Unsettled Christianity

Alpha and Omega, First and Last

In John’s Apocalypse, we read a much disputed text, but I will still prefer the Byzantine text form and will thus quote it here.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1.8)

It should be noted that the the Alexandrian copy, the Complutensian edition, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions read, ‘the Lord God’ while the Coptic version has only ‘God’. Origen reads, ‘And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty,” while Tertullian, writing against Praxeas, quotes it as this, ‘Meanwhile, let this be my immediate answer to the argument which they adduce from the Revelation of John: “I am the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.’ So, the tradition varies, however, I believe that no matter what, the truth is still the same. It is indeed the Lord who is God who is speaking.

Alpha and Omega is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, ‘aleph and the tau’, which the Jews used to express God as the first and the last. He is from eternity to eternity. Clarke says, ‘With the rabbis מא ועד ת meeleph vead tau, “from aleph to tau,” expressed the whole of a matter, from the beginning to the end. So in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 17, 4: Adam transgressed the whole law from aleph to tau; i.e., from the beginning to the end’.

Further, John hears a voice like a trumpet, saying,

“Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.” And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. – Rev 1:11-18

The phrase ‘I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last ’are left out in the Alexandrian copy, the Complutensian edition, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions; ‘but are very fitly retained, to point out the person that speaks; to express his dignity, deity, and eternity; to excite the attention of John, and to give weight to what he said. (Gill)’ The phrase ‘the first and the last’ is used to describe the God of the Jews in Isaiah 41:4, 44:6, and 48:12 and four times in this book of Christ Himself (Revelation 1:11, 17, 2:8 and 22:13). Richard of St. Victor comments thus: “I am the first and the last; first through creation, last through retribution. First, because before me a God was not formed; last, because after me there shall not be another. First, because all things are from me; last, because all things are to me; from me the beginning, to me the end. First, because I am the cause of origin; last, because I am the judge and the end” (cited by Trench and Vincent).

In Revelation 21:5-7, John writes,

‘And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.’

If we have already established that Christ is the Alpha and Omega, then we know that it is Christ, our Lord and God, who is sitting on the thrown. Throughout John’s book, only one sits on the thrown, and only one is the Alpha and Omega (which is logical and theological). Can one rightly split the speakers of the phrase into distinct person?

Of course, the question is begged: If there is only one First and one Last, One Alpha and one Omega, then how can two (or three if the Spirit is counted) both claim this things?

God, Christ, and the Rock

2 Sam. 22:32, “Who else is God but the LORD; Who else is a Rock but our God?”

1 Sam. 2:2, “There is none Holy as the LORD, for there is none beside Thee, neither is there any Rock like our God.”

The apostle Paul, the well educated former Pharisee, plainly speaks that Christ was that Rock of Israel. In 1^st Corinthians 10:1-4, Paul writes,

“Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the spiritual Drink, for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ”

Further, in the ninth verse, Paul says, “Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents”.

This has to call into question the idea of the preexistent son. Here, Paul used the name of Christ as the name of the Lord, the God of Israel. (This verse as a textual variant, but most scholars except Christ instead of Lord.) How can that be? Remember the prayer in John 17, where Christ reveals that He came to manifest the name of the Father? Paul is not speaking about the Son, but about God.

Greater than I, and praying to the Father

In John 14.28, Christ says, “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”

Most Trinitarians will tell you that the Father and Son are eternally co-equal, yet here, Christ says that the Father is greater than the Son. We also, as previously examined, have verses that say that the Father sent the Son. If equality among the three is existent, then who can one be less than the other or one command another? Robertson, pointing to John 10:30 as he comments on the verse and not the Greek itself, says, ‘Not a distinction in nature or essence, but in rank in the Trinity.’ Gill goes on at great length to come to an acceptable idea that Christ could not possibly mean rank, but condition. The editors of the Life Application Study Bible places this thought in the footnotes of this verse, ‘As God the Son, Jesus willingly submits to God the Father.’ This statement is easily made correct and true if you replace the unbiblical language (God the Son) with biblical language (Son of God).

