IS GOD A TRINITY? PART FIVE

       Beginning with this installment in this series we will begin to examine specific scriptures that relate to the issue of the Trinity.

SCRIPTURE #1

       Matthew 1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Taken from Isaiah 7:14)

       Trinitarians view the statement about Mary’s son being looked upon as “God with us” as straightforward proof that Jesus is God. If His name is “God (Greek theos) with us” He must be God.  Non-Trinitarians respond by discussing the original context from which Matthew’s statement is taken and draw an entirely different conclusion.  

       Isaiah 7:14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

       Isaiah chapter seven shows Ahaz was king of Judah.  King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel, were in alliance and came up to fight against Ahaz and Judah.  The Lord, through Isaiah, told Ahaz that this alliance would not succeed against Ahaz and Judah.  It’s recorded that the Lord then gave a sign to Ahaz to show him that the alliance would not succeed. The sign is that a virgin shall conceive, bear a son and call his name Immanuel which means in the Hebrew “God is with us” or “God with us.”  In referring to this son who would be called Immanuel, Isaiah went on to say the following:

       Isaiah 7: 15-16: He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

       Isaiah 8:3-8: Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Before the boy knows how to say `My father' or `My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria."  The LORD spoke to me again: "Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River -- the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!”

        The sign given to Ahaz was directed to Ahaz and the house of David (Judah). The naming of the child Immanuel relates to the events at hand in Isaiah’s time.  The context of Isaiah 7 and 8 clearly shows the son spoken of is a boy living at that time and behaving in a certain way relative to the two kings being laid waste. The son being named Immanuel (God with us) doesn’t mean this boy was God. Ahaz was given a sign from God that God would intervene on his behalf to defeat the alliance.  The sign was the boy named Immanuel.  God was telling Ahaz He would be with him and his people. 

       Non-Trinitarians see Matthew as using this OT event to show that through Jesus, God would be with His people Israel.  Just as the son born to the prophetess and called “God with us” was not actual God, neither was the son born to Mary actual God but represented God in being with His people IsraelIsrael never viewed the promised Messiah as an incarnation of the one God. There was no thought in Israel’s theology that Messiah would be actual God.  Such a conclusion would run contrary to everything Israel understood about God and Messiah. Matthew is not seen as introducing a new concept of God by saying the one God of Israel is being incarnated through the son born to Mary.  While the religious leaders of the first century rejected Jesus as Messiah, many of the people saw Jesus as a great prophet through whom God had come to help His people and in this respect God was with them.      

       Luke 7:16: They were all filled with awe and praised God. "A great prophet has appeared among us," they said. "God has come to help his people."  

 AUTHOR’S COMMENTS:  By placing Matthew’s quote into its original context, it does allow for understanding Matthew’s quote as applying to Jesus as God’s representative and not God Himself. 

SCRIPTURE #2

       Matthew 3:3: This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, `Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'"

       This quote by Matthew is taken from Isaiah 40:3 where the word Lord is translated from the Hebrew YHWH which, as covered earlier in this series, is the personal name for God. Trinitarians see this quote by Matthew as prophetic of John the Baptist preaching in the desert a message of preparation for the coming of YHWH which is believed to be Jesus the Christ. Since YHWH is God, Jesus must be not only God but YHWH God . Therefore, this is seen as another reference to Jesus being God.

       Non-Trinitarians provide a scriptural answer to this assertion by pointing out how Jesus referred to John the Baptist and Himself in the passage from Isaiah.

       Matthew 11:10: This is the one about whom it is written: "`I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' 

       Jesus is virtually paraphrasing Isaiah and placing a totally different spin on what Isaiah said.  Jesus is quoting Isaiah as though YHWH is talking to Him and saying He, YHWH, will send John as a messenger ahead of Him (Jesus) to prepare the way for Him.

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS:  A Trinitarian could argue that Jesus, in seeing Isaiah’s statement as YHWH talking to Him, is showing His preexistence.  On the other hand, if Isaiah’s statement is looked at as prophetic of John and Jesus, which it appears to be doing, this prophecy would not necessarily point to the pre-existence of Christ.  If it did point to His pre-existence, it would not establish that Jesus is God.  In fact it shows a separation between YHWH and the one He is talking to. A reading of the entire chapter of Isaiah 40 reveals Isaiah is speaking at length about YHWH and YHWH is not Jesus as discussed above.

