christology and the trinity by edgar foster

7/25/2019 Christology and the Trinity by Edgar Foster

1/50

Christology and the Trinity: An Exploration

By Edgar G. Foster

EMF Publishing

2001All rights reserved

Table of Contents

PrefaceChristology and the Trinity: An ExplorationDid the First Century Ecclesia Believe that Jesus Was Almighty God?Gerald Borchert's Exegesis of John 8:58Did the Ante-Nicene Fathers Teach or Believe in the Trinity?The Kenosis of Jesus Christ: What Does It Tell Us about the Son of God?Aseity and the TrinityExcursus A: John 5:26 and AseityDoes Hebrews 1:1-8 Teach that Christ is Almighty God?

Preface

Since 1983, I have intensely devoted my life to Biblical or theological studies. Duringthese relatively short but rewarding years, I have also endeavored to know the true Godmore intimately. Furthermore, the present writer has tried to discern what God requiresof him as one of His worshipers. In the process of searching for the living God, I haveconcluded that Jesus Christ cannot be Almighty God. Thus I have written this book to

dispel the erroneous notion that Christ is one persona in a triune Godhead.Furthermore, we compose this monograph to present an authentic portrait of JesusChrist since a Christian has a twofold obligation to both expose falsehood andcommunicate or teach truth.

In this work, I have employed Greek and Latin terms somewhat liberally. I have takencare, however, to transliterate such terms and provide a concise glossary of words thatneed to be defined.[1]This work also contains in-text citations (MLA Style) rather thanfootnotes.[2]In this way, I am following the convention used by the Word Commentaryseries and other theologians who have elected to dispense with footnotes. The MLAcitations consist of the author's name and the page number of the work that I am citing.

Consequently, all the reader has to do is go to the works consulted list in the back of thisbook to find out what source a citation comes from. In future editions and in the secondvolume of Christology, there will be a scholar's version that starts to include footnotes.

The reader should also note that we employ the historical-theological as well as thegrammatical approach in this work.[3]Based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas,William Most has rightly contended that theology entails 'arguing from authority' (Most2). With the words of Most in mind, I have endeavored to freely cite both theological
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#prefacehttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#prefacehttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#explorationhttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#explorationhttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#ecclesiahttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#ecclesiahttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#exegesishttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#exegesishttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#antenicenehttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#antenicenehttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#kenosishttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#kenosishttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#aseityhttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#aseityhttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#excursushttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#excursushttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#hebrewshttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#hebrewshttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#1http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#1http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#1http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#2http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#2http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#2http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#3http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#3http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#3http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#3http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#2http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#1http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#hebrewshttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#excursushttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#aseityhttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#kenosishttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#antenicenehttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#exegesishttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#ecclesiahttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#explorationhttp://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#preface


2/50

and historical authorities, always attempting to employ these authorities aright. Citing anumber of sources (at times extensively) is also necessary since certain persons claimthat only Jehovah's Witnesses explain particular Biblical verses (such as Phil 2:6-7) incertain ways. Indeed, it is said that only the Witnesses posit certain notions about Christ(e.g., that he is never called or identified as Creator in Holy Writ). Yet other detractors

suggest that Jehovah's Witnesses egregiously misuse scholarly sources. However, mystudy will demonstrate that theologians who have shown themselves to be highly skilledin the activity of "God-talk"[4]also corroborate the Witness view with respect to whatparticular Bible passages actually say about the Son of God.[5]I apologize in advance forthe length and frequency of quotes at times, but I felt they were necessary in the contextof this work.

Additionally, we cover and discuss various views in this book. The summation of eachchapter represents the author's views, which are consonant with the religious beliefs ofJehovah's Witnesses. In addition, while I have written this work primarily for theologystudents, I hope that my fellow brothers and sisters will benefit from it as well. Asregards my qualifications, I have a degree in Classical Languages (Latin and Greek) andI have been a Bible student for over fifteen years. I may now add that I have studiedecclesiastical history at the University of Glasgow (focusing on Tertullian) and I amcurrently completing postgraduate work at this wonderful research institution.

It is important to point out that while I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this project issolely my own. Christology is not sponsored or in any way directed by the ChristianCongregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Lastly, Vol. II of Christology will be released inDecember 2003.[6]

October 10, 1997Edgar G. Foster

Christology and the Trinity: An Exploration

Upon reading the title of this document, several readers may wonder why they should beinterested in the subject of Christology. Furthermore, one may rightly ask how weshould define Christology. To initiate the discussion, we will address the latter concernfirst.

Christology is the theological doctrine of both the person and work of Jesus Christ.[7]It

systematically concerns itself with the pre-existent Christ (high Christology) as well asthe "enfleshed" Logos (low Christology).[8]Of all the significant Christian theologicalsub-disciplines, systematic theologians generally consider Christology to be thepreeminent doctrine of Christian theology (theologia). In the words of theologyprofessor Owen Thomas, Christology is the "basis" of systematic Christian theology(Thomas "Theology" 143). Oscar Cullmann has even declared that early Christiantheology "is in reality almost exclusively Christology."[9]
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#4http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#4http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#4http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#5http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#5http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#5http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#6http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#6http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#6http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#7http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#7http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#7http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#8http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#8http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#8http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#9http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#9http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#9http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#9http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#8http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#7http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#6http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#5http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#4


3/50

While we should temper Cullmann's words somewhat, since first century Christiansprimarily focused on the God and Father of Jesus Christ in their sacred worship andkerygmatic activities, his observations mutatis mutandisare accurate. For theprimordial documents written by the Primitive community of faith (the first centuryChristian assembly) and the second century Church (ecclesia) clearly revolve around the

person of Christ and his exalted role in God's eternal purpose oraion prothesis(Eph3:8-11; Phil 2:5-11; Col 2:1-3).[10]Therefore it is imperative that we thoroughly examinethe work and person of Christ as delineated in the Greek New Testament and the pre-Nicenes.

But if the early Christian congregation considered Christ to be its ruler and Lord, and ifhe was in fact 'life' for them (as the apostle Paul wrote in Phil 1:21-23), if the modernChurch has preserved the doctrinal tenets of the Primitive ecclesia--why should weexplore or seek to reconstruct modern Christology?

We should try to restructure the traditional Christological model put forth by mostChristian theologians as it is quite possible the modern Church presently composed ofnominal Christians does not preach the same Jesus that the first century community offaith proclaimed (2 Cor 11:1-5).[11]In fact, it seems that during the post-apostolic period,several Christian believers began to speculate vis--vis the being (ontos) of Christ Jesus."Could Jesus be Almighty God," they asked with sincere wonderment. Chapter one ofthis publication will thus review the intriguing development of the Trinity doctrine anddiscuss its relation to Christology as we also deal with Christological questions posed bythinkers of ancient times.

At any rate, since the inception of the Trinity doctrine proper, "orthodox" Christianityhas adamantly taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share one nature (ousia)while subsisting as three persons (tres personae).[12]According to the Bible, however,

Jesus is not Almighty God: He is the only-begotten Son of God who is qualitatively(essentially) distinct from his Father (Matt 16:14-17; Jn 3:16; 1 Cor 11:3; 15:24-28)!Continually, the Johannine Gospel appears to militate against the Trinity doctrine. TheGospel writer manifestly declares that the Son is subordinate to the Father and in factcalls Him "My God." More importantly, Jesus starkly addresses his Father in prayer as"the only true God" (Jn 14:28; 17:3; 20:17). Yes, the fourth Gospel consistently indicatesthat the Trinity doctrine is not a product of divine revelation, but evidently originatesfrom the finite cognitive processes of men.

Commenting on this poignant situation, Swiss theologian Emil Brunner explains: "Fromthe time of Origen's doctrine of the Logos . . . speculation was rife in the sphere of

theology; thus men's interest were deflected from the historical centre to the eternalbackground, and then severed from it. People then began to speculate about thetranscendent relation of the Three Persons of the Trinity within the Trinity" (Brunner224). In this book, we will also explore and test Brunner's claims to see if they arevalid.[13]

Most Christian theologians, it seems, have obfuscated the authentic nature of Christ andhis salvific (soteriological) work by means of theological accretions. Since it appears that
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#10http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#10http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#10http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#11http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#11http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#11http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#12http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#12http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#12http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#13http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#13http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#13http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#13http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#12http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#11http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#10


4/50

Trinitarian theologians have made the identity of Jesus unnecessarily opaque, we mustnow bring the alethic Christ into the light (Eph 5:13). Beneath the metaphysicaltrappings (the ontological speculations of the Trinity doctrine) lies the bona fide Son ofGod. As we survey the modern theological terrain, it soon becomes evident thatcontemporary Christological formulations are seriously in need of restructuring. I hope

that the reader will keep an open mind while he or she reads information that willprobably appear heretical, unorthodox, and even inimical to the Christian faith, asprofessed believers generally understand it. Having said the foregoing, I must now pointout that it is my desire to provoke thought in all persons who name the name of Christand thus help them to see what Scripture has to say about Jesus of Nazareth, the onewho was and is God's only-begotten (monogenes) Son (Jn 1:18; 20:28-31).