Previously, Christ told His disciples, ‘I tell you the solemn truth, the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him, (John 13.16)’ again implying that an inequality with the Heavenly existed. If the Logos of God was sent, it had to have a sender. When the word went out, it had did not have its own power or will, but was under the will of God. If it had been a separate entity in the Deity, then the Logos would have had its own power and will and message (John 14.24).

In Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, we read an ancient hymn,

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross!

According to Vincent,

‘ἁρπαγμὸν mean a highly prized possession, (so) we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man.’

The Greek term μορφή indicates a correspondence with reality, thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God. So, we have Christ, who is truly God, thought not of His Deity as something to be held so tightly too, that he made himself nothing, taking on the nature of sinful man, humbling himself to do something that was needed to save humanity. We have a supreme picture of love here, and a deep theological statement (not only of the oneness of God, but of the cross as well).

Here, we can began to understand that in humbleness of Christ, in that while in the flesh the Father was Greater than He, so rightly, when praying, He would pray to the Father.

In the 17th chapter of John’s Gospel, we have an excellent example of what a prayer is about. We have the address to the Father, requests not temporal but eternal, and compassion for those around the speaker. Here also is a great theological question. If Christ is the Father, then is Jesus praying to Himself? Modalism was falsely labeled our doctrine as Patripassianism by their opponents, in an erroneous attempt to have us say that the Father died. This is not so. The emanation (ἀπαύγασμα) of the Father, which is the Son, temporarily separated from the Father died, although it is rightly said that the Father suffered with the Son.

The reason for the prayers from the Son becomes clear when we understand that the Incarnation is not a mere indwelling of God in a human shell, but God coming to be a genuine man. The Incarnation does not imply a transmutation of God into a man, but allows that God remained who He was both in and after the manifestation. If God had changed into a man He would cease being God, or at least cease being the same God He was prior to the Incarnation. As God came to exist in flesh, complete the limitations of humanity, Christ had the capacity for and the need for relationships. Because of the reality His humanity He even had need of a relationship with God. As man (servant) Christ experienced the same limitations all humans experience along with a dependence upon God. These prayers are not an example as some Modalists try to say as a cover, but a real act; real, because Christ, as a man, needed to pray because of his dependence on God. His prayers are rooted in His humanity, not in His divinity.

A question begged of the Trinitarians concerns the supposed co-equality in the Godhead. If the Father and Son are equal, then where is the necessity for the Son to ask the Father for anything? Would it not be hypocritical for the Trinitarians to attack Modalists as seeing God praying to Himself while their own theology has an eternally subordinated Son in a co-equal Godhead?

Many times, this prayer is taken as a whole and used against Modalists in one fashion or another, but let us take a few phrases and examine them. The first one is found in verse 3, translated as, ‘that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’

Here is Christ speaking in the third person, something that Trinitarians accused Modalism of understanding God as doing in John 1.1. In comparing 17.3 to 1st John 5.20, we come across not a striking similarity.

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (KJV)

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν· καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. (NA 26/27)

First, then, is the Incarnated Emanation on Earth calling the Father the True God. Second, the very same Apostle that recorded the words of the Lord in His prayer, wrote that Jesus Christ is the True God[1].

The second phrase that bears examining is ‘with the glory which I had with you before the world was.’ God told Israel by Isaiah (42.8) that He would not give His glory to another. The glory of God is God’s alone. Again, we turn to Hebrews 1.3 whose author calls Christ the emanation of His glory. We should rightly understand that if a distinction in God existed, then glory would have to be shared and given to another; yet, if the Son is understood as an emanation, then it is easy to see that the Son emanated from the Father’s glory, without distinction, and only in the flesh does the Son existed without the Glory of God.

Our third phrase is ‘I have manifested Your name’. In reference to Zechariah 14.9, which reads (I have included several different translations):

And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one. – NETS

καὶ ἔσται κύριος εἰς βασιλέα ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν· ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἔσται κύριος εἷς καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἕν. – LXX

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one – KJV

The Lord will then be king over all the earth. In that day the Lord will be seen as one with a single name. – NET

In the Hebrew LORD is (יהוה) while the Greek is κύριος. In Acts 10:36, we learn that Christ is Lord of all. The baby born in Bethlehem was born Christ and named Jesus. Throughout the New Testament, the name of Christ is used for baptism, healing, prayer, and worshipped. The Son did manifest the name of the Father, that of Christ. If the name of God is one, then how can we have three distinct personal names, such as the Father, Son, and Spirit?