SCRIPTURE #3

       John 10:30-36: I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a  mere man, claim to be God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods’? If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- what 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'?

       Trinitarians see a double proof in this passage that Jesus is God.  First Jesus says “I and the Father are one.”  Then the religious leaders claim Jesus is blaspheming because He claims to be God.  It is assumed that for Jesus and the Father to be one it must mean Jesus is in a Trinitarian relationship with God and therefore is God.  It is also assumed that because the religious leaders said Jesus claimed to be God He must be God.

        Non-Trinitarians point out that when Jesus says “I and the Father are one” He is not talking about being God.  In Christ’s prayer to the Father shortly before His crucifixion, in reference to the apostles, He said this:  John 17:22:  “I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.”  The apostles becoming one with each other would not make them one Being.  If Christ meant for them to become one with the Father as He was, it certainly didn’t mean they became God.  Non-Trinitarians believe this statement by Christ has nothing to do with identifying Him as God but simply shows how He was in total harmony with the Father in all things.  In referring to the Holy Spirit that He would send after His ascension, Christ said: John 14:20: “On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.”  This is a statement of relationship which has nothing to do with identification of Being.  Obviously Christ didn’t mean that the apostles would become God by them being in Him and He in them as He is in the Father. Christ was showing that through the Holy Spirit they could be one in purpose just as He and the Father are.

        John 14:9-11: Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father….Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?  The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.

        Jesus is not saying that if you see Him you see the Father in the sense that Jesus and the Father are of identical substance of Being. Jesus is not talking about substance of Being but of being in spiritual unity with the Father.  The Father lives in Christ through His Spirit and that same Spirit that lives in Christ can live in us as the scriptures clearly show.  

        As to Jesus claiming to be God, Non-Trinitarians point out that nowhere in scripture does Jesus ever claim to be the one Supreme God. He only claims to be the Son of God.  It is seen as evident from how Jesus responded to this accusation of claiming to be God that He wasn’t claiming to be the one Supreme God but that He was god in the same sense as men of authority and power spoken of in the OT.  Jesus appears to refer to a statement found in Psalm 82.

        Psalm 82:1-8:  God (Elohim) presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods": (elohim) "How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?  Selah. Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. "They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. "I said, `You are "gods"; (elohim) you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." Rise up, O God; judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.

         Here God (Elohim) is speaking to an assembly of gods (elohim) who are seen as appointed by Him to administer justice but have failed to do so. The second occurrence of elohim is followed by a plural predicate “you” thus signifying a plurality of Beings called “gods” who are being addressed.  Jesus, in John 10, identifies these “gods” as those to whom the word (logos) of God came. The word or speech of God is seen as given to these Beings called “gods”. The context of Psalm 82 shows these “gods” are of the human realm as human conditions such as weakness, being fatherless and needy and needing deliverance from the wicked is what God is discussing with these “gods.”  This passage is referring to human leaders, in positions of rulership, power and authority, failing to properly fulfill their responsibilities. God tells them that, even though they have been granted powers of rulership, they will die like every other ruler, which shows their humanity. Jesus is virtually comparing Himself to this type of god.  He is saying that He too has been granted power and authority and has been sent by God. Thus, Jesus distinguishes Himself as a Son of the Most High God, just as these human leaders whom God was addressing as “gods” were seen as sons of the Most High God.

       While it is true that Jesus was a unique Son of the Most High God because of His direct begettal by the Spirit of God, nowhere do the scriptures show this unique status to mean Jesus is God the Son.  The phrase God the Son is not found in scripture.  It is always the Son of God. 

        As explained earlier in this series, elohim is used throughout the OT in reference to the creator God as well as to designate human rulers and other appointees of the creator God.  By answering His accusers as He did, he is virtually saying He is a god in the same sense as the “gods” referred to in the OT who are also called sons of the Most High. Jesus is saying that just as God sent rulers to represent His interests in OT times, God has now sent Him, the promised Messiah as His only begotten or unique, one of a kind (Greek monogenes) Son.  We will discuss monogenes later in this series.  Jesus is not saying He is God as the Most High God is God but He is a Son of the Most High God which makes Him an agent of the Most High just as seen with the gods mentioned in Psalm 82.

 AUTHOR’S COMMENTS:  The Non-Trinitarian response pretty much speaks for itself.  The very sayings of Christ that Trinitarians believe support their position actually better support the Non-Trinitarian position that Jesus is not part of a Triune God but is the human Messiah who was given the Holy Spirit (not a person but the power and mind of God the Father) without measure enabling Him to be in total harmony with the Father and therefore able to do the works He did.  Jesus’ use of Psalm 82 in His defense speaks volumes as to who He believed He was in relationship to the one true God.

