a critique of buzzard's doctrine of the trinity

7/23/2019 A Critique of Buzzard's Doctrine of the Trinity

1/31

A Critique of "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound,"by AnthonyBuzzard and Charles Hunting

To get this book review in PDF format send me your e!mail"

For years # have heard $riti$s make the $laim that the term %trinity% does not a&&ear in the 'ewTestament and that the $on$e&t of the trinity was la$king in the &rimitive $hur$h" This was anob(e$tion # fa$ed some )* years ago as a new believer one # have been $onsistently asked about overthe $ourse of my time as a university &astor but only now after all these years have # taken the timeto e+amine the issue $arefully" # must thank ,r" Buzzard for &roviding the im&etus to s&end what hasbe$ome a fair amount of time on this &ro(e$t" #t has not been a waste of my time and # ho&e readingthis review will not be $onsidered a waste of time"

Throughout his book ,r" Buzzard makes some good observations but he a&&roa$hes ea$h bibli$alte+t straining for ways to use it to su&&ort his &osition" This straining qui$kly be$omes a&&arent" ,y&lan is take ea$h $ha&ter one at a time and address his various arguments one at a time"

Chapter OneThe God of the Jes

Although # have numerous s&e$ifi$ &oints of disagreement with Buzzard # basi$ally agree with thethesis of this $ha&ter ! the -ews strongly held to a monotheisti$ faith" This se&arated them from allother $ultures" ./in$e writing this &a&er # have be$ome aware of and read 0arry Hurtado1s work onthis very to&i$ Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity23erdmans )4456" 7ou $anfind this listing on Amazon"8

Chapter ToJesus and the God of the Jes

Again # have no fundamental disagreement with Buzzard here" -esus was a first $entury -ew s&eakingto monotheisti$ -ews" Buzzard by ne$essity takes a strong 3bioniti$ 2an em&hasis on the humanity ofChrist6 &osition ! -esus is only a man anointed to be ,essiah and not 2as the Coun$il of Chal$edonaffirms6 two $oe+istent natures" Although # mostly agree that -esus was a man while he walked the

earth # $annot a&&ly 9T monotheism to the 'T ! # will e+&lain this &oint a bit later"

Again and again in this $ha&ter Buzzard rhetori$ally asks %:hy would -esus $onsistently s&eak inmonotheisti$ terms if he knew himself to be $oequal with ;od


2/31

9n &age ? Buzzard uses another ana$hronisti$ argument %,oses would have been sho$ked to learnthat the &ro&het"""&ree+isted as ;od"% This argument is quite sim&listi$" #ndeed ,oses would havebeen utterly sho$ked to know that ,essiah would be born of a virgin and be himself raised from thedead The entire se$tion beginning on &age ? %9ld Testament 3+&e$tations about the ,essiah% isbased on a faulty &remise yet one that $ontinually a&&ears in Buzzard1s &resentation= that the &eo&lein the 9T $orre$tly understood the &romised ,essiah and that the a&ostles $orre$tly understood it as

well" This is an overly o&timisti$ view an argument whi$h # will address more fully later"

Buzzard $onsistently falls ba$k to the Hebrew 9T for ba$kground and his histori$alliterary $riti$alobservations" Parsing the Hebrew te+t is not ty&i$ally hel&ful when attem&ting to dis$ern literarymeaning in 'T writings" Though -esus s&oke Aramai$ and a$$ording to the gos&els $ould read theHebrew 9T ,ark and 0uke write in ;reek and used the 0EE in their 9T $itations" ,atthew and -ohnmay have been familiar with the Hebrew te+t but their $itations referen$e the 0EE as well" The &ointis all of Buzzard1s dis$ussion of 9TAdonaiandAdonihave little merit e+$e&t to give histori$alba$kground to the first $entury -ewish understanding of the Hebrew 9T" The only e+$e&tion would be

to the referen$e of Psalms4= where Buzzard &la$es his fo$us" Though his analysis of this te+ta&&ears sound it $ontinues to give unmerited em&hasis on the Hebrew 9T understanding ofdistin$tions with referen$e to ;od not relevant to 'T dis$ussion" uite sim&ly if the 'T writersunderstood this distin$tion betweenAdonaiandAdoni they would have been more $areful with theirusage of %0ord"% They would have given some e+&lanation yet this never ha&&ens" .Hurtado should

also be $onsulted on this &oint" As will be seen below he gives $onvin$ing arguments for an o&ennessin first $entury -ewish monotheism for a %binitarian% worshi& of kurios-esus with 7H:H"8

His $omments on Paul1s sim&le $reedal formula in 1 CorG is an interesting e+am&le of how Buzzarddeals with te+tual $riti$ism" He first states that Paul has the Hebrew Bible in his mind 2we $an onlyassume he thinks Paul has Psalm4 in view sin$e this is Buzzard1s favorite 9T te+t6 %Paul $arefullydistinguishes""" between the 1one ;od the Father1 and the 1one 0ord -esus Christ1"% 7et he fails toinform the reader of two very $riti$al &oints=" Paul never $ites Psalm4 in any of his writings making it diffi$ult to ever assume that he has thiste+t in mind or is being guided by it@ and)" Paul uses the same $onstru$tion in this te+t to des$ribe ;od and Christ %but to us ;od is one theFather from whom all things .$ome8 and in whom we .are8 and one 0ord -esus Christ through whomall things .$ome8 and in whom we .are8"%.The ;reek $onstru$tion of this te+t is given in the PDF versionof this review"8

/o when Buzzard says that Paul %$arefully% distinguishes between the two # &artially agree" Paul has$arefully used the same wording for both whi$h indi$ates that ;od the Father and 0ord -esus Christare seen and related to us identi$ally" #n the ne+t $ha&ter Buzzard states %the 'ew Testamenta&&lies the word ;od ! in its ;reek form ho theos! to ;od the Father alone some 5*4 times" Thewords ho theos2i"e" the one ;od6 used absolutely are nowhere with $ertainly a&&lied to -esus"% &"G>

Here in 1 CorG in this $arefully $rafted $reed Paul does not use the arti$le howith ;od thusa$$ording to Buzzard1s stri$tly enfor$ed ;reek grammar Paul is saying %a ;od"% Perha&s Paul isa$tually referring here to the ;reek understanding of the demiurge ;od the evil %god% that $reatedthe world" 9f $ourse not but this is how we $ould use Buzzard1s stri$t grammati$al logi$ tomisre&resent the te+t" Buzzard tells the reader only what will agree with his already &resu&&osedthesis and ignores all other eviden$e"

Hurtado deals e+tensively with the early usage of kuriosin his $om&rehensive work and gives a gooda$$ount of how Paul uses %0ord% as a designation for -esus to $learly identify him with 7H:H in the

9ld Testament 2see &ages 4G!G where he s&e$ifi$ally deals with 1 CorG= and the Philippians)te+t mentioned below6" Hurtado reminds us that in the 0EE 7H:H is translated kurios#n this astonishingly bold asso$iation of -esus with ;od Paul ada&ts wording from the traditional-ewish $onfession of ;od1s uniqueness known as the /hema from Deuteronomy =? %Hear 9 #srael=The 0ord our ;od is one 0ord% 2Kyrios heis estin.0EE8 translating Heb" 7ahweh 1e$had6" Hurtado&"?