Monogenes

Monogenes, when applied to the Incarnation, can only be found in John (John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, 1John 4:9). It is an important theological word, so let us examine what ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς (TR) or μονογενὴς θεὸς (NA-26) actually means.

Let us first examine monogenes in the LXX (Old Greek/Septuagint).

Kittel (TDNT) suggests that in some usages of the word, the thought ‘incomparable’ is present. We know that the word is an adjective, but the use of this word is what is important. Does it mean something more than we are giving it? My position is that John uses it to describe the inseparable and indistinguishable relationship between the Logos and the Father. In Judges 11:34, it is used to describe the daughter of Jephthae as his only child. In Psalms 21:21(22:20 – Eng), where it is used in the sense of ‘incomparable’, reads ῥῦσαι ἀπὸ ῥομφαίας τὴν ψυχήν μου καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς κυνὸς τὴν μονογενῆ μου· which the NETS translates as: Rescue my soul from the sword, and from a dog’s claw my only life! The KJV reads ‘my darling’ from the Hebrew יחיד (yâchîyd) meaning:

(From Strong’s) properly united, that is, sole; by implication beloved; also lonely; (feminine) the life (as not to be replace): – darling, desolate, only (child, son), solitary.

Palms 34:17 (35:17 – Eng) has the same understanding. In Tobit 3:15 (From the Deuterocanonicals), the word is used to describe the only child, but in 6:11 it is used as ‘beautiful’. In Wisdom (again, where I think John draws his Logos from) 7:22, when the author is describing Wisdom, he uses monogenes:

For there is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, of many parts… NETS

The TDNT says this about monogenes outside the NT:

In compounds with genḗs, adverbs describe the nature rather than the source of derivation. Hence monogenḗs is used for the only child. More generally it means “unique” or “incomparable.” The LXX has the first sense in Judg. 11:34 and the second in Ps. 22:20. agapētós occurs in Gen. 22:2, 12 where monogenḗs might have been used (cf. Mark 1:11), but while the only child may be “beloved,” the terms are not synonymous. Philo refers to the lógos as prōtógonos rather than monogenḗs. Ps. Sol. 18:4 refers to God’s chastisement coming on Israel as his firstborn and only-begotten son.

One of the issues is with the addition of the English word ‘begotten’ which is not in the Greek and has a connotation that the ‘Only’ was created. This comes from the latter half of the compound word. γίνομαι means to cause to be, to bring forth, so that the entire word could mean the ‘only one brought forth’. Something that strikes me is that children are naturally begotten, so the need to continuously say ‘only begotten’ is a bit redundant and does not do justice to the word and thought behind it. When you take the word for itself, as the sum of its parts, the word means ‘only.

We can look at it abstractly and see that creating/begetting/giving birth to the Logos did happen, because as we discussed in the last post, the Logos was sent forth from God in heaven to accomplish the will of the Father. Abstract thoughts, however, are not in the bible. Theology must be concrete, so although some might seek to retain the thought ‘begotten’, it is not called for.

In Psalms 2:7 (LXX), we read:

διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου Κύριος εἶπεν πρός με Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε·

Which I translate as: You are My Son, this day I have brought you forth. And if I was creating a study bible, I would add a note that looks like this:

brought forth – caused to be from God’s own essence.

Here, the LXX translator used γεννάω to describe the act of God bringing His Anointed into existence. No monogenes here. We have to make the distinction between γεννάω and μονογενὴς. Gennao is speaking about the actual creation on an object whereas monogenes is speaking about the incomparability and uniqueness about the object. In 1st Peter 1:3, the word ἀναγεννάω (which is found only in 1Peter) is used to describe the new birth of the Saint.

In the Johannine Corpus, monogenes is used only in describing the Son of God. John freely uses gennao to describe the new birth of the Saint when he is born of God; therefore necessity dictates that we rule out the concept of ‘birth’ behind monogenes when it is used by John.

