the deeds of someone is to make a determination about their behavior. Even with Christ, a determination was made by the Father as to Christ’s deeds. The scriptures show Jesus was tested in every way as all other humans and found to be without sin and He was made perfect by the things He suffered. In other words, Jesus was judged to be perfectly righteous and therefore be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world.
Ecclesiastes 12:14: For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil (NIV, RSV and other renderings).
There is nothing in this scripture that prevents Jesus from having been generated at some moment in time as the Son of God. The passage in Ecclesiastes is not speaking of judgement in the sense of going to trial as Athanasius implies but is simply a statement of determining good deeds from bad deeds as the context of chapter 12 shows. Athanasius writes that the Son could not be judged and also be the judge of the world as scriptures proclaim. This, however, is not the case. The scriptures show that God will judge the world through Christ. God the Father is the ultimate judge of all things. It is not incongruous for someone to be judged and also be a judge. Only the Supreme Creator Father God cannot be judged as it is He who establishes the standards for judgement including the facilitation of judgement through Christ.
Athanasius’ comparing Christ’s fleshly existence to Aaron putting on priestly robes is very problematical. Aaron was of human essence and was given the role of High Priest. This did not add to his human essence. It was simply a role he fulfilled as a human. With Christ, we are being asked to believe a Being of eternal essence took on temporal essence while maintaining eternal essence. This being the case, we are asked to believe that when Jesus died, only His temporal essence died as it would be impossible for His eternal essence to die. If this is the case, the eternal Son of God did not die. His essence, being eternal, could not die. So who died? The scriptures clearly show the Son of God died. Are there two Sons’ of God, one eternal and one temporal, and only the temporal one died?
In the early second century, a branch of Christianity called Gnosticism developed which held to the belief that Jesus was wholly human but an eternal “Divine Spark” came into Jesus at His baptism and it was this “Divine Spark” that survived the death of the human Jesus. In the fourth century, a theologian named Nestorius proposed that Jesus was actually two persons, one temporal and the other eternal and it was the temporal Son who died. This teaching gained a respectable following resulting in a number of Nestorian churches being formed. Nestorius was condemned as a heretic at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. but his teachings survive to this very day as Nestorian churches still exist in the orient.
The scriptures clearly show the Father has directly begotten just one Son and it is that one and only begotten Son who died, was resurrected and ascended to the Father. In order for this Son to die, He had to be mortal. He could not have been immortal in any respect and die. That is an oxymoron. We mortals can become begotten immortal sons of God through the immortality granted to Christ. Jesus is the first to be granted immortality. He is the first fruits of those who have died as the scriptures clearly teach.
God, by nature, is seen as innately immortal, omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (everywhere present). If Jesus is God as God is God, Jesus is innately immortal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Yet Jesus plainly showed His mortality by dying. When asked when the events described in the Olivet Discourse would occur He indicated He didn’t know but only the Father knew. Clearly, Jesus did not display the properties of an immortal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Deity while walking the streets of
An eternal Being, however, cannot lay aside His eternal existence and eternal properties and begin to exist as a temporal Being. This is a logical impossibility and absolute contradiction. Many theologians, including Athanasius, recognize this Christological dilemma and therefore believe Christ did not give up any properties of Deity but added human properties to His Deity and it is the exercise of these human properties that we see as the Christ event of the scriptures. Jesus’ ability to be tested, suffer and ultimately die is all seen as connected to the human nature that was added to His Divine nature. Thus we have the two nature doctrine of Jesus.
The separateness seen while the Son existed as the human Jesus is seen as one of functionality and not one of substance or ontological (Being) nature. Jesus is seen as a human manifestation of the Son distinction in God. As the human Jesus, He is seen as functionally subservient to the Father but remains coequal ontologically with the Father in His pre-existent eternal state.