3/31

Finally in this $ha&ter Buzzard $ites Bart 3hrman as a s$holar who %re$ords e+tensive eviden$e ofdeliberate alteration of the 'ew Testament manus$ri&ts"""by whi$h -esus is $alled ;od instead ofChrist"% 2&"*>6 3hrman a well known 'T s$holar at I'C and author of Lost Christianities: The Battlesfor !ripture and the "aiths #e $ever Kne% has the same tenden$y to $ite only the eviden$e thatagrees with him" # have not read the volume $ited by Buzzard but # have read 3hrman1s %0ostChristianities% hailed by the liberals of our day as revealing and honest s$holarshi& yet re&lete withe+am&les of $leverly stated half truths" 3hrman rarely says anything # $an $om&letely disagree with

but he $onsistently ignores $ontrary data $ommonly known among early $hur$h historians" #t shouldbe noted that after making this bold $laim for 3hrman1s work of %e+tensive eviden$e% the onlye+am&le Buzzard $ites from 3hrman is a referen$e to a Persian harmony of the ;os&els" /urelyBuzzard $ould have found more e+am&les or a better one from 3hrman1s %e+tensive% eviden$e" :ellmaybe not"

Chapter ThreeDid Jesus' !olloers Thin #e as God$

The only item # want to $omment on in this $ha&ter is Buzzard1s analysis of the Thomas $onfession inJohn)4"

As mentioned in the dis$ussion in the &revious se$tion it rarely works when a &erson builds a theologyor do$trine on a &arti$ular linguisti$ thread" The reason for this is that no writer or body of literature is

44J $onsistent if the $or&us is of any signifi$ant size" 9n$e a &osition is established based mainly ona linguisti$ &hrase any deviant te+t must be e+&lained" Buzzard1s e+&lanation of the Thomas$onfession strains $redulity" Thomas realized that after his resurre$tion -esus was to be %;od% for theComing Age" 2&"GK6 This makes even less sense when you take into a$$ount the fa$t that -ohn usesthe arti$le howhen Thomas $onfesses %,y 0ord and my ;od% 2ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou6"

#nteresting that the gos&el writers re$ording the history some 54!4 years later fail to $learly refle$tthis knowledge that -esus was only to be the %;od% of the $oming age" Throughout this $ha&terBuzzard sar$asti$ally asks why the a&ostles did not o&enly s&eak of the divinity of -esus if it had beenso" :ould this not also a&&ly to this realization of -esus being the %;od% of the Coming Age< ,u$h ofhis rationale is based on the assum&tion that the 0ord wants us to know and understand ! that thegos&el writers tell us e+a$tly what we need to know" 7et only -ohn gives us this glim&se of theim&ortant role and title 2&odof the $oming age6 of the resurre$ted Christ and he gives this message ina most en$ry&ted fashion" This is an absurd argument"

Chapter !our%aul and the Trinity

Buzzard o&ens this $ha&ter stating the obvious= that /aul was a monotheisti$ first $entury -ew" Thenhe states that /aul1s o&&osition to the early Christians was due to his re(e$tion of the ,essiani$ $laimof -esus and the threat to the established religion of #srael"

Buzzard again e+egetes 1 CorG= but really adds nothing new to his argument" For the most &art hisargument is based on rhetori$= Paul was a monotheist and why if he had be$ome a Trinitarian doeshe not e+&lain this $hange" 'oti$e in this $reed that Paul does not say %there is only one ;odAdonaiand -esus the ,essiah who isAdoni"% Buzzard used this rubri$ as his foundation for the 9Tunderstanding and wants the reader to believe that this was the guiding &rin$i&le for the gos&elwriters" :hile # have serious doubts that most of the 'T writers knew the Hebrew te+t Paul $ertainly

did yet he makes no overt effort to guard the sa$red 'ame of 7H:H" #f Paul is so guided by hisHebrew understanding why does he only use ;reek terms to designate theos' kuriosand !hristos< Heuses Hebrew terms at other times 2as do other 'T writers6 but nowhere does he make the kind of

referen$e to the sa$red name" Buzzard fails again to address the internal $onstru$tion of this $reed inwhi$h Paul uses identi$al &hrases to des$ribe the believer1s relationshi& with both the Father 2notAdonai6 and kurios-esus"

Buzzard deals with the Philippians) te+t 2&&"KK!4?6 in the same way" He outlines what he hasalready stated $on$erning Paul1s belief of one ;od ! the bulk of his argument goes over the same oldground" 9nly in the last &aragra&h does he address the key fa$tor of this te+t %every knee will bow


4/31

and every tongue $onfess"% 9f $ourse Buzzard o&ens this &aragra&h with the key ,essiani$ Psalm4= .whi$h Paul never uses8 and states that rather than at the name of -esus the te+t should readin the name" 2&"4?6 Paul is $iting (saiah?*=)5 &art of a te+t that is $learly a %one ;od% te+t" 7et Paulis using it in referen$e to Jesus" He does this in )om?= as well but in )omanshe morea$$urately $ites %every tongue% $onfessing to ;od 2t% the% omega ending with iota subs$ri&t6" #n thePhilippianste+t his use of this te+t is %"""every tongue $onfess that -esus Christ is 0ord to the glory of;od the Father"% 3ven if this $onfession is to the Father the $onfession is about -esus as kurios" #n this

te+t Paul has (ust said that ;od has %e+alted him to the highest &la$e and gave him the name aboveevery name"% %:ell% 2# am sure Buzzard would say6 %we know Paul does not mean every name beinga law abiding first $entury -ew he would never thinkJesuswould be above 7H:H"% 7et this ise&actlywhat Paul is saying"

There are two very im&ortant &oints here=" Paul 2and some other 'T writers6 $onsistently uses very similar or e+a$t wordings referring to -esusthat are used in the 9T in referen$e to ;od")" Buzzard $onsistently overlooks key as&e$ts of te+tual $riti$ism in his arguments" He does however

end this &arti$ular &resentation with his tenth reminder of what seems like his only real te+tualeviden$e %The lord at ;od1s right hand it must remembered is adoni2%lord%6 whi$h is never the titleof Deity"% &"4?

Chapter !ie

The #e(re World and Gree %hilosophy

Buzzard has an easy target when it $omes to $riti$izing the Platonism of the early $hur$h" The $hur$hfathers many of them trained in the $lassi$s did allow their Christian faith to be influen$ed byPlatonism" Blaming this Platonism Buzzard $onsistently says the trinity and deity issues did not $omeu& in Christianity until 'i$ea 25)* AD6 and then %Christians were for$ed to a$$e&t belief in a&ree+istent se$ond &erson of the ;odhead"""% &"5>" He is either ignorant of early se$ond $enturyChristian writers or dismissive of these writings or would offer some strange inter&retation of themas he does with 'T te+ts" #n any $ase the divinity of -esus had been established long before the timeof -ustin ,artyr" Here we have #gnatius of Antio$h 2$ir$a )!)GAD6 affirming -esus as ;od in theflesh the :ord ! and to kee& anyone from misunderstanding that he might be s&eaking of -esus assome kind of intermediary s&irit %*oth made and not made'%

There is one Physi$ian who is &ossessed both of flesh and s&irit@ both made and not made@ ;ode+isting in flesh@ true life in death@ both of ,ary and of ;od@ first &ossible and then im&ossible even-esus Christ our 0ord" ! #gnatius to the 3&hesians > 2short version6

"""our Physi$ian is the only true ;od the unbegotten and una&&roa$hable the 0ord of all the Fatherand Begetter of the only!begotten /on" :e have also as a Physi$ian the 0ord our ;od -esus theChrist the only!begotten /on and :ord before time began but who afterwards be$ame also man of,ary the virgin" For %the :ord was made flesh"% ! #gnatius to the 3&hesians > 2long version6

:hile it is true that we have two versions of #gnatius 2a short and a longer more %orthodo+% version6one $an see a strong &re!e+isten$e Christology even in the shorter version" The Loberts!Donaldsonintrodu$tion on this issue is sound and $an be found on the internet=htt&=www"early$hristianwritings"$ominfoignatius"html"

Buzzard atta$ked -ustin ,artyr as embra$ing ;reek &hiloso&hy so we will ski& his testimony" #renaeusre&resents another strain in the early $hur$h that s&oke against what he $alled %hereti$s% and against&hiloso&hy" Here he is arguing against one of the ;nosti$ views of -esus 2making this te+t somewhatdiffi$ult to follow6 and in the midst of this he inter(e$ts the $ontem&orary view of Christ" 'ote that#renaeus is fairly $onsistent with #gnatius but also further elaborates the divinity of -esus

0earn then ye foolish men that -esus who suffered for us and who dwelt among us is Himself the:ord of ;od" For if any other of the A3ons had be$ome flesh for our salvation it would have been&robable that the a&ostle s&oke of another" But if the :ord of the Father who des$ended is the samealso that as$ended He namely the 9nly!begotten /on of the only ;od who a$$ording to the good
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/ignatius.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/ignatius.html