Did the First Century Ecclesia Believe that Jesus Was Almighty God?

Various theologians and Church historians have written that Primitive (first century)Christianity neither affirmed nor taught that Jesus Christ is Almighty God (the secondPerson of the Trinity). Speaking on our present theme, Brunner presents a balanced andthorough discussion concerning the Trinity doctrine and its relation to first centuryChristianity. After careful consideration of the New Testament and ante-Niceneevidence, he concludes:

It was never the intention of the original witnesses to Christ in the New Testament to setbefore us an intellectual problem--that of the Three Divine Persons--and then to tell ussilently to worship this mystery of the "Three in One." There is no trace of such an ideain the New Testament . . . The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity is not only theproduct of genuine Biblical thought, it is also the product of philosophical speculation,

which is remote from the thought of the Bible . . . Similarly, the idea of the ThreePersons is more than questionable. Even Augustine felt this (cf.De Trinitate, V, 9). K.Barth seems to share this misgiving (Kirchl. Dogm., I, I, p.703).[14]

While Brunner finds certain aspects of the Trinity doctrine problematic, mostcontemporary Bible scholars and systematic theologians contend that the PrimitiveChristian congregation (ecclesia) believed Jesus the Messiah was essentially God. Somescholars even claim that the New Testament writers held divergent views about Christ orthat their respective Christological systems show signs of dialectical development(Anderson 1ff). Nevertheless, at least some Protestant and Catholic theologians havecandidly conceded that the Trinity is not a strict Biblical doctrine. Certain thinkers have

even noted that the first century ecclesiadid not believe that Jesus is Almighty God nordid God's Primitive Christian people think that the Son of God is consubstantial with theFather or ontologically identical to the Holy Spirit.

Martin Werner is one such writer who reports: "From a high angelic-being the Churchmade Christ a god in terms of the concept of deity current in Hellenistic mythology"(Werner 215). This change, avers Werner, took place in the post-apostolic era (214ff).The present writer thinks that the change Werner recounts was, in fact, a deviation from
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#14http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#14http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#14http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#14


5/50

the primal tenets of first century Christianity, as we shall attempt to show in this essay.But if the triune doctrine of God is simply a speculative human dogma that does nottruly represent the spirit of Jesus Christ's original teachings, it seems safe to concludethat those theologians who declare that the Son of God is ontologically equal to theFather are somewhat overstating their case. Indeed, as we examine the history of the

primordial ecclesia, it appears doubtful that early Christians ever viewed Jesus asAlmighty God qua Almighty God (Robinson 70). To buttress this point, please note thewords of John L. McKenzie (S.J.):

The relation of the Father and Son as set forth in [John 5:17ff] is the foundation of laterdevelopments in Trinitarian and Christological belief and theology; it is not identicalwith these later developments. Much of the discourse seems to be a refutation of thecharge that Jesus claimed to be equal to God. This is met by affirming that the Son cando nothing independently of the Father. Later theology found it necessary to refine thisstatement by a distinction between person and nature which John did not know.(McKenzie 187)

McKenzie appears to substantiate the notion that the first century congregation of Godneither taught nor believed that Jesus Christ is Almighty God (Deus omnipotentia). Itdid not make the fine subtle distinctions between "person and nature" that laterstudents or doctors of theology would introduce, implement, and heavily depend uponto explain the supposed triune Being of God. To the contrary, the belief in theomnipotence of Christ was a much "later" development in Christian history(Youngblood 111). Fittingly, when commenting on the Greek of 1 Cor 8:5, 6, Clarence T.Craig observes that for the first century writer of Corinthians: "only one is really God,the Father of all, who is the Creator and consummation of all things" (Craig 93-94).

Craig further elucidates this point, saying:

Paul chose his prepositions [exand dia] carefully in order to distinguish between Godthe Father, who is the ultimate source of creation, and Christ, the Lord, through whom[dia] this activity takes place . . . it is perfectly clear what Paul wants to affirm. NeitherCaesar nor Isis is Lord, but only Jesus Christ. When Paul ascribed Lordship to Christ, incontrast to later church dogma, he did not mean that Christ was God. Christ wasdefinitely subordinated to God (Craig 93-94).[15]

In a monograph entitled Christianity: Essence, History and FutureHans Kungconvincingly demonstrates that the first century congregation of God did not teach thatJesus is ontologically equal to Almighty God (Kung 95-97). After a brief review of the

New Testament evidence, he boldly declares that the Greek Scriptures do not teach thatthere is one divine nature (physis) common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is,the Greek Scriptures do not teach the Nicene doctrine of homoousion to patri. Rather,the New Testament focuses on the Father: "from whom are all things and to whom areall things" (97). He is the One who reveals Himself through Jesus Christ and He (theFather) takes the lead in initiating,[16]in bringing to fruition the dynamic, interpersonaldivine revelatory and salvific activity gloriously manifested in human history throughthe person of Jesus Christ (Jn 1:18; 2 Cor 5:19; Tit 3:4-7; Heb 1:1-2; 1 Jn 5:20). God has
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#15http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#15http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#15http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#16http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#16http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#16http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#16http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#15


6/50

supremely revealed Himself through (dia) Christ, not literally in Christ. True, theapostle Paul does use ento describe God's saving work enChrist (2 Cor 5:19). However,Paul utilizes the Greek preposition instrumentally in the aforesaid text: God wasreconciling the world of humankind by means of Christ (NWT).[17]Concluding ourBiblical search for evidence of Jesus' Deity, we can heartily agree with E.P. Sanders'

analysis: "Historically, it is an error to think that Christians must believe that Jesus wassuperhuman, and also an error to think that in Jesus' own day his miracles were takenas proving partial or full divinity" (Sanders 135).

Other theologians have also admitted this vital fact. In other words, they are well awarethat the Trinity is not a New Testament teaching and they admit that the NewTestament writers do not depict Jesus as Almighty God in the flesh, even if these samescholars affirm the Trinity on other grounds. For instance, Cyril C. Richardson hasexpressed his personal reservations about the doctrine of God's triunity being anaccurate depiction of the Living and true Deity portrayed in the Bible. According toRichardson, the Trinity is "an artificial construct" (Richardson 148). As an "artificialconstruct," it arbitrarily tries to resolve the perennial dialectical tension between God'ssimultaneous absoluteness and relatedness to the world by esoterically delineatingnecessary and eternal threeness in the Godhead. However, Richardson writes: "There isno necessary threeness in the Godhead" (149). God's putative threefoldness, claimsRichardson, is neither eternal nor immutable nor necessary. Furthermore, the so-called"necessary threeness in the Godhead" evidently does not obtain as an actual state ofaffairs (Verhalten) "in the Godhead."

While he believes that there are immanent and necessary distinctions in the Godhead,however, Richardson contends that the Trinity does not exhaust all of the distinctionsthat one needs to make vis--vis the divine nature (ousia).[18]Nor does it resolve,according to Richardson, the numerous antinomies evidently associated with the

absoluteness and relatedness of God. Consequently, this theologian declares that everyTrinitarian interpretation ever formulated has failed to resolve the tension betweenGod's absoluteness and relatedness to the world. In a word, Trinitarian formulations are"artificial." Of course, Richardson obviously rejects the Trinity on other grounds that hethoroughly covers in his treatise.

Nevertheless, we must genuinely ask whether Richardson's analysis is satisfactory. Doesa careful analysis of the Trinity doctrine show that it is an artificial construct, which hasfailed to adequately delineate the transcendent nature of God? Most importantly, doesthe Bible teach us that God is actually three divine Persons united in one community ofsubstance (substantiae per communionem)?

