NoTrinityInBible,

 

            Thanks for your response.  Your statements about your belief were well appreciated.

 

            Let me make sure that I understand your position correctly:  It is your belief that the person and being that is God the Father is the same person and being as the Holy Spirit because God is a Spirit Being.  Jesus Christ is one of God’s creations who is merely a man though “begotten of the Father”.  That is my understanding of what your first paragraph states.  If I have misunderstood, please correct my understanding.

 

            There are several things that I would like to deal with before I move on to Hebrews 1:8-12.  I will try to be as brief as possible, but as thorough as I need to be as well.

            First, the “semi-Modalism” of the Father and the Spirit.   If the Father and the Spirit truly are the same person ( I am not arguing that they are not the same Being), then why does Scripture distinguish between them?  For instance, in Luke 11:13, Jesus says that the “Father” will give “the Holy Spirit” to those who ask Him for it.  Clearly, it would seem to be the case that there is a distinction between the Father and whom the Father is giving, the distinction between gift and giver.  In this case, the person giving the gift and being asked for the gift is not the gift.  If the Father and the Spirit were the same person, why didn’t Jesus say, “Your Father will give Himself to those who ask Him”?  The same is in John 14:16 as I mentioned in my opening paper.  Here, Jesus says He will pray to the Father to send the Spirit and “He” – the Holy Spirit – will dwell in you and will be with you (v17).  Also, in John 14:26, the “Holy Spirit” is one that is “sent by the Father.”  If the Spirit is “sent” by the Father, wouldn’t it be the case that the former is not the latter in terms of their persons?  If they were the same person, then why not say “the Father” will be sent in Christ’s name?  I don’t think the text will allow for any other understanding but that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not the same person!

            Second, concerning the person and nature of Jesus Christ.  That Jesus is merely a man, a creature of God, I find to be hardly acceptable as Christian or Biblical Doctrine.  I agree with you as far as saying that Christ is “Lord over us.”  I would implore you, however, to look into the meaning of the word that is translated “Lord”.  The Greek word is kurios (kurioS ).  The interesting thing about the N.T. word kurios is that when the O.T. was translated from Hebrew into Greek (LXX, Septuagint), the tetragrammaton, YHWH, was translated as kurios.  What this means is that the “Lord” Jesus Christ is identified as YHWH of the Old Testament!  Thus, in N.T. language, to call Jesus Christ “Lord” is to refer to Him as the one true God, the covenant God of Israel.  To Jews, who were familiar with their Hebrew Scriptures and the Septuagint (the most quoted from in the N.T.), they no doubt knew exactly what they were saying when they called Jesus “Lord”.  It was not, to them, simply a title of authority or rulership, but one of Deity! 

            Think of the significance of such an assertion, “Jesus Christ is LORD”.  In Matthew 16, Jesus asked the significant question, “who do you say that I am?”  Now, recall, all the answers before Peter’s are in line, substantially, with your stance on Christ – that he is a created man.  For the prophets of old were also created men.  If Peter was confessing Christ to be a mere man in the words, “thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” what is the substantive difference with that confession and what the other apostles said?  At best, only a functional difference can be pointed out in that Christ was the one who made atonement while the others proclaimed the coming of the atoner.  To confess Christ as “the Son of God” or the “Son of the Living God” is to confess that Christ shares the same nature as His father – Deity.  I believe this to be the true and biblical teaching for if the “sons of Adam” are so because they inherit his nature, then surely Christ is called the “Son of God” because He has the nature of His Father - the one and indivisible God.   

That Christ is God/Lord is essential for salvation as well.  For what does the Scripture say?  “That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).  Notice here the necessity of the confession of Christ as God, as kurios , as YHWH!  The Deity of Christ is essential to true Christian faith!

You mentioned also that we are Christ’s because “he bought us for a price.”  In Acts 20:28, Paul commands the elders of Ephesus to “shepherd the Church of God, which He bought with His own blood.”  Now, according to the Bible, who bled on the Cross?  Obviously, it was Christ.  According to this text, who purchased the Church with His own blood?  The closest noun to the pronouns “He” and “His” is God.  Now, it follows of necessity, that if Christ redeemed the Church with His blood, then Christ is identified as God through this text!  Also, if texts like Isaiah 43:3, 11, 14; 45:15, 21; 54:5; 60:16; Psalm 106:21, which say that YHWH God is our “savior” and “redeemer”, would it not follow, when compared to texts like Rev. 5:9; Luke 2:11; John 4:42; I Tim. 1:10; and Titus 2:13, where Christ is declared to be our “redeemer” and “savior”, that Christ, our “savior” and “redeemer” is God?  Titus 2:13 bears strong witness to this conclusion which explicitly refers to Christ as our “great God and Savior”.  I don’t want to spend too much time here as I with to deal with the Hebrews text.