        Some commentators believe the elohim referred to in Psalm 82 are supernatural beings.  Yet the context would appear to dispel that notion as it is human conditions such as being poor, oppressed, etc. that are under consideration.  Plus, supernatural beings would not be seen as dying like men.  It is much more likely that human rulers are being addressed, either rulers over Israel or rulers in general as the scriptures show that it is God who sets up and puts down the rulers of the earth. While there does appear, by context, to be references in the OT to supernatural Beings called elohim, because the context of Psalm 82 is dealing with human relational dynamics, the reference to “gods” in this passage does not appear to be speaking of such supernatural beings.  Even if Psalm 82 was referencing supernatural beings, these beings would be lesser gods than the Most High God and since Christ is apparently using this passage to define Himself in response to the Jews accusation of He making Himself God, this would show Him as being a lesser god than the Most High God and thus negate the accusations of the Jews.

        As to the various statements of the oneness of Christ with God, it should be clear they have nothing to do with oneness of substance or essence. They have nothing to do with being consubstantial and coequal in Being with the Father.  By context it should be evident that the oneness statements found in the scriptures pertain to oneness of spirit which involves oneness of thought, attitude, character, will, purpose, etc.  The fact that we can be one with Jesus as Jesus is one with the Father should make it quite evident that these are relational statements and have nothing to do with composition of Being. Here we can plainly see that many separate individuals can be in spiritual relationship with each other and with Christ and through Christ with the Father and maintain their individual separateness as to Being.  Why then should it be so difficult to see God and the Son as separate Beings but one in Spirit?  The difficulty arises from the supposition that the Son is God as God is God and since there can’t be two Supreme Gods, the Father and Son must be the same Being while somehow remaining distinct from each other.  

        If, however, the Son is not God as God is God but is a god (small g), either eternally existing as a god or having been created/begotten as a god, then we have no need for the mystical construct of the Trinity to understand the relationship between the Father and the Son.  I will say at this point in our discussion that if it can be demonstrated from the scriptures that the Trinitarian concept of God is correct, even though it is mystical and can’t be humanly understood, I will have no problem accepting it as truth.  If, on the other hand, the Trinitarian concept cannot be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt, I will have no choice but to give serious consideration to a Non-Trinitarian concept of the Father, Son and Spirit provided such Non-Trinitarian concept can be shown to be valid beyond reasonable doubt. 

SCRIPTURE #4

       Mark 2:5-11: When Jesus saw their faith; he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, `Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, `Get up, take your mat and walk'?  But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

       Trinitarians see the statement by the teachers of the law that only God can forgive sin and the fact that Jesus tells the paralytic his sins are forgiven as proof Jesus is God.  In this, Trinitarians agree with the teachers of the law that only God can forgive sin. 

       Non-Trinitarians point out that Jesus, by healing the paralytic is demonstrating the authority that has been given to Him on earth which includes authority to forgive sin.  Matthew's account of this event is seen to support this conclusion as it speaks of authority being given to men. Matthew 9:8: When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.  As the representative and agent of the Father, Jesus is seen as having been given great authority by God to heal, raise the dead and forgive sin.  This authority included giving the same authority to His disciples.  The scriptures show Jesus giving authority to His disciples to heal the sick. Luke 9:1: Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. After His resurrection He even gives them authority to forgive sin.  John 20:21-23: 21.  Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."  The ability to forgive sin or do anything else Jesus gave his disciples authority to do did not make those disciples God or equal with God.  Non-Trinitarians ask why it is assumed that because Jesus did everything His Father empowered Him to do that this makes Him equal with the Father.  When a human father gives his son authority to do something it certainly doesn’t make the son equal with his father.   

       Athanasius, in his treatise  entitled, “The Incarnation of the Word of God” written in the early fourth century, argued that Jesus must be God because only God could make the blind see, cast out demons, turn water into wine, walk on water and raise the dead.  What Athanasius failed to mention was that Peter, James, John and Paul also performed great supernatural acts. This didn’t make these men God.  Peter raised Dorcas from the dead.  The power of Apostle Peter was so pronounced that in Acts 5:15, it is implied that even the shadow of Peter passing over someone was enough to facilitate healing.  These men were imbued with power and authority because God gave it to them.  This did not make them equal with God.  Why should it be assumed Jesus was equal with God because he performed miracles?  In Acts 19:11-12 we read, “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.”  Did this make Paul God?