As we examine the Scriptural evidence we cannot help but conclude that the Trinity isan anachronistic doctrine that is neither explicitly nor clearly taught in Scripture: "TheNew Testament writers could not have said that Jesus Christ is God: God meant theFather. They could and did say that Jesus is God's Son" (McKenzie 188). A close look atMcKenzie's entire workLight on the Gospelswill reveal that he is not simply arguingthat early Christians did not identify Jesus with the Father (a position called modalismor monarchianism). Rather, his observation is very clear when considered in its context.


7/50

"God meant the Father" for first century Christians, writes McKenzie. Thus, we seemwarranted in concluding that Jesus was immanently subordinate to God the Father inthe eyes of Primitive Christians. Further elucidating this point are the following words ofMcKenzie: "It is altogether impossible to deduce the Nicene Creed, and still less thedogmatic statements of the Council of Chalcedon from the Synoptic Gospels . . . The

word 'consubstantial' had not even been invented yet: far from defining it, theevangelists could not even have spelled it. No, they did not know and they did not care"(188). The words of John L. McKenzie again sound a distinct and unambiguous tone:the Primitive ecclesia did not consider Jesus Christ "fully God and fully man" (vere deuset vere homo). In truth, Jesus did not "become God" until the fourth century(Rubenstein 211-231).

How the Belief that Jesus Is Equal to God Developed

Exactly how did the belief that Christ is ontologically equal to God the Father develop?What factors were behind its organic and prolific growth in Christian theology? We shallnow briefly review the historical events associated with the development of the Trinitydoctrine.

The historical evidence shows that a major shift in Christianity resulted in theuncomplicated Christian gospel acquiring extensive and complex metaphysical baggage.At one point in the life of the Christian Church, disciples of Jesus were willing to acceptby faith, the life, death and resurrection of the only-begotten Son of God (1 Cor 2:1-16).[19]Though he talks exaltedly about "Gnostic" Christians (advanced believers),Clement of Alexandria explicitly states that a simple faith (pistis) is the primaryrequisite for eternal salvation through Christ: "To the Gnostic [Christian] 'are preparedwhat eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man;' but to

him who has exercised simple faith He testifies a hundredfold in return for what he hasleft, a promise which has turned out to fall within human comprehension" (Stromata4.18.4).

Unfortunately, this early Church father did not follow his own advice: his theologicalideas are largely the result of abstruse Stoicism and Neo-Platonism (Brown 87). StanleyBurgess informs us of this fact, noting:

When referring to God, Clement follows Neoplatonic doctrine which makes heavy use ofnegative theology: nothing can be said directly of God, for He cannot be defined. Thisdoes not lead Clement to attempt any formal definition of the Trinity nor any Member

thereof. (70)

Backing Burgess' observation are these words from Clement of Alexandria'sStromata(4.24.156):

The God, then, being indemonstrable, is not the object of knowledge, but the Son isWisdom, and Knowledge, and Truth, and whatever else is akin to these, and so iscapable of demonstration and definition. All the powers of the Divine Nature gathered


8/50

into one complete the idea of the Son, but He is infinite as regards each of his powers.He is then not absolutely One as Unity, nor Many as divisible, but One as All is one.Hence He is All. For He is a circle, all the powers being orbed and united in Him.

Commenting on this significant Clementine passage, Charles Bigg declares the dynamic

implication of these words:

Clement it will be seen, though Philo is before his eyes, has taken the leap from whichPhilo recoiled. He has distinguished between the thinker and the thought, betweenMind and its unknown foundation, and in so doing has given birth to Neo-Platonism. Itis essentially a heathen conception, and can be developed consistently only on heathenprinciples. (Bigg 64-65)

Clement 'heathenized' Christianity, to be sure. He was not alone in this practice,however, for other second century believers also began to rationally investigate thenature (ontos) of our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus.[20]These professed Christiansearnestly endeavored to plumb the unfathomable depths of the Logos' seeminglymysterious enfleshment, all the while ardently desiring to make sense of the supposedontological relationship obtaining between the transcendent Omnipotent Deity and "theSon of His love" (Col 1:13). As a result, second century Christians subsequently began toformulate numerous speculative notions about God and His beloved Son that havecontinued to shape Christendom's doctrinal framework up to this very day (Hatch 133-137).

How though could these Christians express in terms that would appeal to the public atlarge, the seeming transcendent relationship obtaining between God and His only-begotten Son? Ultimately, these believers decided to utilize Greek ontology to describethe apparent exalted ontological relationship between the Father and the Son

(Copleston 17-22). Nevertheless, they did not carry out this determination withoutencountering certain unexpected consequences.[21]

The Grecian view of ontology was faulty and riddled with inadequate philosophicalconcepts and notions of being as such.[22]Indeed, it is now apparent that the earlyChurch Fathers placed too much trust in Grecian metaphysics when they worked outtheir respective theological systems (Wolterstorff 126-127). As various these spiritualforebears of modern-day Christendom began to lean inordinately on the Greek scienceof being qua being (metaphysics), adulterated notions of God and Christ started toslowly appear in the writings of such men as Irenaeus (quasi-Platonism), Ignatius(possible binitarianism or ditheism), Justin Martyr (Platonism and Stoicism) as well as

Origen (paganistic syncretism).[23]

Again, we need to stress that none of the aforementioned individuals taughtTrinitarianism per se. Nevertheless, it seems accurate to attribute the pioneering of theTrinity doctrine to these early Church Fathers (Barnard 100-105). That is, the pre-Nicenes previously discussed in this work laid the groundwork for the Trinity bypositing metaphysical theories about God that went well beyond the rightful boundarieslong ago established by Scripture (1 Cor 4:6).
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#20http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#20http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#20http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#21http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#21http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#21http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#22http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#22http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#22http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#23http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#23http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#23http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#23http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#22http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#21http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#20


9/50

To further substantiate these charges, please note the following comments:

No single philosopher has contributed as much to Christian theology as Plato has.Indeed, for many early Christian thinkers it was a perceived affinity between Platonism

and Christianity that allowed Christian thought to accommodate Greek philosophy. Inturn, it was Plato who gave Christianity crucial conceptual tools needed to articulate itsdoctrines. (Allen and Springsted 1)

Notice that "early" Christian thought accommodated "Greek philosophy." Christianhistory itself shows that this 'accommodation' involved more than simply borrowingGreek philosophical terms or methods as "conceptual tools." Not only did Plato giveChristianity "conceptual tools," as it were, he provided an entire interpretive frameworkthat Christians subsequently implemented to shape their views about God and Christ.The inimitable historian of philosophy, Frederick C. Copleston, even unabashedlyadmits that early Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr or Theophilus of Antioch"naturally made some use of terms and ideas taken from Greek philosophy" (Copleston18). It is therefore no wonder that the Good of Plato in time became the God ofChristendom mutatis mutandis(Allen and Springsted 1).

Robert Wilken writes about the change that eventually took place in Christianityregarding its attitude toward philosophy and Scripture. He informs us of the shift in thefollowing way:

Justin Martyr, a Christian writing in mid-second century, took the initial step ofpresenting Christianity not as an exclusive religious tradition derived largely fromJudaism, but as a new philosophical way of life in competition with Stoics, Platonists,Cynics, and the other ruling 'ways' of his day. What would Paul, whose scorn for

philosophy only served to support Justin's critics, have thought of Christianity as aphilosophical sect? The term 'philosophy' appears only seldom in Christian writings upto this time, and where it appears it is usually regarded with contempt . . . No one beforehim [Justin Martyr] had really thought seriously of presenting Christianity as aphilosophy, but this 'innovation,' after much opposition, came to be tolerated, accepted,and finally celebrated by Christians of every stripe--from learned theologians to thecobblers, washer-women, and wool-workers Celsus made fun of. (Wilken 177-183)

Concerning Origen, Stanley M. Burgess further observes:

In his understanding of the Trinity, Origen is deeply influenced by Neoplatonic thought.