Before proceeding to Hebrews, I would like to reiterate that I am not arguing for language but for concepts that are in Holy Scripture.  That some of the “language” that I have used comes from early Creeds might possibly be so. I myself have never studied the Creeds but I have read a few selections of some Church Fathers and I would assert to you that their ideas and did not originate with men but are solidly grounded in the exposition and exegesis of Scripture.

One other thing I would like to address is the translation of the Greek and Hebrew.  First, it is true that “elohim” is used to refer to “false gods”.  Elohim is the general noun, or name, for Deity in the O.T.  On a side note, elohim  is also plural.  Second, the way that one distinguishes between God – capital G – and god – false god or one functioning in the place of god – is always CONTEXT!  For instance, because we know form the testimony of other Scriptures, even the whole of Scripture, that there is only one Being that is the true God (Monotheism), we can read Psalm 82:1 which says, “God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods…”  On the basis of the revelation of the one true God, we know that there is only one God who alone is God and reigns supreme.  Thus, the first elohim is translated as “God” and the second elohim is translated as “gods”.  The same Hebrew word is used but CONTEXT is what makes the difference.  So, what is the context of Psalm 82:6?  These who are called “gods” are unrighteous judges of Israel.  They were called “gods” because they were acting/functioning in the place of God dispensing judgments, though unjustly.  The same rule of context applies to 2 Cor. 4:4 and even Exodus 7:1 and other places where false gods, angels and some men are referred to by the Hebrew word elohim.  It should also be noted that the one true god is distinguished by the Tetragrammaton, YHWH.  Thus Scripture refers to the true elohim sometimes as YHWH elohim (LORD God) or “LORD your God”, etc… In light of what was said earlier regarding the Greek translation of YHWH to Kurios, what this says about Christ is significant.  He is nothing less than the covenant God of Israel.

In regards to Hebrews, first things first:  original intent of the author.  The audience/recipients of the letter were Jews who became Christians and were under persecution for their Christian faith.  Under these circumstances, and seeing that their Jewish brethren and friends were not being persecuted or enduring such harsh circumstances, they were actually considering abandoning Christ and their faith and returning to Judaism.  The author’s purpose in writing is to exhort and admonish these brethren to persevere in their Christian faith by offering various arguments on how Christ is better than Judaism.  Thus, begins the book of Hebrews.

 

“GOD, who at various times and in various ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son…”

 

            In the introduction, there is the acknowledgement of the validity of the Jewish religion because God did indeed reveal to the Jews, the ways of God.  But now, in the coming of Christ, God has again spoken and with finality (hence the aorist tense of the verb “to speak”).  The author begins to speak of Christ and the status He has over the prophets of old, and even over all creation.

 

“…whom He [God] has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He [God] made the worlds;  who being the brightness of His [God’s] glory and the express image of His [God’s] person, and upholding all things by the word of His [Christ’s] power, when He [Christ] had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High, having become so much better than angels, as He [Christ] has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (v2-4)

 

From here, the author gives reason why Christ is better,

 

“For to which of the angels did He [God] ever say:

 

‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You?

 

And again,

 

‘I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son’ ” ?

 

But when He [God’s] again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,

 

‘Let all the angels of God worship Him.’

 

            Angels, however, at their very best are ministering spirits for the people of God (v7, 14).  Now we come to verse 8 and the author, again, makes his arguments as to why Christ is better than angels.  We read:

 

But to the Son He [God] says:

‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;

Therefore, God, Your God, has anointed You

With the oil of gladness more than your companions.’

 

And:

 

you, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,

And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

They will perish, but You remain;

And they will all grow old like a garment;

Like a cloak You will fold them up,

And they will be changed.

But You are the same,

And Your years will not fail.’ ”

 

            As pointed out in my initial paper, these passages are from Psalm 45:5-6 and 102:25-27.  Psalm 45:5-6 appears to be a coronation ceremony for the king of Israel, yet foreshadowing the Messianic office of Christ as the son of David, the King of the people of God.  Psalm 102:25-27 is clearly about YHWH, the one true God.  Verse 25 of Psalm 102 speaks clearly of YHWH’s role in Creation.  In no vague terms, God is the Creator, YHWH.  As the Psalmist progresses, He compares the lifespan of the Creator to the existence of the creation, essentially declaring the eternity of the Creator.  Along with the confession of eternity is the confession of the immutability of God.  This is essential to understand because creation, of necessity, changes (“they will grow old” “You will change them” “they will be changed”).  But what sets YHWH apart is that He does not change nor is He changed by creation.