Logos

Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most scholars held that the Gospel of John reflected a non-Palestinian religious-historical background[1]; however, since the discovery it has been accepted by many that the Jews responsible for the composition of the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar conceptually to the John’s Gospel. It should be noted that scraps of the Septuagint had been found among the Hebrew and Aramaic Scrolls. Within a few years of the publication of the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls, several scholars were quickly noticed the religious-historical connectivity shared by John and the scrolls[2]. (Some went so far as to claim direct dependence of John on one or more of the Dead Sea Scrolls.) To interpret John against a religious-historical background other than Palestinian Judaism usually distorts the meaning of a text, since alien meanings are given to key religious terms.

Logos, according to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, has been used throughout the history of Greek philosophy, but then again, since the New Testament was written in Greek, it will not be uncommon to find shared terms.

Allow me to state here that during 2nd Temple Judaism Logos was used in different contexts, and since John didn’t write in a vacuum for only himself, it is proper to explore which Logos concept he used. Philo or another? This is the point of using the Septuagint research in New Testament Studies. Paul and the other writers, writing in Greek, used the religion and theology of the words handed to them. Where did they get those words? They transferred them from the Old Greek (Testament) into the Greek New Testament.

I believe that the closest conceptual parallels to John’s use of Logos can be found in the wisdom literature of the Jews. (Including Sirach and the Book of Wisdom – especially the Book of Wisdom) In these books we see Wisdom personified. We see this reflected in Paul’s writings when he calls Christ the Wisdom and power of God. What should be noticed is that John’s prologue is centered on the action of the Logos, not the being of the Logos. John assumes that his audience rightly understands the theology of the Logos and thus spends very little time exploring it. Can we rightly place so much theology on John’s use of Logos when John didn’t? As a matter of fact, this prologue is one of the very few instances in the New Testament were Logos has any theological implications. It is used nearly 330 times in the Greek NT, but only in Johannine Literature (his Gospel, 1st John, and the Apocalypse) does it carry, or seem to carry, deep theological or at least metaphysical implications.

No where in the Johannine Literature will you ever find that the Logos is subordinate to God. I would venture to say, that John only uses Logos as he does in the Prologue, only twice, and that in 1st John 1:1 (Word of Life) and Revelation 19:3 (Word of God).

How can God’s wisdom, Logos, plan, message, reason, etc… be separated from Him? When God issues the Word in creation, did that Word separate from God and co-exist with him? I think not. Logos is God’s way of disclosure. The Logos is God in revelation. It is right to say, as Thomas did (and remember this too is found in John’s Gospel), that the Logos is God. If we allow philosophy to play a part in our theology, then we err quickly.

God the Father

Our understanding of God as our Father is revealed to us in the New Testament as a result of the incarnation. Before the birth of Christ, the people of Israel did not understand God as their father except in the sense that He created all things. During the time of Christ, Israel still did not call God ‘Father’ (John 8.39), but because of our adoption God is our father. We call Him “Abba, Father” because Jesus Christ has reconciled us to the Father (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6).

The question is asked, if God is eternally Father then why is He never called “God the Father” until the NT? It seems strange that we never read of Father and Son until the NT when God actually fathered a son. While “Father” appears approximately a dozen times in the OT it is used in quite a different sense than it is in the NT. Father and Son are relational terms used in the context of begetting a child. Did not God beget a child? Yes, only at the time of the incarnation. (The very notion of God bringing forth a Child dismisses the idea of eternal preexistence)

In Rev 21:7, Christ (post-incarnation) calls Himself both the Father and God.

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (KJV)

Below is a partial list of verses showing the oneness of the Father and Christ. What must be noted is that like the verse in Revelation, Christ is speaking in terms of post-incarnation, preventing the idea of Patripassianism, however, acknowledging the fact that Christ is the Father.

• Jesus said that He would send the comforter to us (John 16:7), but He also said the Father would send the comforter (John 14:26).
• The Father alone can draw men to God (John 6:44), yet Jesus said He would draw all men (John 12:32).
• Jesus will raise up all believers in the last day (John 6:40), yet God the Father quickens (gives life to) the dead and will raise us up (Romans 4:17; I Corinthians 6:14).
• Christ is our sanctifier (Ephesians 5:26), yet the Father sanctifies us (Jude 1).

God the Son or the Son of God?