Neoplatonism recognized the One, the unspeakable being from which all other beingsemanate . . . Throughout Origen's writings one can see a tension between therecognition of the equality of members of the Trinity, and a more Neoplatonic positionwhich distinguished between the Father and the other members of the Godhead bymaking the Son and the Holy Spirit subordinate beings. Swete (p. 131) correctly haspointed out that Origen's teaching is not consistent throughout his writings. (Burgess73)


10/50

While Burgess commendably admits that Neo-Platonism influenced Origen, henevertheless goes on to maintain that the Alexandrian theologian does not seemconsistent as one peruses his theological treatises. In his Commentary on John, forexample, Origen contends that the Logos created the Holy Spirit (2.6). However, inPeriArchon1.1.3, he purportedly contradicts what he explicitly declares about the Logos in

Commentary on John2.6. Nevertheless, I do not think it is accurate to say that thefamed Alexandrian thought the Holy Spirit was an uncreated being. Nor did Origenexpress such a notion inPeri Archon. Origen simply notes that the Church of his timehad not found a passage in Scripture that forthrightly declared the Holy Spirit is acreature (Peri Archon1.1.3). This does not mean that Origen believed the Holy Spiritwas not created, however. For elsewhere inCommentary on Johnhe writes: "There arethree hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time webelieve nothing to be uncreated but the Father" (Burgess 73). Therefore, Origen clearlyheld that God created the Holy Spirit through the Logos (ComparePeri Archon4.4.1).Despite this fact, we must concede that Origen consistently espoused a Neo-Platonicworldview that subordinated the Son and Spirit to the Father while in some wayconstruing each Person in the Trinity as God in some sense of the word. This is not tosay that Origen taught the Trinity per se. Nevertheless, the divine hierarchy of beingnotion that characterizes Middle/Neo-Platonism evidently influenced his Christologyand special theology (Bigg 152-234). Appropriately, Hans Kung concludes that "as aChristian one can speak of Father, Son and Spirit, without having to follow Origen intaking over the Middle Platonic/Neo-Platonic doctrine of hypostases" (Kung "ChristianThinkers" 67-70).

The previous reflections bring us back to the astute words of Emil Brunner:

From the time of Origen's doctrine of the Logos . . . speculation was rife in the sphere oftheology; thus men's interest were deflected from the historical centre to the eternal

background, and then severed from it. People then began to speculate about thetranscendent relation of the Three Persons of the Trinity within the Trinity. (Brunner224)

Ergo, despite the vehement dogmatism employed in the modern proclamation(kerygma) of the Trinity, a closer look at Christian history helps us to appreciate thatPrimitive Christians simply did not think God is threefold nor did they believe thatJesus was Almighty God. Contrariwise, the first century Christians affirmed that ChristJesus was ontologically subordinate to God the Father (1 Cor 15:24-28). The Trinity is afourth century innovation, pioneered by earlier developments involving speculationsregarding the peerless Deity of Judaism and Christianity (Hatch 332-333).

What though about alleged proof texts for the Deity of Christ? Does not the Bible itselfteach that Christ is Almighty God? What about Jn 8:58? Surely, this verse is a clearindication that Jesus is Almighty God. We will address these issues in the next essay.

Gerald Borchert's Exegesis of John 8:58


11/50

Paul Anderson has written that the ego eimisayings that one finds in the JohannineGospel are some of the "more controversial" statements debated in contemporaryJohannine studies (Anderson 21). The ego eimideclarations that occur with predicationnormally do not present exegetical problems (John 6:51; 8:12). The difficulties comewhen scholars examine the accounts where ego eimiostensibly has no predicate (the so-

called absolute use of ego eimi). In this regard, it is important to point out that mostexegetes consider John 8:58 to be one verse where ego eimioccurs in an absolutemanner.

In the words of Phillip Harner, when a writer employs ego eimiin an absolute manner,he uses it in a "distinct, self-contained" way. That is, in a way which is "complete andmeaningful in itself" (Harner 3). Harner thus contends that ego eimi(when utilized inan absolute manner) does not need a predicate in the context to make it complete.Nevertheless, while Harner and other Biblical scholars insist on the uniqueness of egoeimiwithout an explicit predicate, we should note that this view has not foundunanimous consensus among New Testament scholars or lexicographers. In fact, thereseem to be passages in the Greek Scriptures that belie this claim (John 4:26; 6:20;9:9).[24]

In an articleEgo Eimi in John 1:20 and 4:25Edwin D. Freed examines the issuessurrounding ego eimiand questions whether the phrase ever occurs in an absolute sensein the Johannine literary corpus. He repeatedly demonstrates how a predicate could besupplied each time ego eimiappears in the Gospel of John. A predicate could also besupplied in Jn 8:58.[25]

In spite of Freed's treatment, however, a number of scholars insist that ego eimiin Jn8:58 is essentially "theophanic" (Anderson 21).[26]That is, Ex 3:14 putatively serves as abackdrop for Jn 8:58. This OT passage evidently identifies God by means of the phrase

"I AM" (KJV). The LXX has ego eimi ho on, but note Ex. 3:15, where God is called ho on.In view of the exclamation recorded at Ex 3:14, Anderson thinks that the expressionegoeimiin John 8:58, "is reminiscent of the revealing and saving work of Yahweh, as well asimages used to describe the true calling of Israel" (Anderson 21). In view of whatAnderson and other writers have claimed, we do well to ask: was Jesus identifyinghimself with the I AM of Ex 3:14? Is Jn 8:58 "theophanic" in nature? Alternately, couldJesus have simply been affirming his temporal existence prior to Abraham?

Critiquing Borchert's Exegesis of John 8:58Admittedly, there are a number of learned works that scholars have produced on this

subject. I do not intend to discuss all of the immense research that has been publishedabout Jn 8:58, but I do want to review a few pertinent comments on this controversialpassage and then offer some remarks of my own concerning this verse. In particular, wewill focus on the observations of Gerald Borchert and critique his approach to Jn 8:58.

For starters, we should point out that Baptist exegete Gerald Borchert believes Jesusclearly affirmed his Godhood (his essential and eternal Deity) in Jn 8:58. In fact,Borchert claims that Jesus transparently identified himself with the so-called I AM of
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#24http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#24http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#24http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#25http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#25http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#25http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#26http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#26http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#26http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#26http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#25http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#24


12/50

the Old Testament, when he exclaimed ego eimiin Jn 8:58. His comments are asfollows:

Certainly the juxtaposing of the past tense concerning Abraham with both the prior timeand the present tense as they relate to Jesus explodes all natural reasoning concerning

time . . . Jesus claimed to be 'I am' over against Abraham. That claim was a reminder ofthe claims for God in the Old Testament over against creation (Cf. Ps 90:2; Isa 42:3-9)and of the self-designation for the comforting God of Isaiah. (Borchert 309)

Borchert definitely gives a Trinitarian slant to Jn 8:58: he vigorously proposes thatJesus here identifies himself with the Most High God of the Old Testament. This stanceis one among many and is not to be seen as conclusive, however, since there arecountless and diverse treatments of Jn 8:58. At any rate, Borchert's main line ofreasoning is that the timeless and eternal existence of Jesus as represented by the use ofthe Greek ego eimiis juxtaposed in Jn 8:58 with the temporal birth and finite existenceof Abraham. Thence, John's use of ego eimiunequivocally points to Jesus' eternalexistence.

In view of this data, we pose the following question: is Borchert's exegetical approach toJn 8:58 sound? Does it capture the vital and dynamic semantic value associated withthis fateful Johannine passage? Before answering these questions, it is beneficial toreview what other commentators have said about John's use of ego eimiin connectionwith Jn 8:58.

The eminent Johannine scholar Raymond E. Brown pursued what remains up until nowa peerless discussion of our theme passage in hisAnchor Bible Commentaryon theGospel of John. Brown carefully detailed the sacred and banal uses of the termego eimi.And in doing so, he demonstrated that ego eimicould simply function as "a phrase of

common speech" (equivalent to "It is I" or "I am the one"). However, he also showedthat the formula could be used to denote solemnity and sacramentalism in the LXX, theNew Testament, in pagan Greek religious writings, and in the ancient writings ofGnostic authors. Nevertheless, what does ego eimidenote in Jn 8:58?

In Appendix IV of theAnchor Bible CommentaryBrown notes that there are fourBultmannian classifications of ego eimi. These are as follows: (1) A presentation formulawhich answers the question: "Who are you?" (2) A qualificatory phrase that addressesthe question: "What are you?" (3) An identification formula. (4) A recognition formula.

Does the Johannine employment of ego eimiin Jn 8:58 reflect any of the uses discussed

by Rudolph Bultmann? Brown favors the view that 8:58 is equating Jesus with YHWHof the Hebrew Scriptures. He sees a possible connection between the Hebrewani huused in Isaiah and the Greek ego eimithat John employs. Most modern commentatorswould concur with Raymond E. Brown's conclusion in this matter. Hans Conzelmann,however, does not interpret Jn 8:58 in an ontological manner. He writes: "Although the'I am' formula stands out strikingly in Deutero-Isaiah, who describes Yahweh as thelight, John's terminology cannot be derived directly from there" (Conzelmann 351). Thegrammatical and cotextual evidence of both Isaiah and the fourth Gospel seems to


13/50

confirm Conzelmann's stance.