5/31

&leasure of the Father be$ame flesh for the sake of men the a&ostle $ertainly does not s&eakregarding any other or $on$erning any 9gdoad but res&e$ting our 0ord -esus Christ" For a$$ording tothem the :ord did not originally be$ome flesh" For they maintain that the /aviour assumed an animalbody formed in a$$ordan$e with a s&e$ial dis&ensation by an uns&eakable &roviden$e so as tobe$ome visible and &al&able" But flesh is that whi$h was of old formed for Adam by ;od out of thedust and it is this that -ohn has de$lared the :ord of ;od be$ame" Thus is their &rimary and first!begotten 9gdoad brought to nought" For sin$e 0ogos and ,onogenes and Moe and Phos and /orer

and Christus and the /on of ;od and He who be$ame in$arnate for us have been &roved to be oneand the same the 9gdoad whi$h they have built u& at on$e falls to &ie$es" ! #renaeus Against theHeresies K"5

The Chur$h though dis&ersed through our the whole world even to the ends of the earth hasre$eived from the a&ostles and their dis$i&les this faith= in one ;od the Father Almighty ,aker ofheaven and earth and the sea and all things that are in them@ and in one Christ -esus the /on of;od who be$ame in$arnate for our salvation@ and in the Holy /&irit who &ro$laimed through the&ro&hets the dis&ensations of ;od and the advents and the birth from a virgin and the &assion and

the resurre$tion from the dead and the as$ension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ -esusour 0ord and His .future8 manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father %to gather all things inone% and to raise u& anew all flesh of the whole human ra$e in order that to Christ -esus our 0ordand ;od and /aviour and Ning a$$ording to the will of the invisible Father""" ! Against the Heresies4"

Buzzard knows enough about what he $alls neo!Platonism 2&">6 to &oint to Philo and his $ity ofAle+andria but his analysis falls woefully short" The movement he refers to is now known as ,iddlePlatonism and indeed Philo of Ale+andria is a sour$e" Philo does make referen$e to the 3ternal 0ogosbut his &osition is mu$h more nuan$ed than Buzzard makes out" He maintains that -ohn is a$tuallydis&uting the Philonian influen$e that had infiltrated the Chur$h via A&ollos inA!tsG=)?!)G 2&"556"7et a$$ording to 0uke A&ollos was well re$eived by the saints" By the time Paul writes to theCorinthians he a$knowledges that the Ale+andrian A&ollos a man skilled in rhetori$ had left a &ositivemark on the $hur$h %# &lanted A&ollos watered but ;od gives the in$rease"% 21 Cor"5=6 Buzzardsays that the Ale+andrians 2this would in$lude A&ollos6 %o&&osed the Truth with their s&e$ulation"%2&"556 7et the bibli$al te+t reads that A&ollos %vigorously refuted the -ews in &ubli$ debate &rovingfrom the /$ri&tures that -esus was the Christ"% There are numerous signs of Ale+andrian 2and &erha&sPlatoni$6 influen$e in the 'T 2John' 1 Corinthians and +e*re%s6 making it diffi$ult to denigrate it$om&letely"

#n his attem&t to &rove that -esus is not worshi&&ed in the 'T Buzzard tells the reader The ;reekverbproskuneois used both of worshi& to ;od and doing obeisan$e to human &ersons"#t is highlysignifi$ant that another ;reek word latreuo whi$h is used of religious servi$e only is a&&lied in all ofits ) o$$urren$es e+$lusively to the Father in the 'ew Testament" &"5K

Buzzard is only &artially $orre$t here" He is $orre$t thatproskuneois used with both humans and ;odas the ob(e$t in the 'T but there are three $riti$al te+ts ignored by Buzzard 2A!ts4=)* )evK=4))=G6 ! all three s&eak of someone falling on the ground 2proskuneo6 in front of a &erson or an angeland being rebuked for doing so" 7et in ,atthe%)G=K and > we read %/uddenly -esus met them1;reetings1 he said" They $ame to him $las&ed his feet and worshi&&ed 2proskuneo6 him"% #n three 'Tte+ts when this is done the %worshi&&er% is rebuked the ob(e$t of the %worshi&% states that the

worshi& is ina&&ro&riate" #n theA!tste+t Peter a$tually says %/tand u&% he said %# am only a man

myself"% 7et -esus does not rebuke his worshi&&ers" Buzzard 2&"5K6 wants us to believe that -esus ishere being worshi&&ed a&&ro&riately as the ,essiah but the $ontrast of this te+t with the other threemakes this a weak argument" #t is also never stated that -esus is being worshi&&ed as ,essiah" :henThomas $onfesses %,y 0ord and my ;od% 2ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou6 how is the reader toknow that Thomas is really worshi&&ing -esus as ,essiah< He $ould have sim&ly said %,y ,essiah%As many times as the gos&el writers e+&lain &eri$o&es to make sure the reader gets the &oint this isone te+t that either reads sim&ly and &lainly 2whi$h # believe it does6 or needs some e+&lanation"

'e+t # want to &oint out Buzzard1s error in his $omment on latreuo" For the most &art he is $orre$t !latreuois mainly used in referen$e to the Father but Buzzard says this word is used e+$lusively in


6/31

referen$e to the Father" #nA!ts>=?) this word is used to refer to %the worshi& 2latreuo6 of heavenlybodies"% This is not (ust an error with res&e$t to the eviden$e but reveals a weakness in Buzzard1smethodology" Buzzard bases many of his arguments on word usage" Ising his logi$ -esus is notworshi&&ed as ;od 2sin$eproskuneois used at times in referen$e to humans6 and the Father is notworshi&&ed either sin$e latreuowas used on$e &ointing to idolatry" Buzzard1s methodology fails in oneargument after the ne+t be$ause an$ient authors do not tend to use &arti$ular words in the samefashion allthe time"

Buzzard1s &osition onpantokratorat the end of this $ha&ter is another e+am&le of his strainedmethodology" He states that the %titlepantokrator is nowhere given to -esus"% He then $ontinueswith a very $umbersome reading of the two $riti$alpantokratorte+ts )evelation=G and ))= tryingto assign s&eaking roles to the angel of the 0ord" :hile Buzzard does make his $ase with asub(un$tive %it may well be% ! his argument takes his assum&tion for granted" There are however afew items in these two te+ts that &oint to -esus andpantokratoras one and the same"

Buzzard maintains that the Father is the one $oming on the $louds in &ower rather than -esus" How he

$omes to this de$ision is not $lear but that he is in$orre$t is e+$eedingly $lear" The te+t quoted in )ev"=> says that %he is $oming with the $louds% and everyone will see him %even those who &ier$ed him%an obvious allusion to -esus" The 0ord -esus says he is $oming in )ev" )=)* and in 5=" Then ))=)4says %He who testifies to these things says 17es # am $oming soon"1 Amen" Come 0ord -esus"% Paulwrites of the returning of the 0ord in both Thessalonianletters $learly referen$ing -esus in - Thess"

=> %This will ha&&en when the 0ord -esus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his &owerfulangels"% Finally the words of -esus himself make it $lear %"""the /on of ,an will a&&ear in the sky"""the/on of ,an $oming on the $louds"% 2,att" )?=546 Add to all of these instan$es the fa$t that Buzzard 2in$ha&ter G &")46 refers to the %/on of ,an% vision in Daniel>=5? as the histori$al ba$kdro& for the,essiani$ as$ension te+ts and his argument is frustrated all the more"

9n$e it is admitted that -esus is the 9ne $oming on the $louds with &owerful angels )ev" ))=)5shows him 2-esus6 to be the Al&ha and 9mega" -esus is also the pantokrator" This of $ourse is whyBuzzard must have an alternative e+&lanation for who is $oming" But there are more soft s&ots in hisargument" #f it is the Father s&eaking in )ev" ))=5 %# am the Al&ha and the 9mega the First and the0ast the Beginning and the 3nd% 2all three of these have the same meaning6 then -esus refers tohimself in the same way" #n )ev" => and )=G -esus says %# am the First and the 0ast% 2e&o eimi hoprotos kai ho es!atos6 ! the e+a$t &hrase used in )ev" ))=5"

:ith an a$$idental $aveat Buzzard admits that his entire lo&osargument is dubious when he ends this$ha&ter saying %#n -ohn1s ;os&el the lo&os2word6 being a somewhat ambiguous term might beliable to misunderstanding"% 2&"?46 Buzzard1s e+&lanations are obtuse enough to warrant su$h anadmission"

