The Forgotten Trinity (10 page)

RIGHT AT THE START

It seems an appropriate time to settle one of the most important
issues regarding the Trinity and the text of Scripture. If all Christians
would simply understand the following statement, their task of explaining and defending the Trinity would be much easier. Here is a
basic, simple truth that is lost in the vast majority of discussions (or
arguments) on this topic:

Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.

Not exactly an earth-shattering concept? It isn't, but the vast majority
of material produced by those who oppose the deity of Christ ignores this
basic truth. What do I mean? It's really quite simple. Let's take a common argument against the deity of Christ: "The Father is the Creator
of all things. He creates through Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ
is not fully God." Or here's another argument against the deity of the
Spirit: "The Spirit is sent to testify of Jesus Christ and convict the world
of sin. Since the Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit cannot truly be
God." Both arguments share the same error: they ignore the above
cited truth, difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.
That is, just because the Father, Son, and Spirit do different things does
not mean that any one of them is inferior to the others in nature.'

Think of it this way: in eternity past' the Father, Son, and Spirit
voluntarily and freely chose the roles they would take in bringing about
the redemption of God's people. This is what is called the "Eternal Covenant of Redemption." The Father chose to be the fount and source of
the entirety of the work; the Son chose to be the Redeemer and to enter
into human flesh as one subject to the Father; and the Spirit chose to
be the Sanctifier of the church, the indwelling Testifier of Jesus Christ. Each took different roles of necessity-they could not all take the same
role and do the same things.

The large portion of arguments against the deity of Christ and the
Trinity make one major unspoken (and false) assumption: that for either the Son or the Spirit to be truly and fully God, they have to do the
exact same things as the Father in the exact same way. That is, they assume there cannot possibly be any differentiation in the persons of the
Trinity without introducing an automatic inferiority on the part of
those who do something "different" than the Father. Any difference in
function, they assume, results in an inferiority of nature. To put it simply, they assume a unitarian view of God (as opposed to the Trinitarian
view), and assume that God could never do what He has revealed He
has done in the work of redemption.

The truth of the matter is, however, that just because the Son takes
a different role in the eternal covenant of Redemption, it does not follow that He is inferior in nature to the Father or the Spirit. The different role He takes distinguishes Him from the Father and the Spirit,
but it does not make Him less than the Father or the Spirit. It is quite
true that Jesus is normally described as the agent of creation and the
Father as the source of creation, but it does not logically follow that
the Son is therefore inferior. It only follows that He is different. In the
same way, the Spirit is indeed sent by the Father and the Son, but this
only makes Him different than the Father and the Son, not less than
the Father and the Son.

When you dig past the rhetoric and really examine the bestwritings
against the Christian confession of the Trinity and the deity of Christ,
you find that these arguments are circular at their core. They assume
that Yahweh is uni-personal, or unitarian, and then use that assumption to attack and deny all evidence to the contrary. Keeping this one
truth in mind will help you evaluate the passages that describe the Lord
Jesus Christ as God, even while distinguishing Him from the Father.

There is one other thought to keep in mind whenever we engage in
dialogue on the issue of the deity of Christ. Christians often get so
caught up in the "battle" that they lose sight of some basic considerations. When we encounter someone who denies the deity of Christ, we often "let them off the hook" by not asking them to defend their
view on the basis of each passage we are considering. We don't apply
the same arguments to their position that they are applying to ours.

The most obvious example is provided by Jehovah's Witnesses.
They have a positive belief that Jesus is actually an angelic creature,
Michael, the Archangel.' When dialoguing with Witnesses about the
deity of Christ, we must not only give a positive defense of our own
faith, but we must constantly be asking if the descriptions of Christ
found in Scripture could possibly be applied to Michael the Archangel.
Could we describe Michael as the Way, the Truth, and the Life? (John
14:6). Could an angel say, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavyladen, and I will give you rest"? (Matthew 11:28). Is an angel King of
kings and Lord of lords? (Revelation 19:16). Does divine grace come
from God the Father and Michael the Archangel? (1 Corinthians 1:3).
Can Michael say, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father"? (John
14:9). What could it possibly mean to say, "For to me, to live is Michael
the Archangel and to die is gain"? (Philippians 1:21). We can go on
and on in this way, for many of the strongest proofs of the deity of
Christ are found in recognizing that no mere creature could ever say
the words Jesus said, do the things Jesus did, or be described in the
way Jesus is described.

Keeping these two concepts in mind will assist the follower of
Christ in accurately handling the testimony of Scripture to the majesty
of the Lord Jesus.

THOMAS'S CONFESSION

It is one of the most touching scenes in all of Scripture. Its meaning
is clear, unambiguous, and plain. Its translation is not questionable on
any serious grounds. And the only way around it is to engage in the
greatest sorts of mental gymnastics. For the Christian, it is but an echo
of the heart that loves Christ. For the person who denies the truth
about Jesus Christ, it is an insurmountable barrier.

In God's providence, Thomas had been absent the first time the
risen Lord Jesus Christ appeared to His disciples. John records the incident for us:

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with
them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were saying to him,
"We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see in His
hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of
the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe" (John
20:24-25).

The Lord was well aware of the word of His skeptical disciple, even
though He was not physically present at the time. The encounter between the risen Lord and Thomas follows quickly:

After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas
with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in
their midst and said, "Peace be with you." Then He said to
Thomas, "Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and
reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing" (John 20:26-27).