The problem with this view is that it fails to resolve the issue of who died. If the Son of God remained fully God while adding humanity, it must be concluded it was this added humanity that died since the Divine essence of Jesus could not die. If this is the case, can we legitimately say the Son of God died if only His added humanity died? The scriptures clearly show it was the Son of God who died and not just some human manifestation of the Son that died. Apostle Paul clearly said it was the Son of God who gave Himself for us (Galatians 2:20). Jesus, after His ascension to the Father, is still pictured in scripture as subservient to the Father. The Father continues to be described as the one and only God with Christ being seen as the agent of the Father through whom mankind is redeemed.
If the Son of God is God as God is God, He could not have died as this would be behavior contrary to what it means to be God. If only the humanity added to Jesus’ Deity died, who or what was resurrected? The actual Son of God could not have been resurrected if the actual Son of God did not die. If only the added human essence called Jesus the Christ died and was resurrected, can we say the Son of God died and was resurrected? Are we not proposing, as the Nestorians, that there exist two Sons of God, one mortal and the other immortal? Hopefully you can see the enormous incongruities of the incarnation doctrine.
THE MELCHIZEDEK ISSUE:
There is a side issue that needs to be addressed at this point in our discussion. Because of the manner in which Melchizedek is portrayed in scripture, some believe Melchizedek is one and the same with a pre-incarnate Christ. Therefore, it is believed it was Jesus Christ who appeared to Abraham as the priest Melchizedek.
Genesis 14:18-20: Then Melchizedek king of
Melchizedek is seen as bringing bread and wine. Bread and wine were used by Christ to represent his body and blood at the Passover before the crucifixion. Melchizedek is seen blessing Abraham as priest of the Most High God. Abraham is seen as giving a tenth of everything to Melchizedek. In Psalm 110:4, the LORD (YHWH) is seen as declaring to the lord (adoni), “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." As discussed earlier in this series, adoni pertains to Christ and YHWH is God the Father.
The writer to the Hebrews discusses the issue of Christ becoming a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 5:5-6: So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Verse 9-10: Once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 6:20: He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7:1-4: This Melchizedek was king of
The writer explains the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness” and “king of
In view of all this, Melchizedek is believed to have existed eternally and since the Son of God is believed to have existed eternally (without beginning of days or end of life) and the writer says, “like the Son of God remains a priest forever,” it is believed Melchizedek and Christ are one and the same.
On the other hand, the expression “being without father or mother” was a common way of saying that there was no recorded genealogy for a person. This expression was commonly used in the secular literature of the first century. The Greek word for genealogy is a word that does not mean having no ancestry but means having no recorded ancestry. Nothing recorded on an official document. Since Jesus has a recorded genealogy and has a mother of record and God proclaiming to be His Father, it becomes problematical that Melchizedek and Christ are one and the same. The scripture says he was like the Son of God in relation to being a priest forever and not that he was the Son of God. This was written after the Son of God was resurrected and ascended to the Father, having been granted eternal life by the Father. The relationship between Melchizedek and Christ is further defined in Hebrews 7:14-17.
Hebrews 7:14-17: For it is clear that our Lord descended from
The Greek word translated "like" (“similitude” in the KJV and “likeness” in many other versions) is homoioteta which indicates being similar or like something but not being identical with that something. Melchizedek represented an eternal priesthood that can never die out. The writer compares this to the temporal priesthood under Moses that had to be continually replenished as priests died. The writer did not say Jesus is Melchizedek but that Jesus’ priesthood is similar to Melchizedek's. The writer speaks of another priest like Melchizedek appearing, one who becomes a priest, not on the basis of ancestry but on the basis of living forever. Christ is seen as becoming this priest. Becoming a priest presupposes not having been a priest at some time in the past.
Melchizedek is a priest. If Jesus was Melchizedek, He would already be the priest Melchizedek. He would not have to become the priest Melchizedek or a priest like Melchizedek. The writer clearly shows that Jesus became a priest like Melchizedek. It is contradictory to conclude Jesus became who He already is. Some will argue that the Son set aside being Melchizedek when He became the human Jesus. As already discussed in this addendum, the idea that the Son was able to divest Himself of eternal properties or add temporal properties to eternal properties to become the human Jesus and still die as the one and only Son of God is very problematical.