Chapter Si&The Trinity and %olitics

#t is not my &la$e to defend )444 years of Christian history but Buzzard makes no attem&t to &resentthis history with an ob(e$tive voi$e" He ski&s the testimony of the A&ostoli$ Fathers and the A&ologistsof the se$ond $entury" He $om&letely overlooks the letters of #gnatius of Antio$h 2$ir$a )!)G AD6whi$h affirm the &re!e+istent 0ogos ofJohn=" Buzzard &aints the most negative &i$ture ofConstantine &ossible without any effort to give the &ositive eviden$e that $omes from the admittedlybiased writings of 3usebius" Be$ause Buzzard has $on$luded that Constantine is the great Trinitarian

hereti$ he refers to his %su&&osed vision% that hel&ed lead him to vi$tory in the Battle of the ,ilvianbridge" :hile we are $ertain that Constantine held to many of his &agan views there are alsonumerous indi$ations that he had some kind of genuine faith"

:hen he re$ounts the story of Arius 2&&"?K!*56 he im&lies that only the Arians suffered&erse$ution" He fails to re&ort how many times Athanasius was driven into hiding to es$a&e &ossiblee+e$ution at the hands of the dominant Arians in the Ale+andrian region"

Chapter SeenThe )ature of %ree&istence in the )e Testa*ent


7/31

# do not know enough about this to&i$ to make an abundan$e of $omment but # do have a fewobservations" First on &age 4 Buzzard makes the following $itation %:hen the -ew wished todesignate something as &redestined he s&oke of it as already 1e+isting1 in heaven"% He is quoting/elwyn1s work on 1 Peter" # am not familiar with /elwyn or his work but regardless Buzzard uses this$itation to state a somewhat ar$ane &osition" #n over )4 years of reading and study # do notremember ever having heard any substantial dis$ussion on this to&i$" Be$ause this to&i$ is not a

$ommon one a good s$holarly treatment would have done far more than what Buzzard has done ! hesim&ly gives the reader the work and the &age number" # am su&&osed to believe this statementbe$ause /elwyn 2who may be a good s$holar6 says it is so< 3ven the best s$holar will sometimes&resent a &osition with weak eviden$e" 'onetheless Buzzard should give us more of /elwyn1seviden$e if he is resting his &osition on /elwyn1s work"

Buzzard goes on to dis$uss &redestination and foreknowledge two $om&li$ated $on$e&ts and&roblemati$ from a human stand&oint no matter whi$h &osition is taken" 7et Buzzard is able to e+&lainthese diffi$ult $on$e&ts in 5!? &ages" After further dis$ussion on %the 1&ree+isten$e1 of -esus% he makes

this statement

There is a &erfe$tly good word for %real% &ree+isten$e in the ;reek language 2proupar!hon6" #t is verysignifi$ant that it a&&ears nowhere in /$ri&ture with referen$e to -esus but it does in the writings of;reek Chur$h Fathers of the se$ond $entury" ! &&">

Buzzard sele$tively $ites the use of ;reek without &ro&er e+&lanation ! he tells you only what hewants you to know" :hen he says thatproupar!honis never used to refer to the &ree+isten$e -esusyet is a %&erfe$tly good word for 1real1 &ree+isten$e% he sim&ly obfus$ates the 'T usage of this word"He is $orre$t when he says thatproupar!honis never used to des$ribe -esus ! this word is only usedtwi$e in the 'T and neither time is it used for &ree+isten$e"

That day Herod and Pilate be$ame friends ! before this 2proupar!hon6 they had been enemies" !Luke)5=)

'ow for some time 2proupar!hon6 a man named /imon had &ra$ti$ed sor$ery in the $ity and amazedall the &eo&le of /amaria""" ! A$ts G=K.9ther translations render %had &reviously &ra$ti$ed% here"8

Both times this word is used in the 'T it is $learly used for a &ast event %in s&a$e and time"% #f the;reek fathers used this word for &ree+isten$e it only shows how the ;reek language $hanged fromfirst $entury 'T usage to se$ond $entury 2mainly6 non!-ewish usage" Buzzard1s use of this ;reek wordis a red herring" He uses it be$ause he knows that most of his audien$e either will not know how to$he$k ;reek usage will not have the tools to do so or will sim&ly believe his re&resentation"

Chapter +ihtJohn, %ree&istence and the Trinity

Buzzard states 2&&"G)!G56 that :illiam Tyndale had translated autosin -ohn =!? as %it% ! %All thingswere made by it% and says the use of this &ronoun is ambiguous 2&"K6" The translation of the&ronouns autosand outosis always de&endent on $onte+t and -ohn uses both in the $onte+t of anaforementioned &erson" For $lear e+am&les of autostranslated for a &erson see 2John=)>@ )=))*@>=4@ K=)@ ?=4@ G=6" For $lear e+am&les of outostranslated for a &erson see 2John=>@ 5=)@?=?>@ *=)@ =?@ >=?4?6"

There are several reasons that (ustify a translation of autosand outosas &ersonal &ronouns" Buzzardsays 2&"K)6 that the original reader would not have thought of %word% as the &re!e+istent /on untilverse ? when the %word% be$omes %flesh"% 7es And this is $onte+t" The original 9T reader would notthink the snake lifted u& on the staff in the desert was su&&osed to foreshadow the ,essiah but it did"Oerse ? has a great deal to do with the translation ofJohn=!?" But there1s more"

Buzzard $orre$tly attem&ts to use other -ohannine writings to hel& inter&rettranslateJohn=!?"


8/31

However his e+egesis of 1 John=) 2&" K6 is grossly inadequate" He tells us that -ohn gives his own$ommentary ofJohn= in 1 John=) where the writer uses a similar $onstru$tion" Buzzard1se+egesis of this verse in 1 Johnis one senten$e in length then he moves on to show su&&osed&arallels in 1 Peter" As we are $onsistently finding with Buzzard he flings sand in the eyes of thereader while failing to tou$h on the most salient &oints of eviden$e" #ndeed he ho&es nobody willnoti$e

Buzzard fails to &oint out that in 1 Johnthe writer is s&eaking of %That whi$h was from the beginning%2very similar to the o&ening of -ohn6" :hat is this %something


9/31

5" The te+t says that they were eyewitnesses to the word" An eyewitness im&lying something&hysi$al and a servant of the %ord2in the genitive6" 0uke is referring to -esus but -ohn takes thelo&osto the ne+t level"

9n &ages K5!K? Buzzard argues that %no o$$urren$e of the Hebrew word davar2word6$orres&onding to -ohn1s ;reek word lo&os&rovides any eviden$e that the 1word from the beginning1means aperson"""% First # am un$onvin$ed that the usage of the Hebrew davarinforms us of the

;reek lo&osat all" There is a similar word usage inJohn=K that # believe $an inform us %The truelight that gives light to every man was $oming into the world"% #s there any doubt that -ohn is herereferring to -esus< There is &robably not a $orres&onding usage in the 9T ! %light% $oming into theworld as a &erson ! but in the -ohannine $or&us -esus is the 0ight 2JohnG=)6" This does not meanthat every o$$urren$e ofphosis a referen$e to -esus butJohn=>!K $ertainly is one" #t is no sur&risethat -ohn also says %;od is light% 2ho theos phos esti6"

Buzzard1s $ommentary onJohn5=5 and =) 2&&")4*!)46 are inadequately based on the underlying$on$e&t that -ohn1s gos&el is in $om&lete harmony with the syno&ti$s" He rightly &oints to %/on of

,an% vision in Daniel>=5? as the histori$al ba$kdro& for these as$ension te+ts but his logi$ isstrained" Twelve times in these five &ages Buzzard refers to these %as$ended% &assages as%enigmati$% %diffi$ult% and %$hallenging"% His e+&lanation is that /thin&s may *e said to have alreadyhappened in .od0s intention' %hile they a%ait a!tual fulfillment in history in the future/2&")4K6 These$ertainly are diffi$ult &assages if you $annot a$$e&t &ree+isten$e ! Buzzard $omes u& with the only

way to e+&lain it otherwise" 7et does -esus s&eak this way on any other sub(e$t< And why would hes&eak this way on su$h an im&ortant to&i$< A sim&le reading of these te+ts gives the &lain meaning !-esus somehow $ame from heaven"