Thomas surely was struck to his heart when the Lord immediately
turned His attention to him and demonstrated that the words he had
spoken were known to the risen Lord. How will Thomas respond? He
has been invited to believe. We are not told if he actually put forth his
hand to dispel his skepticism. All we are told is what he said, and how
the Lord responded:

Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed?
Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed" (John 20:28-
29).

Thomas's answer is simple and clear. It is directed to the Lord Jesus,
not to anyone else, for John says, "he said to Him." The content of his
confession is plain and unambiguous. "My Lord and my God!" Jesus
is Thomas's Lord. Of this there is no question.4 And there is simply no
reason-grammatical, contextual, or otherwise-to deny that in the
very same breath Thomas calls Jesus Christ his "God."'

Jesus' response to Thomas's confession shows not the slightest discomfort at the appellation "God." Jesus says Thomas has shown
faith, for he has "believed." He then pronounces a blessing upon all
who will believe like Thomas without the added element of physical
sight. There is no reproach of Thomas's description of Jesus as his Lord
and God. No created being could ever allow such words to be addressed
to him personally. No angel, no prophet, no sane human being, could
ever allow himself to be addressed as "Lord and God." Yet Jesus not
only accepts the words of Thomas but pronounces the blessing of faith
upon them as well.

What could be clearer? Should not such a passage banish all doubt?
Should we not be able to simply cite this verse and see every person
who denies the deity of Christ repenting of their error in its glaring
light? Of course, such is wishful thinking. Man finds ways around
everything, and the most common means of avoiding the weight of
this passage is to move the conversation back a few verses:

Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, `I
ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God'"
(John 20:17).

Why cite this passage? Because the truth I noted at the beginning of
this chapter really is frequently ignored! The idea is simple: if Jesus can
speak of His "God," then He can't really be God, but must be something less (i.e., a creature) who is called "God" but only in a "sort of"
fashion. Remember the maxim: Difference in function does not indicate
inferiority of nature. Here the Father is described as Jesus' "God." Since
this is so, Jesus must be some inferior being, and therefore, John 20:28
can't mean what it so obviously says.6 Note how one writer has expressed it:

Such a confession, as in the case of Thomas, is qualified not
only by the context (John 20:17), but also by the whole of Scripture. The use of later Chalcedonian christology does not come into
play in verses such as John 20:17, either. Here Jesus, in the same
state Thomas addressed him, says that the Father is his God, again differentiating between the two in terms of theos, as well as acknowledging the Father's superiority over him, as his God.'

And just here we see the circularity of the arguments of those who deny
the deity of Christ: why can't Thomas mean what he said? Because, of
course, the Father is different than the Son. It was the Son who became
Incarnate, and since the Son, as the perfect man, acknowledged the
Father as His God, He, himself, can't be fully deity. The argument assumes that God could not enter into human form. Why? Well, what
would the God-man be like? If one of the divine persons entered into
human flesh, how would such a divine person act? Would He be an
atheist? Would He refuse to acknowledge those divine persons who had
not entered into human existence? Of course not. Yet when we see the
Lord Jesus doing exactly what we would expect the Incarnate Son to
do, we find this being used as an argument against His deity! So those
who put forward such arguments have already made up their minds.
They are not deriving their beliefs from the Scriptures but are forcing
those beliefs onto the Scriptures. Thomas's confession is in perfect harmony with the fact that the Incarnate Son spoke of the Father as His
God. As long as one recognizes that the word "God" can refer to the
Father, to the Son, to the Spirit, or to all three persons at once, the
asserted contradiction is seen to be nothing more than a circular argument designed to avoid having to make the same confession that
Thomas made long ago.

GOD OVER ALL

Romans 9:5 presents us with another reference to the deity of
Christ. However, this passage also carries some challenges along with
it:

... whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

As the translation will be the key, let's look at some other renderings. Some translations directly identify Jesus as God in this passage:

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
(NIV)

... of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the
flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
(NKJV)

Their ancestors were great people of God, and Christ himself
was a Jew as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God,
who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
(NLT)

They are descended from the patriarchs and from their flesh
and blood came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed!
Amen. (JB)

Others leave the issue somewhat undecided:

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh
Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (KJV)

To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to
the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever.
Amen. (NRSV)

And others insert a complete break into the text, leaving no room for
the deity of Christ in the passage:

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them, in natural descent,
sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for
ever! Amen. (NEB)

They are descended from the patriarchs, and Christ, as a
human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all,
be praised forever! Amen. (TEV)

So what do we do with the text? We are able to clearly discern Paul's
intentions here in reference to the deity of Christ. It just takes a little
work and a little background.

We should remember that punctuation did not exist in the most primitive manuscripts of the New Testament. Hence, punctuation is
an interpretational issue. We have to decide where to place periods and
commas on the basis of Paul's style and his statements elsewhere.

The most often repeated argument against viewing this passage as
speaking of the Christ as "God" is that Paul nowhere else refers to the
Lord in that way. But such is a circular argument, for not only can one
refer to Titus 2:13 (see below) where Paul does this very thing, but
would it be a valid argument against Titus 2:13 to likewise say that
Paul doesn't call Jesus "God" elsewhere? Seemingly the person offering
this argument is not so much seeking to interpret the passage as to
substantiate a particular theology.