It is much more scriptural to conclude that Jesus, as the humanly begotten Son of God the Father, became a priest in the order of Melchizedek upon completing His earthly mission. This happened in association with His receiving authority, power and glory and an everlasting Kingdom as pictured in Daniel. Admittedly, this doesn’t define or identify Melchizedek other than what we see in Genesis and Hebrews. To conclude, however, that Melchizedek is the Son of God runs contrary to what we see the writer to the Hebrews recording and therefore becomes nothing more than speculations based on assuming the thing to be proved.
It is interesting to note that those who hold to the position that Christ is Melchizedek often hold, as well, to the position that Christ is the God (YHWH) of the Old Testament. Apparently they fail to carefully read Psalm 110:1-4 where YHWH is seen as addressing Christ (adoni) and declaring adoni to be a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. If YHWH is declaring Christ to be a priest in the order of Melchizedek, how can Christ be YHWH? The contradiction should be obvious.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN: SECTION ELEVEN THROUGH THIRTEEN:
In chapter 15, Athanasius continues to deal with passages of scripture he claims the Arians use to say the Son was made by God and therefore is not God as God is God. He references Acts 2:36 where Peter says, “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” as a passage the Arians use to teach God made the Son and therefore the Son is not eternal as is the Father. Athanasius insists Peter is not referring to God making Jesus as to His essence in this passage. To do so would be the same as saying God made His Word which can’t be because the Word, as the Son, has existed eternally and is consubstantial with the Father. Athanasius writes that Peter is referring to Christ being made Lord and Christ as to His relationship to us. Jesus is seen as being made Lord and Christ as to the temporal world of man. Athanasius goes on to say Christ has always been Lord by nature but Peter is speaking in terms of Christ being recognized as Lord. To leave no doubt in the readers mind as to his belief as to the nature of Christ, Athanasius writes, “by the signs and wonders which the Lord did, He was manifested to be not merely a man, but God in a body and Lord also, the Christ.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: I agree with Athanasius that Peter is not talking about the essence of Jesus. He is not talking about how Jesus came to be. But neither is Peter seeing Jesus as “God in a body” as Athanasius believes. Peter is talking about the status of Jesus subsequent to His resurrection from the dead. Peter is seeing a resurrected Christ, a Christ who was dead, but is now alive. Peter is talking about a Christ to whom immortality has been granted. The scriptures speak of Christ being the first born from the dead, not the first born from the living. In scripture, being born from the dead is synonymous with being granted immortality. Peter is showing God made Jesus Lord and Christ by being born from the dead which is to move from being mortal to being immortal.
Throughout his writings, Athanasius writes from the conviction that the word of God is the eternal and therefore immortal Son of God. Therefore, any suggestion the Son was made or was at some point mortal is immediately dismissed as impossible since the word of God must be eternal as God is eternal. I agree that the word of God is eternal. To conclude, however, that the word (logos) of God is a person called the Son is not demonstrated in the scriptures as I have discussed in some detail throughout this series. The evidence shows the Son to have been born as a mortal person, fully able to die but by the power of God was resurrected to eternal life and is now immortal.
Athanasius’ statement about Jesus having to be God because of the miracles He performed is a false conclusion. As discussed earlier in this series, the signs and wonders Jesus did were not the result of Him being God as God is God. Jesus did what He did because his Father God empowered Him to do so as He clearly indicated during His ministry. The Apostles did signs and wonders also. They healed the sick, cast our evil spirits and even raised the dead. Where they God? No they were not. They did what they did because God empowered them through the resurrected Jesus who was now seated at the right hand of God, having been given great glory, power, and authority.
SECTION FOURTEEN:
In section fourteen of chapter fifteen, Athanasius continues to address the issue of Christ being made Lord and King. He writes, “So Christ also being by nature Lord and King everlasting, does not become Lord more than He was at the time He is sent forth, nor then begins to be Lord and King, but what He is ever, that He then is made according to the flesh; and having redeemed all, He became thereby again Lord of quick and dead. For Him henceforth do all things serve, and this is David’s meaning in the Psalm, ‘the Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.’ ”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Athanasius is saying that Christ is Lord and King in his eternal state and simply continues as such in His fleshly state and through His death and resurrection He reaffirms His status as Lord of both the living and the dead and that all things serve Him. He then informs that this is David’s meaning in Psalm 110:1 which He quotes.