Buzzard1s &resentation and argument of the %# am% 2e&o eimi6 te+ts 2&&")G!))6 is weak and$ontinues to reveal weaknesses in his overall argument" Buzzard wants to insert the &ersonal &ronoun%he% into these te+ts thus %Before Abraham was # am .he8%JohnG=*G" This would be beyond beliefe+$e&t that the reader by &age )G has be$ome a$$ustomed to these anemi$ arguments" #n hisarguments onJohn=!) he goes to great lengths to argue against the use of a &ersonal &ronoun2although as # do$umented -ohn uses both autosand outosas a &ersonal &ronoun6 and now hewants to insert %he% where absolutely no &ronoun e+ists"

The famous %# A,% te+t of E2odusis rendered e&o eimiin the /e&tuagint" #t is im&ortant to rememberthat -esus almost $ertainly did not s&eak these words in ;reek but rather in Aramai$" This of $ourse

would &ut more em&hasis on the de$laration than e&o eimi$an $onvey" The fa$t that -ohn re$ordsthese &eri$o&es with e&o eimiin ;reek seems to indi$ate his intention of showing the $laim of -esusor at least the view the $hur$h had of -esus at the end of the first $entury"

Against the suggestion that we insert the &ersonal &ronoun after %# am% it also needs to be &ointedout that the $onstru$tion of theJohnG=*G te+t is unusual" 3ither the statement ends as mosttranslations render it %# am% or it must read %# am before Abraham was born"% 3ither reading isunusual and &oints to the intentionality of -ohn to make a &oint of showing a $laim of -esus to divineequality" 9ther %# am% te+ts (ust make no sense if -ohn is not making this &oint 2John=)4@ 5=K@G=*6" Buzzard e+&lains the %# am% te+ts this way %Before Abraham was # am .he the ,essiah8"%2&"))46 This reading makes some sense inJohn?=) but notJohnG"

Chapter TenThe Conflict Oer The Trinity in Church #istory

Buzzard1s mistrust of the early $hur$h fathers seems to begin with -ustin ,artyr" He singled out -ustinin $ha&ter five and now he does it again saying that ,artyr %was one of the first of the &ost!bibli$al

writers to develo& the do$trine of the &ree+isten$e of Christ"% 2&")?6 From -ustin moving forwardBuzzard tries to show that the %0ogos% &resented in -ohn1s gos&el was highly dis&uted" :hile it is truethat the Christology of the &rimitive and the early $hur$h was not stati$ it is also true that most of theearly writers erred on the side of do$eti$ism" But it is also true that these early writers were strugglingto understand and e+&lain how -ohn1s &resentation of -esus fit together with the syno&ti$s" InlikeBuzzard these writers were not in denial ! they o&enly addressed the a&&arent &ree+isten$e in -ohn1sChrist" As was do$umented in the $ha&ter five dis$ussion above the first early writer we $an &oint to


10/31

was #gnatius of Antio$h 2)!)G AD6 %both made and not made@ ;od e+isting in flesh"""even -esusChrist our 0ord"% 2To the Ephesians> short version6

:hile it is true that -ustin1s lo&ostheory e+&ands the meaning in -ohn1s gos&el there are severalse$ond $entury e+am&les of lo&osthat illustrate a $loser $onne$tion" At the very least these writersillustrate the early belief in the eternal nature of -esus taking -ohn1s &resentation at fa$e value"

Theophilus of ntioch2$ir" G!G4 AD6%"""the :ord of ;od who is also His /on"""1#n the beginning was the :ord and the :ord was with;od1"""The :ord then being ;od and being naturally &rodu$ed from ;od"""% Theophilus to Autoly!us((--

thenaoras2$ir" >> AD6%But the /on of ;od is the 0ogos of the Father in idea and in o&eration@ for after the &attern of Himand by Him were all things made the Father and the /on being one"""%A Plea for the Christians4

:hile this te+t does suggest the lo&osof -ustin 2lo&osbeing the mind and reason of the Father6 the&oint here is that the early fathers saw 0ogos inJohn= to be one and same with -esus"

Cle*ent of le&andria2$ir" K4!KG6%This :ord then the Christ the $ause of both our being at first 2for He was in ;od6 and of our well!

being this very :ord has now a&&eared as man He alone being both both ;od and man"""%E2hortation to the +eathen

There are many &la$es where Clement diverges from the standard orthodo+y of the day but here wesee him giving a straightforward reading and inter&retation ofJohn" Here is where Buzzard1s&resentation of early Christianity fails miserably" 3arly Christianity like the &rimitive 'T $hur$h wasvery diverse" Buzzard $onsistently refers to 'i$ea 25)* AD6 and the a&&roved $reed of that $oun$il asthe &la$e and time of a ma(or theologi$al shift" :hile it is true that 'i$ea is the first %formal%de$laration of the divinity of Christ we have demonstrated the divinity of Christ from do$uments 2$ir"4!)44 AD6 &rior to 'i$ea" Those in attendan$e at 'i$ea were quite familiar with these early writings"#n fa$t the o&inions of the $hur$h fathers held great influen$e on ea$h su$$eeding generation" This$an be illustrated by highlighting a &ortion of the 0etter of #gnatius To the Trallianswhere we find anearly witness to what later be$omes The A&ostle1s Creed and The 'i$ean Creed"

-esus Christ""""des$ended from David and was also of ,ary@ who was truly begotten of ;od and of theOirgin but not after the same manner""""He was $ru$ified and died under Pontius Pilate""""Hedes$ended indeed into Hades alone""""He also rose again in three days the Father raising Him u&@and after s&ending forty days with the a&ostles He was re$eived u& to the Father and %sat down atHis right hand e+&e$ting till His enemies are &la$ed under His feet""" Trallians K

:hile the Arian $ontroversy was the main reason for the histori$ $oun$il 2only around )54 bisho&s

attended with almost none $oming from the western region6 Arius1 views were soundly re(e$ted" #t isim&ortant to understand that the various $oun$ils and $reeds were $alled to make attem&ts atdo$trinal harmony" -ust as Paul1s writings were ty&i$ally dida$ti$ or $orre$tional in nature so too thenumerous early $hur$h writings" Buzzard &oints out that traditional Christology has always sufferedfrom a latent do$etism 2&")G6" This is true but there were also atta$ks from ebioniti$ error" This ise+a$tly why $oun$ils were $alled and $reeds written" Buzzard &i$ks out various $hara$ters who

diverged from traditional Christology but one $an find dissenting o&inions and $ontroversiesthroughout $hur$h history" This only shows that there $ould not have been some $ons&ira$y ordo$trine &osited solely for &oliti$al e+&edien$y" ,ore often than not one finds the fathers o&enlystruggling with the diffi$ulties &resented in the bibli$al te+t"

Finally in this $ha&ter Buzzard &oints to several more re$ent $riti$s" # am $om&elled to &ull a $ommentfrom one of the $itations Buzzard uses" Commenting on orthodo+ Christology -ohn Nno+ says it is %asdiffi$ult to define as to defend"% 2The Humanity and Divinity of Christ KG> &&"KG!KK6 Buzzard likemany fundamentalists and literalists believes that the te+t answers all questions ! he does not seemto see any tension or gray areas" As mentioned above many of the fathers realized that the bibli$al


11/31


12/31

;od $annot die and therefore -esus $ould not have been ;od sin$e he died" But these logi$al andtheologi$al diffi$ulties are e+a$tly the kind that lead to diffi$ult $reeds"""like Chal$edon"

/ee the eviden$e ofthe trinity in the 'ew Testamentand my $on$lusions"

L"A" BakerPh"D" 3$$lesiasti$al History

John 10

>

34 - 39

34Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in yourLaw, 'ISAID, Y! A# $DS'%

3&I he (a))ed them *ods, to whom the word o $od (ame +andthe S(riture (annot be broen.,

3/do you say o Him, whom the 0ather san(tiied and sent intothe wor)d, 'You are b)ashemin*,' be(ause I said, 'I am the Sono $od'%

31I I do not do the wors o 2y 0ather, do not be)iee 2e

35but i I do them, thou*h you do not be)iee 2e, be)iee thewors, so that you may now and understand that the 0ather isin 2e, and I in the 0ather6"

397hereore they were seein* a*ain to sei8e Him, and Hee)uded their *ras6
http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/trinity-evidence.phphttp://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/trinity-evidence.phphttp://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_30.htmhttp://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/trinity-evidence.phphttp://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_30.htm


13/31

22

#:7AY

This passage has been the object of much discussion, commentary, and debate among thosewith differing views about the Deity of hrist! "ome c#aim that $esus denies that %e is &od,ta'ing for %imse#f the #esser tit#e ("on of &od!( )thers argue that $esus is asserting that %eis &od, co*e+ua# with %is ather! "ti## others say that $esus is neither affirming nor denying%is Deity, but rather is answering the specific charge of b#asphemy -v! ../! 0hich of these

views, if any, is correct1

To answer this +uestion, there are severa# rather comp#ex issues to unrave#!

irst, we must #oo' to the context! 0hat has $esus just asserted that roused the $ews to suchanger that they wou#d accuse %im of b#asphemy1 0hat does %e say fo##owing thispassage1 Next, we must determine the meaning of the )#d Testament verse $esus is +uotingin %is defense! Then we must understand why$esus +uotes this passage * what is it aboutthis passage that counters the accusation of b#asphemy1 ina##y, we must put these piecestogether to reconstruct $esus2 argument and p#ace it in context with what precedes andfo##ows!