AUTHOR’S COMMENTS:  The Non-Trinitarian argument appears reasonable. Scripture makes it clear that Jesus was given great power and authority.  It does not logically follow from this that Jesus was of the same substance of the one granting Him such authority and power. The Apostles were also given great power and authority from God and this obviously didn’t make them God. It is apparent that God gave authority to Christ to forgive sin and that authority was even passed on to His disciples in some sense.  It could be that Jesus was telling His disciples that their forgiveness or non-forgiveness of someone’s sin would determine whether they are forgiven by God.  We can’t be sure of what Christ meant here. As to Athanasius, who is considered the “father” of Trinitarian doctrine, a reading of his treatise, “The Incarnation of the Son of God,” provides little scriptural evidence for the Trinity. Instead he assumes the validity of the Trinity from the start and then proceeds to defend his belief that Jesus is God with the kind of conclusions shown in the above paragraph. If the “evidence” for the Deity of Jesus put forth by Athanasius is the kind of “evidence” that led to establishment of the Trinitarian doctrine, I would have to say this doctrine stands on very shaky ground.

SCRIPTURE #5

       John 5:16-18: So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

       In this passage the Jews are seen as accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath and also making Himself equal with God by referring to the fact that He is working just as His Father is working.  Trinitarians would agree here with the Jews that this makes Jesus equal with God and extrapolate from this that Jesus is God.      

       Non-Trinitarians point out that if you’re going to agree with the Jews that Jesus was making Himself equal with God by calling God His Father you are also agreeing that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath.  It is the Jews who are making these twin accusations.  We know Jesus didn’t break the Sabbath by healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:12: "Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath").  Why, it is asked, is it assumed He was making Himself equal with God by referring to God as His Father?  Furthermore, Jesus answers their remarks with the following:

       John 5:19: Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

       Jesus plainly says He can do nothing by Himself.  If Jesus is coequal with the Father, why is he dependant on the Father for everything He does?  Trinitarians will argue that this dependence on the Father is only a dependence necessitated by His humanity.  Even though Jesus took on humanity it is believed by Trinitarians that He continued to also be coequal with the Father in the tri-unity that is the one God. As Jesus, the Son of God is believed to have had the dual nature of being completely God and completely man. This concept of Jesus as having dual natures will be discussed later in this series.  Trinitarians will also look at John 5:19 and conclude that because Jesus said he can only do what He sees His Father do He must be God because He cannot act contrary to His Father’s will.  This would mean Jesus did not have His own will but as God in the flesh was of identical will with the Father.  Yet the following scripture would negate such a notion.

       Matthew 26:39:  Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

       It is pointed out that the implication here is that it was not the will of Jesus to go through the suffering He was facing.  But He was so totally submissive to the will of His Father that He would submit to death on a cross in order to please and fulfill His Father’s will.  He was totally in harmony with the goal and purpose of the Father to facilitate reconciliation between man and God. Because of going through with this he was exulted to the highest level of power and authority in the universe next to God Himself as other scriptures show.  This does not make Jesus God or equal with God but certainly makes Him worthy of great reverence and worship as facilitator of God’s salvation. 

AUTHOR’S COMMENT: The passages reviewed above do not establish Jesus as a coequal, coeternal participant in a triune God.  They do establish that the man Jesus was in total harmony and submission to the will and purpose of the God that sent Him into the world. This frankly makes the sacrifice of Christ that much more extraordinary when you realize, before His arrest, he wrestled with His own will in prayer with His Father and after all was said and done and no alternative plan became apparent, He completely submitted to His fathers will knowing full well what lay before Him.     

SCRIPTURE #6

       Philippians 2:5-8: Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature (“form of God” in most translations) God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

       Trinitarians see Paul’s statement that Jesus was in the very form of God as having equality with God and therefore see this passage of scripture as straightforward evidence that Jesus is God. Some see in this passage the Son empting Himself of Deity in becoming Jesus and being returned to Deity at the time of His ascension. Several versions translate the Greek phrase heauton ekenosen as “emptied Himself.” For example, the Revised Standard Version translates it this way:

       “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,  but emptied himself, (Greek: heauton ekenosen ) taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

       Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon shows heauton ekenosen to mean “to empty or make empty.” The Arndt, Gingrich Bauer Greek lexicon agrees with this definition.  Paul says Jesus was in the form of God and then took the form of a servant. If being in the form of God is equated with being of the same nature as God, then it would follow that taking on the form of a servant would involve taking on the very nature of a servant.