Over 40 times in the New Testament we read about the “Son of God”, never once do we read about “God the Son”. Along with the word “trinity”, both are man-made terms coined by Trinitarians to define their particular theological viewpoint. “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature, but never to deity alone. The Bible never speaks of “God the Son,” as if Sonship were eternally inherent in the Deity, but only of “the Son of God.” The Bible describes the Son in terms that could only relate to humanity, not deity existing alone. For example, the Son of God was crucified and the Son died (Romans 5:10; Hebrews 6:6). Therefore, the Son of God is not a distinct person in the Godhead but the physical expression of the one God. (See emanation above)

What about the Son of God in the Old Testament? Can we find an eternal Son there? The only mention of the Incarnation in the OT is from a prophetical standpoint. By this I mean that all the reference to Him in the OT are concerning His future arrival as a baby born in Bethlehem, the suffering servant, the conquering king and many other messianic fulfillments of prophecy. We never read about a pre-existing Son of God in the pages of the Old Covenant.

It may not be exclusive proof that since the Son only appears in Scripture after the incarnation that it means the Son is bound up in the incarnation, but the lack of the Son anywhere else prior to the incarnation argues strongly against the position of an eternal Son. This argument, however, is bolstered by the fact that God is never called “God the Father” or “Father” (in the NT sense at least) until after the incarnation, apparently because He was not a father in the NT sense of the word until the incarnation (Heb 1:5).

In the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr wrote,

“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed[1]“.

What does the Bible say about the origin of the Son of God? While the deity in Christ is eternal in that God was in Christ or as Jesus said, “the Father is in me” (John 14:11), the Son of God, which refers to His humanity or the deity made flesh, was begotten in time when He was born of the Virgin Mary. What must be noted is that it is God who calls the Incarnated One the ‘Son of God’, whereas it was a long development by which man then labeled Christ ‘God the Son’.

• When God sent Gabriel to the young Mary, he said to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest.” And he also said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:28-35).
• When Christ was baptized by John the Baptist, the heavens were opened and a voice came from heaven saying, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22; Mark 1:11; Matthew 3:17).
• About the above incident, John the Baptist said, “I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:34).
• When Christ took three of His disciples to a high mountain, two prophets, Moses and Elijah, appeared to them: “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!’ And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid. But Jesus came and touched them and said, ‘Arise and do not be afraid’” (Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35).

Paul tells us in Galatians,

“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Galatians 4:4).

Because not many would argue the ‘fullness of time’ is the moment when the prophecies aligned, I want to tackle the second and third clause of the verse:

God sent forth his son

Vincent, in his fact (verses opinion) states that the Greek here means that God sent forth from Himself the Son.

made of a woman

Thayer remarks in his definition that γίνομαι means: to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage. When the appointed time came, when the Logos was to be fulfilled, God sent away from Himself the Logos, to be born of a woman, born under the law… This verse does not lend itself to a preexistent son. The only thing preexistent is the Logos, because the Logos is inseparable from God.

The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35)

Notice that Luke says “and for that reason” the child “shall be” called the Son of God. The divine Spirit who dwelt within Him was eternal and yet the Son of God was literally born in time in Bethlehem’s manger.

The Logos/Son is God’s vessel, as we read in Hebrews,

(I)n these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. – NET

In Genesis we read that God created the world, or all of created reality, and He did this by speaking His Logos. I contend that if you have a proper understanding of who the Son is (that he is the very Word of God – that is, God in action) then these things begin to line up appropriately. The Logos is the channel that brought the worlds into existence, still yet is no separation. We know from the Torah and the prophets, from the Gospel of Mark and from Paul, that God created all of creation, but He did it by His Word.

Let me draw your attention also between διά and ἐν. The difference is striking and worth noting. God spoke to us in a son, through whom God created the worlds. The Son here is not given free agency, but is made the agent of revelation (speaking) and of creation. We know from that the word is inseparable from the Speaker, or else Christ would have been a prophet (which is something that the author of Hebrews goes on to correct), or just a vessel of operation.

We have to notice that the Greek here (ἐν υἱῷ) is absent of any title, implying not the title, but the class. In verse one, it is the prophets that spoke for God and now, under the new covenant, God speaks through a son, speaks by himself.