Context

This pericope begins with the $ews gathering around $esus in the Temp#e portico, as'ing%im to te## them in p#ain terms if %e is the 3essiah -v! 45/! $esus answers by giving tworeasons they shou#d a#ready 'now the answer to this +uestion6 %is words and %is wor's -v!47/! $esus says that the reason they do not 'now %e is the 3essiah is not because %e hasfai#ed to spea' c#ear#y or to manifest who %e tru#y is through %is mirac#es, but because they#ac' faith -vv! 47 * 48/! $esus says that %is sheep 'now %im and hear %is voice, but the$ews are not %is sheep -vv! 48 * 49/! To this point, whi#e $esus may we## have provo'ed his#isteners to anger, there is nothing in what %e has said that warrants the charge of

b#asphemy! :ut then $esus says, (; give eterna# #ife to them, and they wi## never perish( -v!4/! %ere $esus c#aims for %imse#f the Divine prerogative of granting #ife to %is sheep! The$ews 'new that on#y =%0% gives #ife -Deut! .46./, #et a#one eterna# #ife! Then $esuse+uates %is power to 'eep %is sheep firm#y in hand with %is ather2s power to do the samething -vv! 4 * 4/! The $ews 'new that the ather was (greater than a##,( but when $esussaid that %e had the same power to preserve %is sheep as %is ather has, this was a c#earc#aim to e+ua#ity with &od! $esus further drives the point home with %is assertion that %eand %is ather are (one( -v! .?/! ;t is at this point * and with good reason, from theirperspective as unbe#ievers * that the $ews prepare to stone $esus! $esus immediate#ycha##enges them by returning to one of the two reasons %e has given for ma'ing c#ear that%e is the 3essiah * %is wor's6 (; showed you many good wor's from the ather@ for which

of them are you stoning me1( -v! .4/! This is not an evasive response * and it does notfo##ow that $esus2 subse+uent response wi## be evasive, either! The $ews rep#y that they arenot stoning %im for %is wor's, but for c#aiming to be &od, which is b#asphemy, according totheir Aaw -v! ../!

"ome have argued that the $ews are accusing $esus of nothing more than being (a god,( onthe basis that the &ree' word theos-(&od(/ #ac's the artic#e in this verse and on $esus2 use ofPsa#m 4 -see be#ow/! 0hi#e many nouns without the artic#e in &ree' are indefinite, many
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_30.htmhttp://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_30.htm


14/31

others are not! ontext, once again, is our sure guide for determining meaning! ;f the $ewsbe#ieved that (a god( cou#d grant eterna# #ife or was e+ua# to the ather in the power topreserve the "heep, there might be some warrant for theosin this verse being rendered (agod!( :ut this is manifest#y not the case@ whi#e some might be ca##ed (gods,( in the )T,

none were ever said to have Divine powers such as these! urther, the Aaw againstb#asphemy did not pertain to those c#aiming to be 2a god,2 but was specific to defaming thename of =%0% -Aev! 456B8/, which any man did who c#aimed to be &od or e+uated hispower with =%0%2s power! The $ews wou#d be ris'ing their #ives if they were to stone$esus on the grounds of the Templefor anything other than a Aaw c#ear#y defined in the%ebrew "criptures!

;mmediate#y after +uoting Psa#m 4 in %is defense, $esus again returns to the testimony of%is wor's -vv! .9 * ./! $esus then repeats what %e has previous#y asserted in s#ight#ydifferent words6 (The ather is in 3e and ; in the ather!( This further appea# to an intimatere#ationship in which the ather2s intimacy with the "on is no #ess than the "on2s intimacy

with the ather incites the $ews beyond ta#'ing and $esus must e#ude them and f#ee! ;t maybe said here that if $esus2 appea# to Psa#m 4 is meant as nothing more than an answer to thecharge of b#asphemy, as some commentators a##ege, %e has comp#ete#y undermined %isdefense with new c#aims of unity and e+ua#ity with %is ather! ;t wou#d seem untenab#e,given that %e 'new the hearts of his accusers, that $esus wou#d provo'e the $ews with such astatement, un#ess it was a #ogica# extension of what %e has just said!

The Meaning of Psalm 82

The words +uoted by $esus in $ohn B?6.5 are from Psa#m 468! The pertinent section readsas fo##ows6

; said, (=ou are gods,Cnd a## of you are sons of the 3ost %igh!Neverthe#ess you wi## die #i'e menCnd fa## #i'e any one of the princes!(

There has been much debate about whom (you( refers! There are three commonsuggestions6 B/ Cnge#ic beings@ 4/ the hi#dren of ;srae# at "inai when they received theAaw@ ./ human judges or ru#ers who have judged unjust#y! 3any who argue that ancient;srae# practiced a form of po#ytheism or henotheismargue for option B! They see this versepreserving an o#d tradition in which the pagan gods are judged by =%0%! The prob#em

with this view is that $esus2 appea# to this verse presupposes that it refers to human beings@ ifit refers to ange#s, the $ews cou#d right#y ignore $esus2 defense, for %e is not an ange#c#aiming the tit#e (&od,( but a man -v! ../! $erome Neyrey ma'es an interesting case foroption 4 -(; "aid =e Cre &ods6( Psa#m 468 and $ohn B?/! Neyrey argues that extra*:ib#ica# $ewish #iterature from short#y after the time of hrist indicates that the $ews thoughtthat the hi#dren of ;srae# had, in a sense, become (gods( when they received the Aaw!%owever, they a#most immediate#y fe## into ido#atry and #ost their divine status! The chief
http://www.forananswer.org/Glossary.htm#Henotheismhttp://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.htmlhttp://www.forananswer.org/Glossary.htm#Henotheismhttp://www.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.html


15/31

prob#em ; see with Neyrey2s otherwise provocative artic#e is that there is simp#y no examp#eof the ;srae#ites being ca##ed (gods( in the :ib#e, and $esus2 argument is based specifica##y on"cripture which (cannot be bro'en!( ;n my view, $esus2 reference is un#i'e#y, on the onehand, to re#y on Psa#m 4, and on the other, on a 3idrashic interpretation of it! )ption . is,on the who#e, the most #i'e#y! ;n the immediate context, the (sons of the 3ost %igh( are said

tojudge, a#beit unjust#y -v! 4/! There is probab#e :ib#ica# precedent for ca##ing humanjudges (gods( -Exodus 446, @ $udges 76,/! The judges were (gods( in the sense that the(word of &od came( to them as a Divine commission to perform a duty on earth thatu#timate#y be#ongs on#y to &od! The judges, then, para##e# $esus * though to a #esser degree@for %e received a Divine commissionpar excellenceand every wor' %e does is that of theather -cf!, 76Bff/!

Jesus' Use of Psalm 82B

There are two important points to raise when considering why $esus +uotes this particu#arPsa#m in %is defense6 B/ The $ews base their charge of b#asphemy on what they see as

$esus2selfproclamationof Deity6 (=ou being a man ma!e yourself out to be &od( -v! ../@and 4/ $esus2 use of Psa#m 4 must be consistent with the overa## answer that $esus is givingthe $ews to their cha##enge to say (p#ain#y( whether %e is the 3essiah -v! 45/!