Contra Brown, T.W. Manson has also proposed that ego eimiin Jn 8:58 means: "TheMessiah is here." He derives this understanding of 8:58 from Mk 13:6 (Cf. Lk 21:8)where we find Jesus' prophecy concerning the last days: 'Many will come in my name

saying I am'.[27]Mt 24:5 adds that many would come in Jesus' name, saying: 'I am theMessiah.' While certain expositors are inclined to reject Manson's view of Jn 8:58 forwhat they deem, solid contextual and grammatical reasons, it cannot be denied thatManson posits a suitable and thought-provoking alternative to the traditional reading ofJn 8:58. Simply put, Manson believes that Jn 8:58 identifies Jesus as the Messiah ofGod. Thus, according to Manson, it is not affirming his divine nature or eternalexistence per se. Is this view plausible? Does this explanation correspond with what thewriter of the fourth Gospel is trying to convey?

Manson's interpretation of Jn 8:58 does avoid a number of problemata that attendTrinitarian explanations of this verse. It is very difficult, however, to see how Jesuscould have been simply and solely asserting his Messianic status in this Johanninepericope. This is not to say that Manson's interpretation of this text is to be rejected intoto. In contradistinction to Manson's exegesis, however, the primary point of Jn 8:58seems to be that Jesus is predicating both his preexistence and his temporal superiorityover against Abraham's relatively mundane temporality. That is, Jesus subsisted beforeAbraham came into existence and he did so on a higher plane of being, namely, aspiritual mode of being (Daseinsweise).

This approach represents a straightforward way to read Jn 8:58. It is a grammaticallysound way to exegete the text. Therefore, to render Jn 8:58 as "I have been" makessense exegetically. In the excellent work Greek-English Lexicon of the New TestamentBased on Semantic Domains, linguists Louw and Nida suggest that this Johannine

passage could be translated: "before Abraham came into existence, I existed" (Louw-Nida 158).[28]This rendering more accurately reflects the meaning of Jesus' wordsrecorded in 8:58. It also helps us to understand that Jesus was not necessarily speakingin a metaphysical sense, when he saidprin Abraam genesthai ego eimi. Yet, Kenneth L.McKay's translation further improves Louw and Nida's suggestion. He suggests thefollowing: "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."[29]McKay'srendition is especially appropriate when we recall that ego eimiin Jn 8:58 is evidently adurative present or present of past action.[30]

Summation

From our prior discussion, it seems warranted to conclude that Jn 8:58 does notnecessarily affirm the Deity of Christ Jesus. Gerald Borchert's suggestion that Jesusstrongly asserted his eternality at John 8:58 is evidently eisegetical. His comments againare as follows:

The answer of Jesus to the Jews [in Jn 8:58] was an intriguing double amen . . . thatfocused both on time and status: "Before Abraham was, I am (ego eimi, John 8:58) . . .
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#27http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#27http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#27http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#28http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#28http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#28http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#29http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#29http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#30http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#30http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#30http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#30http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#29http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#28http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#27


14/50

Certainly the juxtaposing of the past tense concerning Abraham with both the prior timeand the present tense as they relate to Jesus explodes all natural reasoning concerningtime. . . Jesus claimed to be "I am" over against Abraham. That claim was a reminder ofthe claims for God in the Old Testament over against creation (Cf. Ps 90:2; Isa. 42:3-9)and of the self-designation for the comforting God of Isaiah 41:4; 43:3, 13. (Borchert

309)

In harmony with Borchert's observation, I do not deny that Jesus "juxtaposed" hisexistence with that of his forefather Abraham. My question is: Why does thejuxtaposition have to be a juxtapositioning of time vis--vis eternity? Why do we have tocontend that John establishes an antithesis between Creator and creature in 8:58? Afterall, is there really a qualitative difference between eternality and temporality? Biblically,there is not. The Scriptures do not equate eternity with timelessness (Cullmann). This isnot to say that time constrains God. Nevertheless, God is not necessarily atemporaleither (Boman 151-154, 205). The Bible teaches no such thing (Ps 90:2). What is more,why could Jesus not simply have been making a distinction between his pre-existenttemporal status over against Abraham's "ordinary" temporal mode of being? This is notout of the realm of possibility (either logically or exegetically). In this regard, McKenziewrites:

Jesus asserts his own innocence and the vindication which the Father will give him. Thisleads to a clear assertion of preexistence and his life is threatened for the first time. Thepreexistent Messiah actually does appear in rabbinical literature; and it was alsorabbinical belief that the patriarchs and Moses saw the Messiah in a vision (McKenzie193-194).

One of the foremost modern Catholic theologians therefore concludes that Jesus was notnecessarily juxtaposing his eternality with Abraham's temporality, but rather boldly

asserting his preexistence over against the comparatively mundane existence ofAbraham. By making this claim he was in effect proclaiming: "I am the Messiah."Manson's exegesis of this controversial passage is therefore not to be utterly rejected,only refined, because his explanation does not thoroughly account for the existential useof ego eimiin Jn 8:58.[31]

As McKenzie and others effectively demonstrate, Jesus' preexistence is the focus of Jn8:58 (not necessarily his "eternal existence"). Jn 8:58 does not say that Jesus is God, butit does indicate that Jesus the Christ is the subordinate Son of the Most High Deity(Jehovah our Father). Apropos here are the comments of K.L. McKay who pens thefollowing words: "If we take the Greek words [in Jn 8:58] in their natural meaning, as

we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggeringone, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction."[32]

The first century ecclesiaevidently did not believe that Jesus was God. It is my beliefthat Jn 8:58 should not be invoked as proof of Jesus' Deity.

Did the Ante-Nicene Fathers Teach or Believe in the Trinity?


15/50

Some of the most significant extant religious documents available to us at present arethe writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The voluminous literary corpus produced by theearly Church Fathers is crucial since it provides a glimpse into the early Church's uniquebelief system. In short, the ante-Nicene library of works contains early Christianity's

doctrine of God. Most important for our present purposes, these theological documentshelp us to appreciate the early Church's position on the Trinity and its view of Christ inGod's divine purpose. With regard to the Trinity doctrine, however, what was the view ofthe ante-Nicene ecclesia? Did the ante-Nicene fathers teach that God is threefold?Alternatively, did these men espouse a subordinationist view?When reading the last question, some readers may feel that we are guilty of the either/or(vel/vel) fallacy. "Stop question loading!" logicians may assert. Yes, certain readers maythink that it is erroneous to assume that the ante-Nicene fathers were either Trinitariansor subordinationists. Why could they not possess both viewpoints simultaneously?

Once a proper understanding of subordinationism is grasped, it will become clear thatthere is no possible way a Christian can simultaneously affirm both subordinationismand Trinitarianism. Why is this the case though?

First, we think that the very definition of subordinationism makes it logically impossibleto concomitantly affirm Trinitarianism and subordinationism. But to fully understandthis particular contention, it is imperative to define the subordinationist position,restate the claims of classical Trinitarianism, and then juxtapose those claims with theante-Nicene writings.This study will endeavor to successfully navigate through thetorturous but exciting field of arcane Trinitarian terminology and clearly show thenecessarily contrasting positions of subordinationists and Trinitarians. We will concludethat the ante-Nicene fathers were not Trinitarians qua Trinitarians.