We know from John 16:15 that all things of the Father’s are the Sons. Here the writer is confirming that, and how can that be? How can all power in heaven and earth be given to the Son and the Son be the inheritor of all things (especially since the process of inheriting something, usually implies that the owner has passed), unless they are the same being, and inseparable and indistinguishable? Christ is the final revelation of God to man and thus the inheritor of all things.

Continuing,

• The New Testament distinctions between the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ are a result of the incarnation that occurred in Time and not from an eternal separation of persons or plurality in the Godhead.

First, what is the ‘Godhead’? The Greek is θειότης (theiotes) can be found in Romans 1.20 whereas θεότης (theotes)is found in Colossians 2.9. Trench comments on the use of theiotes in Romans, saying,

“St. Paul is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may everywhere trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these aids: He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in His Son; but only His divine attributes, His majesty and glory . . . it is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and personal word, just because he would affirm that men may know God’s power and majesty, His divine power from His works; but would not imply that they may know Himself from these, or anything short of the revelation of His eternal Word.”

Vincent says,

“Godhead expresses deity (theotēs). Theiotēs is godhood, not godhead. It signifies the sum-total of the divine attributes.”

For Colossians 2.9, Kenneth Wuest wrote,

“The compound verb was used of the permanent residents of a town as compared with the transient community. The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action. The translation reads: ‘Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily fashion.’”

To be sure, let us include Acts 17.29 in our discussion here. Here, in the KJV, ‘godhead’ is used for the Greek θεῖος. Robertson says, ‘Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect discourse. To theion is strictly “the divine” nature like theiotēs (Romans 1:20) rather than like theotēs (Colossians 2:9). Paul may have used to theion here to get back behind all their notions of various gods to the real nature of God. The Athenians may even have used the term themselves. After homoios (like) the associative instrumental case is used as with chrusōi, argurōi, lithōi.’ Paul is not talking of a collective, or unified deity, but the divine or deity that they are seeking to know.

So, let’s read ourselves of the non-biblical word of Godhead, and instead say divinity in Romans and Godhood in Colossians.

We know when comparing John 6:38 to Isaiah 55:11, we see this:

For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John)

and

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah – KJV)

So shall my word be, whatever goes out from my mouth; it shall not return until whatever I have willed is fulfilled, and I will prosper your ways and my commandments. (NETS)

Let’s examine Hebrews 1:3 and compare that with Wisdom 7:25-26

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews)

ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου δι εαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος των αμαρτιων ημων εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις

and

For she is the breath of the power of God, and a emanation from the pure glory of the Almighty: therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light and a spotless mirror of the activity of God, and the image of his goodness. (Wisdom – NETS)

ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστιν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀπόρροια τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος δόξης εἰλικρινής· διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲν μεμιαμμένον εἰς αὐτὴν παρεμπίπτει. ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀιδίου καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ

Essentially, the Logos/Son is an emanation from God, flowing from Him. ἀπαύγασμα (apaugasma) is given several different meanings by Thayer: Reflected brightness, effulgence, or out-raying. There is debate among commentators whether the term apaugasma should be translated as “reflection” or “radiance” considered as an object. The former has a passive meaning, while the latter has an active meaning, implying that the son is active in his radiance from “the glory.” The author is using the metaphor of a reflection and its source to depict the relationship between the son and God. The son is the emanation from God.

Wuest says, “The word apaugasma is not preceded by the definite article, which fact makes the term highly descriptive of character or nature, [1] ” while the Expositor’s note reads, ‘”In the Arian controversy (Ed note: Arius taught that the Son was a created being, inferior to God the father in nature and dignity though the first and noblest of all created beings) this designation of the Son was appealed to as proving that He is eternally generated and exists not by an act of the Father’s will but essentially… As the sun cannot exist or a lamp burn without radiating light, so God is essentially Father and Son.[2]”