Fegarding the first point, we may say that $esus2 use of Psa#m 4 refutes the foundation ofthe $ews2 accusation! The judges in Psa#m 4 do not (ma'e themse#ves( gods, but rather thedivine tit#e is given to them by &od, on the basis of their commission -(to whom the 0ord of&od came!(/! ;n affirming that %e is the 3essiah, $esus uses this genera# princip#e to dec#arethat %is divine tit#e -(the "on of &od(/ was not of %is own proc#amation, but comes as theresu#t of the ather2s commission -(sanctified and sent into the 0or#d@( cf!, 3ar' B6BB@Au'e.644/!

Fegarding the second point, $esus cannot be simp#y using an ad hominemargument to evadethe charge of b#asphemy4because both before and after verses .5 * .8, %e is c#aiming farmore than mere#y being (a god( in the sense the $udges were (gods!( The judges in Psa#m4 are not said to grant eterna# #ife to their fo##owers, nor to be e+ua# to the ather in theirpower to ho#d them fast! ;f $esus were ma'ing an ad hominemargument, %e wou#d beessentia##y saying, (=ou don2t 'now your own "criptures * ; am simp#y ca##ing myse#f 2the"on of &od2 in the same way &od ca##s the judges in Psa#m 4 2gods2 and 2sons of the 3ost%igh!2( The $ews cou#d simp#y respond, (0e 'now what &od ca##ed the judges * but you arenot c#aiming to be 2a god2 #i'e the judges * you are c#aiming to be far more than theyG =ouhave c#aimed a b#asphemous unity with &od un#i'e any examp#ed in our "criptures, #et a#one

Psa#m 4G(

The same can be said of $esus2 tit#e, ("on of &od!( ;f $esus meant to say that %is divine tit#eis #ess than the judges2 tit#e -that is, that 2"on of &od2 is a #ess exa#ted tit#e than (a god(/, the$ews cou#d right#y reject %is answer as e+uivocation! $esus is defending %is statementsprior to verse .5! Thus, ("on of &od( must be viewed as meaning the same thing as )newho grants eterna# #ife, who ho#ds %is sheep in a grip as powerfu# as %is ather2s, and who is)ne with the ather! ;ndeed, $esus 'new we## what the $ews wou#d ma'e of this tit#e * the
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn5_19.htmhttp://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_34.htm#1http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_34.htm#2http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn5_19.htmhttp://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_34.htm#1http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn10_34.htm#2


16/31

$ews had accused %im before of using this tit#e to ma'e %imse#f (e+ua#( with &od -76B/!$esus2 subse+uent statement, which again repeats %is c#aim to profound unity with %isather, and which the $ews understand as confirming their accusation, ma'es c#ear that $esusis using Psa#m 4 to estab#ish the :ib#ica# basis for the exc#usive c#aims %e is ma'ing!

There is, of course, no (:ib#ica# basis( in the )T for the specific divine tit#e, (The "on of&od,( nor for the specific c#aims $esus is ma'ing for %imse#f! The judges of Psa#m 4 areca##ed (gods( on far #ess merit than $esus! $esus is using Psa#m 4 to estab#ish ageneralprincip#e * name#y, that it is not b#asphemous for one with a divine commission to be ca##edby a divine tit#e! %aving estab#ished this point beyond dispute -(the "cripture cannot bebro'en(/, %e then estab#ishes the basis for %is uni+ue divine tit#e in %is corresponding#yhigher divine commission -(whom the ather sanctified and sent into the wor#d(/! $esus2tit#e and c#aims are, therefore, inc#uded within the genera# princip#e, and %e cannot#egitimate#y be accused of b#asphemy!

The "rgument in Context

The $ews have as'ed $esus to p#ain#y say if %e is the 3essiah! 0e may summariHe %isresponse as fo##ows6(=ou shou#d a#ready 'now the answer to this +uestion6 3y words andmy wor's te## you p#ain#y who ; am! The reason you don2t 'now who ; am is because you donot be#ieve! 3y sheep hear my voice and 'now me, but you are not my sheep! ; granteterna# #ife to my sheep, and no one can snatch from my hand those that the ather givesme! 3y ather is greater than a## and no one can snatch my sheep from my ather2s hand *my ather and ; are )neG(Ct this point, the $ews understand that $esus is ma'ing exc#usivec#aims of e+ua#ity with &od, which -un#ess trueG/ are b#asphemous! $esus as's which wor's%e has done that warrant the charge of b#asphemy! The $ews rep#y that they are not stoning

%im for %is wor's, but for the words %e has just spo'en! $esus rep#ies as fo##ows6

(The "cripture says that &od ca##s the judges in Psa#m 4 2gods2 on the basis of their divinecommission! Thus, since the "cripture cannot be wrong, it is not b#asphemy for one with adivine commission to have a divine tit#e! ; do not have a commission #i'e the judges@ ; havean exc#usive commission from my ather, for %e set me apart and sent me into the wor#d * todo the wor's you have seen, to say the words ; have said, to grant eterna# #ife to my sheep, toho#d them fast in the same way my ather does, for %e and ; are )ne! Therefore, ; have notcommitted b#asphemyG :ut even if you persist in denying my words, you shou#d be#ieve onthe basis of my wor's, for they prove that the ather is in 3e in the same way ; am in %im6we are )neG(

The $ews, of course, do not be#ieve $esus * not because they misunderstand %im -such wou#dsuggest that $esus was ineffective in communicating %is identity, or was being conscious#ydeceptive/ * but because they #ac' faith! They are not $esus2 sheep, as %e has said! Thus,their rejection of %im #ies in denia# and se#f*deception, the root cause of a## who reject &odand %is hrist -Fomans B6B * B/!
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn5_18.htmhttp://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn5_18.htm


17/31

$A2

2A7IALA:

ALYSIS

hOTI EG EIPA THEOI ESTE

I said gods you are.

I said-hoti ego eipa/! Fecitative hotibefore a direct +uotation #i'e our +uotationmar's!#ipais a #ate second aorist form of indicative with *ainstead of *on! -F0P/

Ye are gods-theoi este/! Cnother direct +uotation after eipabut without hoti! Thejudges of ;srae# abused their office and &od is represented in Ps 468 as ca##ing themIgodsJ -theoi, elohim/ because they were &odKs representatives! "ee the same use ofelohimin Ex 4B68@ Ex 446, Ex 4464! $esus meets the rabbis on their own ground ina thorough#y $ewish way! -F0P/

PROS hOUS hO LOGOS TOU THEOU EGENETO

With whom the word of God was

To whom the word of God came-pros hous ho logos tou theou egeneto/!The re#ative points to ekeinous, before! These judges had no other c#aim to theterm theoi-elohim/! -F0P/

KAI OU DUNATAI LUTHNAI h GRAPH

And cannot be broken the scripture

And the scripture cannot be broken-kai ou dunatai luthnai h graph/! Cparenthesis that drives home the pertinency of the appea#, one that the Pharisees hadto accept! Luthnaiis first aorist passive infinitive of lu, to #oosen, to brea'!-F0P/

7H#

$ehovah2s 0itnesses

OBJECTION6 The$ew %orld Translationrenders $ohn B?6.. as fo##ows6
http://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWPhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWPhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWPhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWPhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWPhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWPhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWPhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#RWP


18/31

;I#omansB67@:irst PrinciplesB646@ 5656B in both Fufinus2Aatin trans#ation and Cthanasius2 &ree'/! The begetting of the "on is a part ofthe Divine :eing and is from a## eternity -:irst Principles, B646@ 565B, again inboth Fufinus and Cthanasius/ and is a#so continua# -Bomily on Jeremiah65/@ theather is the (source( of divinity, and the "on (attracts( that same divinity to%imse#f through his eterna# contemp#ation of the ather -Commentary on John4646B/! -4/;t is true that for )rigen, the "on2s Deity is derivative, and at times spea's of the"on as a (secondary &od -"gainst Celsus76.@ Commentary on John86.64?4/@

but it is a#so true that )rigen was strong#y inf#uenced by 3idd#e P#atonism in thisregard, as numerous scho#ars have recogniHed6