Defining the Trinity Doctrine

As noted by contemporary theologians, there are in fact many disparate "doctrines" ofthe Trinity (i.e., the Trinity doctrine is not monolithic). For instance, systematictheologian Owen Thomas observes:

Our survey of the history of the [Trinity] doctrine in the text has indicated that there areseveral doctrines of the trinity: Eastern, Western, social analogy, modal, so forth. Thereis one doctrine in the sense of the threefold name of God of the rule of faith as found, forexample, in the Apostle's Creed. This, however, is not yet a doctrine. It is ambiguous and

can be interpreted in a number of ways. There is one doctrine in the sense of theWestern formula of "three persons in one substance." However, this formula is alsoambiguous if not misleading and can be interpreted in a number of ways. A doctrine ofthe trinity would presumably be one interpretation of this formula . . . let us assume thatthe phrase "doctrine of the trinity" in the question refers to any of a number of widelyaccepted interpretations of the threefold name of God in the role of faith. (Thomas"Theological Questions"34)


16/50

As Thomas accurately relates, there are many "widely accepted interpretations" of theTrinity doctrine. These interpretations viewed from a collective standpoint, we can callthe Trinity doctrine. Despite certain Roman Catholic protests to the contrary, "theTrinity doctrine" is not distinct from the many divergent, but acceptable ("non-heretical") interpretations of it.[33]Neither the Eastern Church nor the Western ecclesia

has formulated a well-defined, unambiguous or unanimously accepted creedalstatement regarding the triune doctrine of God. It is therefore appropriate to considerany treatment of the Trinity not proclaimed heretical to be a delineation of the Trinitydoctrine proper, as Thomas writes above.[34]

Despite differing in form, there is a common thread that runs through everyinterpretation of the Trinity doctrine. This common denominator is the notion that Godis one substance (or subject), but threepersonae: "We must regard the nature of the Sonas identical with that of the Father, since the Holy Spirit Who is both the Spirit of Christand the Spirit of God is proved to be a Being of one nature" (Hilary of Poitiers).[35]

If God is one substance (or subject), however, this fact ultimately means thatimmanently (within the Godhead) subordination does not and cannot obtain among theindividuated divinepersonae, who presumably constitute the threefold God ofChristianity. Note well: one main point put forward in this study is that the orthodoxformulation of God's triunity rules out any form of subordination in the Godhead.Trinitarianism does not allow room for subordination amongst the eternal, necessary,and immutable relations of the Trinity. Moreover, I am arguing that the ante-Nicenefathers believed the Son is subordinate to the Father because of his unique originativegeneration (generatio) from the Father. We shall try to establish this point as weproceed in this essay.

For now, it is sufficient to note that if a Christian contends that the Son is subordinate to

the Father in any way, if he or she says that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Fatheror to the Son, then the aforesaid Christian thereby abnegates Trinitarianism andsubsequently begins to affirm subordinationism. Subordinationism and Trinitarianismcannot exist side by side. Either a Christian is a Trinitarian or he or she is asubordinationist: this is the traditional interpretation of the Church:

God the Father is the ground or presupposition of God the Son, and God the Father andGod the Son are the ground or presupposition of God the Holy Spirit. God the Son is ofor from God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit is of or from God the Father and Godthe Son. But the Church interpreted this in such a way that there is no temporal priorityor subordination. (Thomas "Theology" 68)

Since the sixth century, the Western Church has continually affirmed that 'none isgreater or lesser in the Godhead' (The Athanasian Creed). There is no priority of one"Person" over another in any respect. So the Church has traditionally maintained:

A classic contrast is between [John] 10:30, "The Father and I are one," and 14:28, "TheFather is greater than I." It is the perdurance of such lower christological statementswhich shows that the Johannine community had not made a rival God out of Jesus, but
http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#33http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#33http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#33http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#34http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#34http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#34http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#35http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#35http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#35http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#35http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#34http://jehovah.to/exe/general/christology.htm#33


17/50

it also shows that the christology of John still stands at quite a distance from thechristology of Nicaea wherein the Father is not greater than the Son." (R.E. Brown "TheJohannine Community" 53)

John McKenzie adds that "a celebrated problem in Christology is found in John 14:28;

and it is perhaps best to say of this verse that there is much about the relation of Fatherand Son which we do not know" (McKenzie 203). McKenzie is of course correct when hedeclares that John 14:28 presents a Christological problem for Trinitarians.Nevertheless, he is mistaken when he implies that this passage is a mysterious orincomprehensible verse. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is not God, but subordinateto Almighty God (El Shaddai). Yes, subordinate in every respect. In the book ofRevelation, Jesus repeatedly calls the Father "my God" (Rev. 3:12). How though couldGod possibly have a God? Surely, Jn 14:28 unambiguously substantiates that the Son's"act of existence" or very act of being (actus essendi) is not equal to the Father's (cf. Jn20:17).

In demonstrating the veracity of the previously-mentioned observations, namely, thatthe Church has traditionally maintained the equality of the tres personae in unasubstantia, Charles Ryrie informs us that the opera ad intra trinitatis: "has to do withgeneration (filiation or begetting) and procession which attempts to indicate a logicalorder within the Trinity but does not imply in any way inequality, priority of time, ordegrees of dignity. Generation and procession occur within the divine Being and carrywith them no thought of subordination of essence" (Ryrie 54). Ryrie is also quick topoint out, however, that the eternal generation idea is not "an exegetically baseddoctrine." Yet, further in his work, he avers that the idea conveyed by the eternalgeneration teaching is "not unscriptural." But he cautions us that the notion of aneternal begettal must not be stated in such a way so as to undercut the "personal andeternal and coequal relation of the Father and Son" (54). The Baptist theologian's

insights thus verify that the Trinity doctrine proper does not allow room for a "superior"God and a "subordinate" God: "No person of the Trinity is any less God than the others;in particular, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not demigods or intermediaries,subordinate to the Father." (Macquarrie 192) It is important to grasp this thoughtbecause of what scholars have observed about the ante-Nicene fathers.

Speaking of the ante-Nicenes, New Testament scholar Robert M. Grant perspicuouslyexplains that: "the Christology of [early Christian apologists] . . . is essentiallysubordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of theOld Testament." He adds: "Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universallysubordinationist. Theology almost universally taught that the Son was subordinate to

the Father" (Grant "Gods" 109, 160). It is clear that Robert Grant thinks Christology wasuniversally subordinationist in nature prior to the Nicene council of 325 C.E. Thisstatement is significant because of what the term subordination denotes. In this regard,Robert Wilken elucidates matters for us when he speaks of subordination and the ante-Nicenes in these terms:

From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the question ofJesus' relation to God . . . Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life


18/50

and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before he was called Sonof God--then God. Even so, he was not God in the sense in which the Father was God--orwas he? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? These andother questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three centuries. During theseyears, most Christians vaguely thought of Jesus as God; yet they did not actually think of

him in the same way that they thought of God the Father. They seldom addressedprayers to him, and thought of him somehow as second to God--divine, yes, but not fullyGod . . . When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out inthe early fourth century, most Christians were 'subordinationists,' i.e. they believed thatChrist was God but not in precisely the same way that the Father was God. (179)

In addition, Wilken contends:

Arius took the traditional [Christian] understanding of God to mean that Christ, theWord, or Son of God, had come into being at a particular moment by a creative act . . .The problem raised by Arius became particularly acute because Christians were unclearin their own minds how they should express the relation between the Son and theFather. Christian tradition did not give an unambiguous answer. (Wilken 177-184)

As this New Testament expert explains, the Christological picture during the ante-Nicene period (second century-fourth century) is somewhat unclear. Nevertheless, wecan safely say that the ante-Nicene fathers did not believe that Jesus was fully God andfully man (vere deus et vere homo). The early Christians were not Trinitarians--theywere subordinationists. They "vaguely" thought of Jesus as God. Yet he was not God inthe same way that God the Father was Deity for them. In fact, both Justin Martyr andOrigen speak of the Logos as a "second God" or as one who is in "second place" vis--visthe Most High God:

And although we may call Him a "second" God, let men know that by the term "secondGod" we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues, and areason capable of containing all reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which havearisen naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which "reason," we say,dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree far above all other souls,seeing He alone was enabled completely to receive the highest share in the absolutereason, and the absolute wisdom, and the absolute righteousness (Contra Celsum5.39).

As one reads the writings of Justin Martyr and Origen, he or she finds that Jesus wasunequivocally viewed as subordinate to the Father in an immanent sense. That is, theSon was subordinated to the Father ontologically as well as economically: "What has

provided historians of doctrine for more than a century with an occasion for discussionhas been the fact that Justin could conceive in one category the Logos-Son together withthe 'host of the other good angels, of like being to him', and that he set this angel-host,together with the Logos-Christ, before the (prophetic) Spirit" (Werner 135).