       Most Trinitarians, however, don’t see the Son empting Himself of being God as the Son is considered eternally God and therefore could not empty Himself of being God. It is believed He emptied Himself of the glory He had with the Father but not His Divinity.   Therefore, the Son is believed to have been fully God and fully human as Jesus the Christ and possessed both Divine and human nature. When Jesus died it is believed his humanity died but His Deity did not die as it wasn’t possible for God to die.  When Jesus was resurrected He was resurrected as the fully human and fully God Being He was before the crucifixion.  Some believe Jesus still exists as this combination of Deity and humanity in His role as mediator between the Father and humans.

       The Non-Trinitarian A position simply sees Paul making the point that our attitude is to be like that of Christ’s who as a human did not misuse the power and authority given to Him by God but was willing to become totally subservient to His Father's will which was to facilitate the salvation of humanity.  It was the power and authority God gave Jesus as the human Messiah that Jesus emptied Himself of in going to the cross to become the sacrifice for sin. Position A Non-Trinitarians believe what Jesus emptied Himself of His prerogatives as the promised King over Israel and not a pre-existent Divinity.  Jesus willingly gave up His rightful status as ruler over the world to become a servant to Israel and the world in facilitating their salvation by going to the cross.  When Apostle Paul speaks of Christ being rich and yet becoming poor (2 Corinthians 8:9), it is believed the riches He gave up was the power and glory promised Him as ruler of the world.  Upon successful completion of His earthly mission, Jesus was granted the prerogatives of Kingship, power, authority and glory as seen in His elevation to the right hand of His Father, the one and only Supreme God.

       As explained at the beginning of this series, the position A Non-Trinitarians believe the Son did not have pre-existence but began life as the Son born to Mary through conception by the Holy Spirit.

       The Non-Trinitarian B position is that Paul does not say Jesus is God but was in the form of God. The Greek word morphe translated “form” appears only here in Philippians 2:5-8 and in Matthew 16:12 where it is recorded Jesus appeared in a different form to two of His disciples after the resurrection. It’s used in Greek literature to express outward appearance. In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) morphe is used to show outward appearance. This word does not relate to the substance or nature of the object to which it is applied but to its outward appearance. Translations such as the NIV that translate morphe as “nature” do so not because the Greek implies this meaning but because of a predisposition toward Trinitarianism.  This word is translated as “form” in most translations. The KJV translates it this way:

       Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

       Some interpret the phrase “being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation” as equating with having equality with God which Jesus thought it not robbery to have but instead was willing to give it all up to become a human sacrifice for sin. As pointed out, however, Jesus being in the form of God does not equate with having God’s nature and therefore being God.  Paul could very well be saying to the Philippians that they should mimic the attitude of Christ who, although being in the form of God, did not grasp at becoming equal to God but instead submitted totally to the will of God by empting Himself of being in the form of God and taking on the form of a servant, even going as far as death on a cross.  

       If equality with God was something Jesus already had, why would Paul speak in terms of not feeling it “robbery” to have such equality?  The Greek word here is harpagee which literally means to rob, steal and take by force. The KJV translates it as “robbery” but most translations use the word “grasp.”  Jesus is seen as not grasping to be equal with God despite being in the form of God and having a special relationship with God as His only begotten Son.

       It is also pointed out that if Jesus was consubstantial, coequal and coeternal within a Triune relationship with the Father and Holy Spirit, He could not lay all that aside and become strictly a human. Trinitarians understand this and claim the Son took on humanity while maintaining His full Divinity.  If that is true, what did the Son give up? What did the Son empty Himself of in order to be used by Paul as an example of the kind of humble attitude the Philippian Christians should have.  It is believed by Non- Trinitarians (B group) that what the Son empted Himself of was His position of power, authority and glory that the one God had given Him as a previously created Son of God. It is felt this is indicated by Paul in his comments to the Corinthians.

       2 Corinthians 8:9: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. 

       As explained at the beginning of this series, group B Non-Trinitarians believe the Son was created by the one Father God before the universe was created and was the agent by which God created all things.  It is this agent Being who God sent to earth as the promised Messiah to fulfill the promises made to Abraham and to facilitate redemption for mankind.  Jesus clearly showed He was from a different realm of things.