            Now, returning to Hebrews 1, the author explicitly applies what the Psalmist taught about the Messiah and the one true God to Jesus Christ, the Son.  The sure thing that we can conclude the author of Hebrews to be teaching is that Jesus Christ is YHWH God of the Old Testament.  That Jesus Christ is not the Father is also clear from the context because the author has demonstrated how the Father speaks to Jesus Christ, and not the Father’s testimony about Himself.  The syntax will not support that the Father and Christ are the same person here, nor anywhere in the Bible.

            That God is superior over angels goes without saying, and the Hebrew audience would have surely known that.  The author of Hebrews is proving the superiority of Christ over angels and he does this by acknowledging the person of Jesus Christ to be declared by the Father to be the Creator, eternal, and immutable along with Himself.  Hence, the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father.

            AS for your comments about the context of Hebrews 1:8-12, they are true as far as the O.T. quotes were originally given because they pointed to the coming of the Messiah.  But in Hebrews, the Messiah has already come.  As mentioned before, the overall context of the work is to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over Judaism as arguments to convince these Hebrew Christians to persevere in their Christian faith.  Thus, the context of the quote is in the midst of the demonstration of the superiority of Christ, particularly over angels (later arguments include His superiority over Moses, the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood, and the O.T. sacrificial system).  I would like to know your thoughts Hebrews 1:10-12 and how the author uses Psalm 102:25-27 to clearly refer to Christ.

            You asserted; “So thinking that the authority that God has given to the Messiah (prince) makes the Messiah God is like thinking that Pharaoh literally thought Moses was God in Exodus 7:1.  Both would be poor scholarship.”  I totally agree which is why I never asserted that the Messiah was “made” God.  In fact, in the light of Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12, I would assert to you that God was always the Messiah in the second member of the Trinity, the eternal son, Jesus Christ.  God cannot be made.  So if I assert that Christ is God, it would be utterly inconsistent to assert that Christ, the Messiah, was “made God.”  My belief about the Messiah is that it is God in the flesh as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.  On a side note, Exodus 7:1, it seems, is meant to who the function and relationship of Moses to Aaron since Moses does not feel competent enough to speak to Pharaoh.  Let me elaborate.

            Notice in Exodus 6:28-30 that Moses questions God about how he, “being of uncircumcised lips” will be taken to by pharaoh.  The verses that follow are an analogical

Explanation of how Moses will give words to Aaron to speak to Pharaoh in the like manner       that God will speak His word to Moses to give to the people.  The analogy is that as God speaks to Moses, so Moses shall speak to Aaron the Word of God to Pharoah.  Exodus 7:1 in no way is intended to state or declare the ontological nature of Moses as God, or a god.  To support this, God thoroughly declared in Isaiah 40-48 that He alone is God and there is no other (Monotheism).

 

            Finally, I would like to address the charge of “textbook eisegesis” in regards to Col. 1:15-17, particularly verse 16, in which you said Trinitarians try to make the text say “that Jesus Christ created the Heavens and the Earth back in Genesis, when the context is Paul talking about the Resurrection and the New Creation through Jesus Christ…”  My friend, I don’t have to make the text say that for it already does.  Colossians 1:15-17 says,

 

“He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.  For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.  All things were created through Him and for Him.  And He [Christ] is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”

 

            All these pronouns (He, Him) all refer back to “the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood…” found in verses 13 and 14.  If it is “by Him”, that is, through the agency of Christ, that “all things” were made, then does it not follow that Christ’s existence precedes the creation of all things?  If Christ precedes the existence of all things, then isn’t Christ eternal?  And what Paul is saying here consistent with what John said in John 1:1 (see my exegesis in the first letter)?  Verse 17 is so clear:  “And He is before all things.” 

 

            I think I have sufficiently replied to the relevant points in your last response.  If there was something that you think I missed or need to elaborate on more, feel free to ask me to do so.  As far as your “questions” in your first response letter, I will meditate on that some more and search the Scriptures.  What I have offered I believe to is according to sound exegesis at the Scriptural level (i.e. comparing Scripture with Scripture) and even at the grammatical and syntactical levels of the original languages.  These last levels especially, are where true exegesis takes place.  Neglect of these levels is the beginning of eisegesis.

            I hope that you will respond back to these particular passages that I have dealt with and not merely with general statements or refutations about the Trinity.  If you and I both believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God, then it is the word of God that must convince us of our belief and hold our consciences captive.  I look forward to your next response.  Until then…

 

Elect in Christ,

 

Moses

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1