Additionally, when commenting on the writings of Justin Martyr and hisChristologically significant statements, Demetrius C. Trakatellis observes that forJustin: "The differentiation in divinity between the Father and the Son is so pronounced


19/50

that one wonders what exactly Justin meant when he used the term theosfor both ofthem" (Trakatellis 52). Justin himself shows the chasm between the Father and the Sonthat Trakatellis mentions, when he writes:

These and other such sayings are recorded by the lawgiver and by the prophets; and I

suppose that I have stated sufficiently, that wherever God says, 'God went up fromAbraham,' or, 'The Lord spake to Moses,' and 'The Lord came down to behold the towerwhich the sons of men had built,' or when 'God shut Noah into the ark,' you must notimagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. Forthe ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps,nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quickto hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees allthings, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is notmoved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world wasmade. (Dialogue With Trypho127)

Consequently, although immense Christological obscurities pervade the writings of theante-Nicenes, one fact seems secure: the ante-Nicene Fathers were universallysubordinationists. Moreover, in Justin's case, it is obvious that the subordinationistunderstanding of at least some of the ante-Nicenes is a subordination of essence. Weshould not forget this point since the present writer contends that it is impossible tosimultaneously affirm subordinationism and Trinitarianism. For as Leonard Hodgsonreminds us, the ante-Nicene documents show: "The Fathers . . . tried to give anintelligible account of the divine unity [but] never shook themselves free fromsubordinationism" (Hodgson 100). And as Hodgson also notes: "Subordinationism, as Ihave indicated earlier, attempts to preserve the [divine] unity by making one personultimately the real God and the others divine because of their relation to him" (100).

It seems correct to contend that the ante-Nicene fathers never shook themselves freefrom subordinationism. This thought is quite interesting in view of Hodgson's definitionof subordinationism. Note that he defines subordination as making one divine Person"the real God" and the other Persons divine by virtue of their relation to "the real God."What implications does Hodgson's view have for those who want to introduce some typeof subordination into the Godhead (economic subordination) while excluding otherforms (ontological subordination)? We read:

The notion that in the Trinity one Person may be the fount or source of being orGodhead for another lingered on to be a cause of friction and controversy between theEast and the West, and still persists today. The main thesis of these lectures, I have said,

is that the act of faith required for acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is faith thatthe Divine unity is a dynamic unity actively unifying in the one divine life the lives of thethree divine persons. I now wish to add that in this unity there is no room for any traceof subordinationism, and that the thought of the Father as the source or fount of God-head is a relic of pre-Christian theology which has not fully assimilated the Christianrevelation. (Hodgson 102)

The implications for the Trinity doctrine are profound and staggering if what Hodgson


20/50

asserts is true. In the quote above, Hodgson maintains that the ontological dogma of theTrinity allows "no room" whatsoever for one divine Person to serve as a Fount or Sourceof Being for another member of the Godhead. Each Person must possess full deity in anunderived sense--no divine Person can obtain His personal form of Being from anotherPerson of the Godhead. There is no room in the Trinity doctrine, Hodgson believes, for a

fatherly "source of divinity" (fons divinitatis). Contrariwise, the Trinitarian formula(expressed in the Quicunque Vult) requires that the one divine life be actively unified inthe lives of three divine Persons. We should thus consider the thought of the Fatherserving as the source or fount of Godhead, Hodgson writes, "a relic of pre-Christiantheology which has not fully assimilated the Christian revelation." All of these factorscause Hodgson to conclude:

The Quicunque Vultleaves no room for misunderstanding. 'In this Trinity none is afore,or after other: none is greater, or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together; and co-equal.' The express rejection in these verses of allsubordinationism is good reason for the retention of this document among the officialstandards of the Church's faith. (102)

There is no doubt, where Hodgson stands doctrinally. However, John V. Dahms thinksthat Hodgson has simply ignored what the rest of the famed creed says to his owntheological detriment: "One part of the Athanasian creed must not be so interpreted asto negate what is said in another part. However much the equality of the persons isemphasized in the creed, the derivation of the Son from the Father is also affirmed"(Dahms 499). Dahm's objection aside, the present writer contends that Hodgson iscorrectly interpreting the spirit of the Quicunque Vultand the Trinity doctrine proper.While John V. Dahms has shown that theQuicunque Vultmay allow room forsubordination and the notion of a fatherlyfons divinitatis, it seems safe to conclude thatthe overall thrust of the Quicunque Vult is non-subordinationist in nature. Ergo, it

appears wise to agree with Hodgson's interpretation of this monumental creed. Othertheologians (ala Jurgen Moltmann) have followed suit and outlined similar Trinitariandepictions of God that some also think are tritheistic. Regardless of how one viewsHodgson's explication of the Trinity, however, there can be no doubt that the Churchhas traditionally interpreted the Trinity in a way that negates subordination andtemporal priority in both the internal and external life of the Godhead (Alfs 31-37).

In contrast to Hilary, Hodgson, Moltmann, and Dahms, ante-Nicene father Tertulliandid not ontologically equate the Father and the Son:

Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always

been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For Hecould not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. Therewas, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former ofwhich was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was notLord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only tobecome Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judgeby sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, inorder that they might serve Him. (Against Hermogenes3.18)


21/50

According to Tertullian, the eternal Most High God became a Father. Thus, before Godbrought forth the Word, the Son quaSon did not exist as an individuated rational beingcoterminous with the Supreme God. The words of the Christian apologist alert us to thefact that he was a subordinationist and not a Trinitarian. W.H.C. Frend confirms this

construal of Tertullian's theology, writing that in the Latin apologist's theologicalsystem:

The Word was derivative ("a portion of the whole") and subordinate, and equally liableto Modalist interpretations (345).

Frend supplements his comments on Tertullian's Christology by adding:

Despite Tertullian's thrust against Praxeas, Trinitarian theology never had a highpriority in the thought of the North African church leaders . . . Fourth centuryinscriptions if anything emphasize the subordination of Son to Father. God [the Father]was "Omnipotent," Christ was "Saviour." In this period, few African Christians showedmuch concern regarding the accusation that Donatus was an Arian. (346)

The Subordinationist Views of Origen and Novatian

The Alexandrian theologian Origen likewise expressed subordinationist sentimentswhen he wrote: "We can say that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatureswithout possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way, but that they are exceededby the Father by as much or even more than they exceed the other beings"(Commentary On John130, 25, 151). Concerning this passage, eminent Origenist HenriCrouzel admits that: "Of course later orthodoxy would not express it like that, it would

avoid anything that could express a superiority of the Father over the other two"(Crouzel 203). Origen also manifestly stated that the Father made the Holy Spiritthrough Christ: "We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that allthings were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and thefirst in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ. And this, perhaps, is thereason why the Spirit is not said to be God's Son" (Commentary on John2.6). Thisproclamation is a sure sign of essential subordination in the "Godhead."

The early church father Novatian also wrote a comprehensive tome on the Trinity thattransparently depicts the Son in subordinationist terms. In this magnificent theologicaltreatise, Novatian waxes in a somewhat rhetorical manner as he exclaims:

Thus God the Father, the Founder and Creator of all things, who only knows nobeginning, invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, is one God; to whose greatness, ormajesty, or power, I would not say nothing can be preferred, but nothing can becompared; of whom, when He willed it, the Son, the Word, was born, who is notreceived in the sound of the stricken air, or in the tone of voice forced from the lungs,but is acknowledged in the substance of the power put forth by God, the mysteries ofwhose sacred and divine nativity neither an apostle has learnt, nor prophet has


22/50

discovered, nor angel has known, nor creature has apprehended. To the Son alone theyare known, who has known the secrets of the Father. He then, since He was begotten ofthe Father, is always in the Father. And I thus say always, that I may show Him not to beunborn, but born. But He who is before all time must be said to have been always in theFather; for no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. And He is always in

the Father, unless the Father be not always Father, only that the Father also precedesHim,--in a certain sense,--since it is necessary--in some degree--that He should bebefore He is Father. Because it is essential that He who knows no beginning must gobefore Him who has a beginning; even as He is the less as knowing that He is in Him,having an origin because He is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measureby His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is bornof that Father who alone has no beginning. (De Trinitate31)

Novatian thinks that the Son was always in the Father. No doubt, Novatian believes thatthere is a distinction between the immanent Logos and the begotten Word. But noticethat this Latin Church Father conceives of the Son having a "beginning." Indeed, heexplicitly claims that Father in some sense "precedes" the Son. The Son is in fact lessthan the Father since he originated from Him.