If Athanasius would have done his homework on Psalm 110:1 he may have had an entirely different perspective as to who Christ is as opposed to who God is. As covered in detail earlier in this series, the first “Lord” of this verse is YHWH, the name for God throughout the Old Testament and usually translated as LORD (All caps). The second word for Lord in this passage is adoni, a word that is used throughout the Old Testament to signify a human master having authority over others and is usually translated lord (all small letters). This word is never use of God. Adoni in this verse is understood to be referring to the Son of God as seen in Acts 2:34-36. Therefore, the Son of God stands identified as the one who became the immortal agent of God the Father, who stands at His right hand. Psalm 110:1 shows a clear distinction between God (YHWH) and the one who would become the promised anointed one through whom the Father would bring salvation.
SECTION FIFTEEN:
In this section, Athanasius writes that Christ taught the Jews that God was come among them when He said, “If He called them Gods to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?” He goes on to write that Peter, having learned this from Christ, uses this to announce to the Jews that Christ is “Lord and God, and dispenser of life.”
AUTHOR’S COMMENT: Athanasius' quote is from John 10:36. As discussed in depth beginning on page 46 of this series, Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82 where human rulers are being addressed as gods and Jesus is virtually identifying Himself with these human rulers in His capacity as the Son of God. Jesus’ quote of this passage from Psalm 82 does not establish Him as the one and only Supreme, Creator God but as an appointed agent of the Supreme, Creator God just as those humans being addressed in Psalm 82. This statement of Christ’s does not say Jesus is God as Athanasius claims. Jesus does not say He is God in this passage. He says He is the Son of God. Jesus is seen as the Son of God throughout the New Testament. Never does Jesus, or anyone else, say He is God the Son. Jesus is a god in the same sense as those addressed in Psalm 82. Please read my discussion of this issue in Part 5 of this series.
Some argue that because Mary was impregnated by the power of God, the Divine essence of God was passed on to Jesus much like human essence is passed on to a baby through impregnation of male sperm into a female egg. The scriptures, however, do not speak of Mary being impregnated by God. They speak of Mary becoming pregnant through the power of God. There is a difference. I can personally impregnate my wife through normal sexual activity. Or I can bring about a pregnancy for her through artificial insemination (use of donated sperm) or the implantation of an already fertilized egg (surrogacy). If I choose either one of these methods, my personal genetic profile is not passed on to the baby. I have simply facilitated my wife’s pregnancy through a different mechanism. While this is not a perfect analogy, as impregnation still takes place and human essence is still passed on, it nevertheless demonstrates the difference between a direct impregnation and causing a pregnancy by other means.
Mary may have been a totally surrogate mother (called gestational surrogacy) who carried an embryo that had been directly created by God. If this was the case, the baby she gave birth to had no humanly derived genes whatsoever. We shouldn’t conclude from this, however, that this baby had “Divine genes” and was therefore God. God directly created Adam. This didn’t make Adam God.
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.
Luke 1:31-35: You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So, the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
The power of God facilitated the pregnancy of Mary. There is nothing in these passages suggesting Divine essence was transferred to the womb of Mary and therefore Jesus was a hybrid of human and Divine essence. We can’t assume the supernatural facilitation of Mary’s pregnancy resulted in a Being having Divine and human essence. Jesus was born a human having human characteristics. There was nothing in His appearance to suggest inherited Divine essence. All indications are Jesus was totally human with a lineage going back to the human David whose throne is given to Him by the Lord God. He will be called the Son of the Most High. This clearly shows He is not the most High as there can only be one Most High which throughout scripture is shown to be the Father of Jesus.
Having reviewed two of Athanasius’ discourses against the Arians and finding nothing to significantly challenge the conclusions reached in this series of essays as to the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, I will conclude this investigation at this point. I remain open to critical comment on what I have written provided such comment is based on evidence and not just emotional reaction to what I have written.