       John 8:23: But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

       John 6:38: For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

       Since Jesus is said to have been in the form of God and then took on the form of a servant, it is believed a definite change in form took place and not an apparent change only.  As God the Father's agent, Jesus was in the outward appearance of His Father from the time He was created.  When the Father sent Him to earth He took on the form of a servant by emptying Himself of the God form.  There is no explicit or implicit statement in this passage that says Jesus is God in substance of Being.  The fact that He could empty himself of His former form shows He could not have been God in substance but only in form (outward appearance).  If being in God’s form means Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father and therefore consubstantial, coequal and coeternal with the Father as Trinitarians teach, emptying Himself would be impossible.   

AUTHOR’S COMMENT:  The Trinitarian position is problematic because it sees Paul saying that Jesus was equal with God when he is really saying just the opposite.  Jesus was not trying to grasp equality with God.  You don’t grasp after something you already have. If Jesus was God in the flesh He would have been already equal with God according to the Trinitarian concept of God.  Trinitarians suggest Jesus was not grasping at what He already had but was not grasping at the continuation of His equality with God, being willing to give it all up to become a human sacrifice. This meaning, however, is not implied in the Greek words involved here.  It would also contradict Trinitarian belief that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father and Holy Spirit.  How does the Son empty Himself of being eternally consubstantial with the two other persons of the Godhead? 

        The more natural meaning of this passage would be that Jesus, although being in the very form of God as His only begotten Son, and having great power and authority as the very Son of God, not only did not seek to be equal with God but was willing to give up the place He had with the Father and become a servant to man all the way to being a human sacrifice for sin.  This makes the sacrifice of Christ all that much more extraordinary.  If Christ was fully God while being fully human, He didn’t really give up anything.  He would have known all along that He was God and could not lose His Godship. He would have known all along that His giving up of His former glory was temporary and there was no possibility of losing that glory because he was eternal God.  But, if He was only human, having given up His former position of glory and power with the one God and facing the very real possibility of losing His former glory, we have a truly amazing sacrifice on the part of Jesus Christ.  From this perspective, the Non- Trinitarian B position seems to make sense as it pictures the Son while being Jesus as being totally human and therefore totally dependant on His Father to empower Him to complete His earthly journey without sinning and being in complete submission to His Father’s will even to the point of suffering the death on the cross.  Thus Jesus is shown as sharing the same level of love His Father has for mankind. It also makes Paul’s admonition to the Philippians to have the same humility as Christ much more meaningful.

        The very fact that scripture shows Jesus crying out to His Father for strength during His earthly ministry strongly indicates His total humanity while in the flesh.

        Hebrews 5:7-8: Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.

        The writer speaks of Jesus crying out to God as the one who was able to save him from death. We know that Jesus as a human didn’t want to physically die anymore than any other human.  Yet Jesus knew this was His mission in order to facilitate life for mankind. Therefore, physical death does not appear to be what Jesus cried to the Father to save Him from.   When the scripture speaks of Jesus crying to God as the one able to save Him from death and being heard in that He feared, it would seem it was spiritual death (sin death) that Jesus was seeking to avoid as such death would have negated His perfect sacrifice for sin.  Scripture records Jesus was heard in response to His crying out to God regarding being saved from death.  Since we know He physically died according to the Father’s will, it must be spiritual death that is the concern in His prayers to His Father.

        This all gives strong indication that the Son of God as the human Jesus was not God in the flesh but was totally human and had to totally depend on God for his success as the Savior of the world.  God the Father insured that success by giving Jesus a full measure of His Spirit as the scriptures reveal.  This is the Non-Trinitarian B position and if this perspective turns out to be correct, what the Son gave up was not Divinity but His previous glory with the Father which the Father gave Him at His creation and would restore to Him after He completed His mission on earth.  This approach negates the doctrine of incarnation and sees Jesus as the chief agent of the one and only God the Father who has given virtual status of Deity to the Son while He, Himself,  continues to be the one and only eternal  Supreme God.

        Some will see this as the Arian position of the fourth century and beyond and conclude this position was shown as heretical by the Counsel of Nicaea.  Our focus, however, is not the position of Arius, Athanasius, the “Church Fathers” or the Creeds.  While all of these are to be considered and examined, the bottom line is what do the scriptures most plainly indicate as to the nature of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. That is our focus and will remain our focus in this series of essays.

PART SIX