Concluding this well-written section of his tome, Novatian climaxes by uttering thesetelling words of faith:

For all things being subjected to Him as the Son by the Father, while He Himself, withthose things which are subjected to Him, is subjected to His Father, He is indeed provedto be Son of His Father; but He is found to be both Lord and God of all else. Whence,while all things put under Him are delivered to Him who is God, and all things aresubjected to Him, the Son refers all that He has received to the Father, remits again tothe Father the whole authority of His divinity. The true and eternal Father is manifested

as the one God, from whom alone this power of divinity is sent forth, and also given anddirected upon the Son, and is again returned by the communion of substance to theFather. God indeed is shown as the Son, to whom the divinity is beheld to be given andextended. And still, nevertheless, the Father is proved to be one God; while by degrees inreciprocal transfer that majesty and divinity are again returned and reflected as sent bythe Son Himself to the Father, who had given them; so that reasonably God the Father isGod of all, and the source also of His Son Himself whom He begot as Lord. Moreover,the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put before all Him whom He begot.Thus the Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus, having the power of every creaturesubjected to Him by His own Father, inasmuch as He is God; with every creaturesubdued to Him, found at one with His Father God, has, by abiding in that condition

that He moreover 'was heard,' briefly proved God His Father to be one and only and trueGod. (De Trinitate31)

It is clear that Novatian thinks of the Father as "the only true God" (Jn 17:3; 1 Thess 1:9;1 Jn 5:20). The Son is only deity in a qualified sense. It is apropos that the Son thusturns over the Kingdom to his God and Father at the end (telos). Based on theseeloquent theological formulations, Robert Grant concludes:


23/50

Novatian finally ends his treatise with allusions to the passage in 1 Corinthians (15:24-28) that speaks of the final subjection of the Son to the Father, 'that God may be all inall.' His own stance is thus subordinationist and can be explained in reference to hisreliance on Biblical passages. Apparently the work is difficult to interpret toward the endbecause a later orthodox reviser has tinkered with the text. (Grant 159-160)

From these affirmations, we can see that Novatian is yet another early Church fatherwho was an avid subordinationist. His pronouncements seem to provide condemnatoryevidence against the notion that the Trinity was an early Church teaching or belief.

The Views of Theophilus

It is also significant that the early Church Father Theophilus was not a Trinitarian quaTrinitarian: he was a thoroughgoing subordinationist. The captivating theologicallanguage of this early Church Father is reminiscent of Philo Judaeus' HellenisticJudaism and it is evident that the apologist closely mimicked Philo's literary andtheological writing style. For instance, in his work To Autolycus(3.9) Theophilusrepeats a Philonic formula word for word, indicating that the Alexandrian Jew heavilyinfluenced him. By his overall writing and theological style, Theophilus proves himself"an heir of Hellenistic Judaism and presumably reflects some of its major developmentsin the second century. His doctrine of God uses Biblical texts most of the time forphilosophical conclusions" (Grant 129).

Grant also points out that Theophilus is frequently inconsistent in his writings.Sometimes he differentiates between the Logos and Wisdom, while at other times heequates them. Moreover, the Christian apologist vividly describes the generation of theLogos and at times produces modalistic implications concerning God and His Logos.

One thing is clear in the writings of Theophilus, however: he is not a Trinitarian. True,in To Autolycus 2.15, he employs the word "Trinity" (trias). But what does the signifier(used in this context) mean? When describing the creation of the cosmos says,Theophilus clarifies matters for us:

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries are types of theTrinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, whoneeds light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.

Does the aforementioned statement by Theophilus demonstrate that he was aTrinitarian? We urge the reader who is inclined to answer in the affirmative to read

carefully the words of this ancient Church Father. What is the "Trinity" he is discussing?Is it a triunity composed of threepersonaeunited in one divine substance? Hardly, forthe text specifically states that the Trinity Theophilus has in mind is a "triunity" of God[the Father], the Logos of God [the Son], and God the Father's wisdom. In thismomentous passage, he equates God'sLogosand God'sSophiaas he often doesthroughout this work. His Trinity is therefore not putting forth what later theologicaldogmatists affirmed. This is why Grant notes:


24/50

A passage in Theophilus of Antioch is sometimes invoked for the doctrine of the Trinity,but it proves nothing. He is offering symbolical exegesis of the "days" of creation inGenesis (Grant 156).

Grant continues:

What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity--a term wereserve for a doctrine that tries to explain the relation of the three Persons to the oneGod--but a depiction of three Persons. In other words, we find the materials for such adoctrine but not a doctrine as such . . . Even if this could be viewed as a correct pictureof the earliest stages of doctrinal development, the meaning was not necessarilyor onemight say 'necessarily not'expressed in its initial stages. (156)

Adding to Grant's testimony in even stronger terms, Stanley Burgess comments in thisway about Theophilus' "trinity": "The members of the Trinity are not named as Father,Son, and Holy Spirit, however; rather, they are God, His Word (Logos), and HisWisdom" (32). The conclusion we thus arrive at concerning ante-Nicene Christology is:"Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist. Theologyalmost universally taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father" (Grant 160).[36]Based on the previously stated data, Kung's conclusion seems to accurately account forthe historical development of the Trinity. He pens the following words:

We should note that whereas the Council of Nicaea in 325 spoke of a single substance orhypostasis in God, the starting point in the 381 Council of Constantinople was threehypostases: Father, Son and Spirit. There has been much discussion in the history ofdogma as to whether the transition from a one-hypostasis theology to a three-hypostasistheology is only a terminological change or-more probably (as the temporary schism inAntioch between old and new orthodox shows)-also involved an actual change in the

conceptual model. At all events it is certain that we can speak of a dogma of the Trinityonly after the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. (Kung "Christianity" 187)

Kung and others rightly contend that the Trinity was a gradual ecclesiasticaldevelopment that resulted from an imperial decree promulgated in the fourth century. Itwas not a first century Christian teaching.

The Testimony of Lactantius

One of the most damaging testimonies supporting the aforesaid details presented in this

essay is the witness given by the fourth century ecclesiastical apologist-historian LuciusLactantius. Did he believe that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father? Was he aTrinitarian qua Trinitarian? Interestingly, Lactantius was an apologist par excellence inthe Church circa 320 CE. This means that his writings reflect the spirit of the Churchduring the years preceding the Nicene ecumenical Council of 325. Notice this Lactantianapologetic written in the fourth century:

We have sufficiently taught, as I think, in ourInstitutions, that there cannot be many


25/50

gods; because, if the divine energy and power be distributed among several, it mustnecessarily be diminished. But that which is lessened is plainly mortal; but if He is notmortal, He can neither be lessened nor divided. Therefore there is but one God, in whomcomplete energy and power can neither be lessened nor increased (A Treatise On TheAnger Of God11).

Not only did Lactantius believe that there was one God, he also affirmed that God is onepersona:

Therefore all divine power must be in one person, by whose will and command all thingsare ruled; and therefore He is so great, that He cannot be described in words by man, orestimated by the senses. (A Treatise On The Anger Of God11)

Who did Lactantius think that this onePersonawas? Who was this one true God?

For thus at length He may be called the common Father of all, and the best and greatest,which His divine and heavenly nature demands. (A Treatise On The Anger Of God5)

From the aforementioned quotes, it seems apparent that Lactantius was not aTrinitarian. He believed that one uncreated God brought forth two spirits who were twocreated gods in a Platonic sense. This vital piece of information evidently explains whythe Holy Spirit does not figure prominently or even at all in Lactantius' conception ofthe Godhead (Campenhausen 61-86). He lucidly expresses this point when he writes:

God, in the beginning, before He made the world, from the fountain of His own eternity,and from the divine and everlasting Spirit, begat for Himself a Son incorruptible,faithful, corresponding to His Father's excellence and majesty. He is virtue, He isreason, He is the word of God, He is wisdom. With this artificer, as Hermes says, and

counsellor, as the Sibyl says, He contrived the excellent and wondrous fabric of thisworld. In fine, of all the angels, whom the same God formed from His own breath, Healone was admitted into a participation of His supreme power, He alone was called God.For all things were through Him, and nothing was without Him. In fine, Plato, notaltogether as a philosopher, but as a seer, spoke concerning the first and second God,perhaps following Trismegistus in this, whose words I have translated from the Greek,and subjoined: "The Lord and Maker of all things, whom we have thought to be calledGod, created a second God, who is visible and sensible. (A Treatise on the Anger of God42)

The testimony of Lactantius solidifies the fact that the ante-Nicene fathers did not

subscribe to the Trinity, but were avid subordinationists. Many more examples could begiven. However, space does not permit. The examples we have given shoulddemonstrate the main point. More on this matter will be discuss

christology and the trinity by edgar foster

Documents