The author of Hebrews uses other parallel phrases to describe Wisdom (parallel phrases and thoughts to Wisdom can be found throughout the New Testament) as both coming from God and being what God is without being God (thus preventing Patripassianism): “For she is a breath of the power of God, a pure emanation from the glory of the Almighty…..an apaugasma of the eternal light and the unspotted mirror of the work of God and the image of his goodness.” The two phrases before “an apaugasma of the everlasting light” are emanationist. The two phrases following “an apaugasma of the eternal light,” however, have a passive meaning: “the spotless mirror of the working of God and the image of his goodness.” Thus, it is not clear how the author intends that the phrase “an apaugasma of the everlasting light” be understood, as active as radiance or passive as reflection. The assigned meaning is somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of the author. The author of Wisdom is personifying wisdom as an attribute of God, and not speaking about Wisdom as an entity distinct or separate from God so too for the author of Hebrews. The image is of a man is not a separate person, nor the breath, the thought, or the action.

It must be noted that in the entire Greek bible, (Old, Deuterocanon, and New) apaugasma only appears twice and both times, it speaks about an attribute emanating from God. It is much more likely that the authors of Wisdom and Hebrews understood the emanation and the emanated in much the same way, than it is to say that this very important word had two distinct meanings, although used in the same context, for two different authors.

The word in Isaiah emanates from God and carries His will, but not as distinct or separate. In John and Hebrews, we see that the Logos/son is the emanation from God, but yet, not distinct, which is why the Logos/son is sent from God, and is God without being the God (so that God did not die on the cross). God sent the Logos/son to be the sacrifice, but the emanation from God was still God. When the Word finished God’s will, it returned to Him, not distinct, not separate.

The emanation ‘doctrine’ prevents the idea of eternal coexistence or preexistence. In Psalms 2:7 (LXX), we read:

διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου Κύριος εἶπεν πρός με Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε·

Which I translate as:

You are My Son, this day I have brought you forth.

And if I was creating a study bible, I would add a note that looks like this:

brought forth – caused to be from God’s own essence.

Psalms 2.7 points to a time in history that the Son of God was brought forth unto the stage of history. To say otherwise is to declare that from the beginning of eternity, God knew that He would create humanity and that humanity would fall into sin and that He would need to create a body for a sacrifice.

In opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Modalism holds to a numerical oneness view of God. It views the Trinitarian concept of God, that of God eternally existing as three distinctive (separate) persons, as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one.

In I Timothy 3:16, Paul tells us that there is a great mystery concerning the revelation of God. Trinitarians would tell us that the doctrine of the Trinity is a profound mystery that is beyond our comprehension, which is something that Rome holds to very securely. In some seminaries, when the Trinity is taught, it is reminded that local congregations have a difficult time receiving the Trinity, so it is best to avoid the doctrine in discussion.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not the Bible tells us that the nature of the Godhead is so mysterious that we cannot grasp it in this lifetime, but only in eternity. If this is so, then we should expect to find scriptural support for this theory, but the exact opposite is true. John, when he is caught up to heaven had this to say, “Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne.” Would not the Apostle, who wrote the finest statements on the reality of the Incarnation, be surprised to find only One on the throne if he had indeed seen and written about a separation existing in the Godhead.

The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that God has revealed His existence to all of humanity and that we are accountable to Him for this knowledge. In others words, ‘only a fool says in his heart that there is no God. ‘

Romans 1.20 -

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. – NKJV

If the existence of God is clearly revealed to us, as Romans 1:20 indicates, and further, if the fact that Christ is the fullness of Godhood, then what is this profound mystery that Trinitarians use as a catch-all in defending their incomprehensible plurality of persons concept? What was the Apostle Paul referring to when his spoke of this great mystery? God has revealed that He exists; Christ is revealed as God Himself, fully.

The Byzantine Textual Tradition reads as follows:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

In addition to this text, Paul closes the book of Romans by telling us that us God has indeed revealed the mystery and it is no longer a secret. In fact it has been made known to all the nations.

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)

Further, Paul tells Titus,

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”

Peter addresses his second epistle ‘to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’, to which Robertson comments,

“Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). So the one article (tou) with theou and sōtēros requires precisely as with tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2Peter 1:11 as in 2Pe. 2:20; 2Pe. 3:2, 2Pe. 3:18. So in 1Pe. 1:3 we have ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Titus 2:13. The use of theos by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in John 1:1 disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in Titus 2:13 disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John 20:28) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Mat. 16:16).”