(The para##e# with C#binus, who be#ieved in a supreme ather 0ho organiHedmatter through a second &od -0hom he, however, identified with the 0or#d"ou#/ is stri'ing@ as is the fact that both thin'ers envisaged the generation of the"on as the resu#t of %is contemp#ation of the ather( -Qe##y, p! B4/!(;n a more #imited fie#d the impact of P#atonism revea#s itse#f in thethoroughgoing subordinationism which is is integra# to )rigen2s Trinitarianscheme! The ather, as we have seen, is a#one , so "! $ohn, he points

out, accurate#y describes the "on simp#e as , not ( -*&id!, pp! B.B *.4/!(Thus, )rigen understands that the 0ord is &od by derivation!!!!%ere )rigen isdirect#y indebted to the P#atonism of his day( -Fusch,p! B5/(This distinction a#so has its origin in Phi#o -


29/31

ommentary on $ohn, which "tafford +uotes, above!;mmediate#y preceding the +uote provided by "tafford, we read6$ow there are many who are sincerely concerned a&out religion+ and who fall

here into great perplexity0 They are afraid that they may &e proclaiming twoods+ and their fear dries them into doctrines which are false and wic!ed0

#ither they deny that the 1on has a distinct nature of Bis own &esides that of the

:ather+ and ma!e Bim whom they call the 1on to &e od all &ut the name+ orthey deny the diinity of the 1on+ giing Bim a separate existence of Bis own+

and ma!ing Bis sphere of essence fall outside that of the :ather+ so that they are

separa&le from each other -Commentary on John4646B?*B./!Thus, the "on is distinct in person, but of one (essence( with the ather! or)rigen, though he may spea' at times of (a secondary &od,( he is a#so +uitecomfortab#e spea'ing of ather, "on, and "pirit as )ne &od! ;n hisAialog with

Beraclides, )rigen refers to "cripture in order to show in what sense two can beone6

Cdam and Eve were two but one f#esh -&en! 4645/!

%e -the just man/ who is joined to the Aord is one spirit with %im -or!86B9/!

%e introduces hrist himse#f as a witness because %e said6 (; and 3yather are one!(

;n the first examp#e, the unity consisted of (f#esh@( in the second of (spirit@( butin the third of (&od!( Thus )rigen states6 ()ur Aord and "avior is in %is re#ationto the ather and &od of the universe not one f#esh, nor one spirit, but what ismuch higher than f#esh and spirit, one &od( -Aialog with Beraclides4/!

Thus, when )rigen says that the (0ord is &od afterthe ather of a##,( he is notteaching an ine+ua#ity of nature or essence, as "tafford imp#ies!

;mmediate#y after "tafford2s +uote, we find6

Dut the archetypal image+ again+ of all these images is the %ord of od+ who was

in the &eginning+ and who &y &eing with od is at all times od+ not possessingthat of Bimself+ &ut &y Bis &eing with the :ather+ and not continuing to &e od+if we should thin! of this+ except &y remaining always in uninterrupted

contemplation of the depths of the :ather-Commentary on John4646B/!

or )rigen, then, whi#e the other 2gods2 are (images( of the true &od, the "on isnot in their category of being! %e o&tains%is divine Nature by a#ways being


30/31

with the ather, whi#e the other 2gods2 are (formed( * that is created * and theyderive their divinity from the "on! 0hi#e some have argued that )rigen refers tothe "on as a created being in his reference to o#ossians B6B7 -:irst PrinciplesB64/, this #anguage shou#d not be pressed, since )rigen used the term QT;";" torefer to a## the activities of &od, inc#uding the eterna# begetting of the "on, and

therefore is not to be construed as signifying that the "on is a created being!ontrary to what Crianism was to say, the eternity of this generation is c#ear#yaffirmed, for it is inconceivab#e that the ather ever existed without his 0isdom,his Feason, his 0ord, a## expressions which, as we have seen, denote the "on!Nor did the ather begin to be ather, as if %e had not been so before, since a##change in &od is inconceivab#e -rouHe#, pp! B8*B9/!

0hi#e )rigen uses the term al?thinosin a manner simi#ar to that suggested by"tafford, it is because he viewed &od as the 2source2 of Deity, whi#e the "oneterna##y parta'es of that same Deity! )rigen2s use of midd#e P#atonic thoughtand #anguage #ed him to express the re#ationship of ather to "on in such terms!

;t must be emphasiHed the )rigen2s use of al?thinos is theological, not #exica#!)rigen2s #anguage and phi#osophica# constructs are other than those used by #atertheo#ogians to describe the Trinity -as they are from those preceding him/, but histheo#ogy is not far distant from them, certain#y not as far as it is from thetheo#ogy #ater proposed by Crius and his fo##owers! %e taught p#ura#ity withinthe unity of the &odhead@ %e perceived the &odhead to be ather, "on, and"pirit, each of whom participated in creation and participate in sa#vation!

Conc$usion;f &od is unipersona#, this verse does not teach it! ;f a #esser (copy( of &od isnot a fa#se god, the context of this verse does not demonstrate it! $esus says that

eterna# #ife is an intimate persona# 'now#edge of &od -not (ta'ing in 'now#edgeabout &od,( as the 0atchtower teaches/, and of $esus hrist, whom the atherhas sent! )ur hope for eterna# #ife, then, resides in 'nowing both the ather andthe "on in a persona# way, and 'nowing them as they tru#y are6 )ne &od, )neAord, )ne "avior!

*******************Notes

B! ;n fact, the entire argument that $esus cannot be the true &od based on $ohn B96. is anexamp#e of a #ogica# fa##acy 'nown as (denying the antecedent!( To i##ustrate this point, #et2s

rephrase $ohn B96.b in the form of a #ogica# proposition6;f one is the ather, one is the on#y true &od!

(;f one is the ather( is the antecedent of the proposition! ()ne is the on#y true &od( is theconse+uent! ;n the terms of forma# #ogic, it is not #ogica##y va#id to deny the antecedent, andconc#ude that the conse+uent is a#so denied! or examp#e, consider the fo##owing proposition6;f one is a man, one is morta#!
http://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#Crouzelhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#Crouzel


31/31

Now, consider the denia# of the antecedent6ido is not a man, therefore ido is not morta#!#ear#y, since -sad#y for dog #overs/ dogs do not #ive forever, denying the antecedent does not

prove that the conse+uent must a#so be denied! Technica##y spea'ing, if one is a man, that issufficientcause for the conc#usion that one is morta#! %owever, if one is morta#, that is not anecessarycause that one is a man! There are numerous other morta# creatures, inc#uding man2s

best friend!rom the standpoint of pure #ogic, then, it is not va#id to argue that because $esus is not the ather-denying the antecedent in our paraphrased proposition/ %e cannot be the on#y true &od! :eingthe ather is sufficient cause for being the on#y true &od@ however, being the on#y true &od is nota necessary cause for being the ather!"ome may object at this point that in our canine examp#e, we do not have the restricted #anguageof $ohn B96.b -(the on#y true &od(/! %owever, whi#e p#acing (on#y( before the antecedent canhave the effect of ma'ing the antecedent both sufficient and necessary, p#acing (on#y( before theconse+uent -as it is in $ohn B96.b/ does not! That is, in #ogica# terms, affirming that the ather is

the true &od is the same as affirming that %e is the onlytrue &od! The antecedent, in either case,is sufficient, but not necessary!

4! 3uch has been made of the fact that #arge portions of )rigen2s writing is preserved on#y inAatin trans#ations by Fufinus and $erome! Fufinus, in his preface to the Treatise of :irst

Principles, states that he suppressed some passages on the Trinity which he judged to be insertedby heretics! $ehovah2s 0itness apo#ogists, when confronted by the +uotations ; have providedhere often rep#y that we cannot be certain that they ref#ect )rigen2s be#iefs, but rather areinterpo#ations by Fufinus! irst, this objection cannot be raised with regard to the Commentaryon the ospel of Johnor theBomily E on Jeremiah, since we possess the &ree' text of the boo's+uoted! The passages +uoted from:irst Principlesexist bothin Fufinus2 Aatin and Cthanasius2&ree'! There is no evidence that these two witnesses are re#ated@ therefore, we have twoindependent sources suggesting that these +uotes accurate#y ref#ect )rigen2s origina# words! Cs%enri rouHe# notes, Fufinus2 trans#ation suffers primari#y from omissions, often arising from adesire to abridge or avoid repetition6 (omparisons of the texts in thePhilocaliaMcontainingabout B9 of the &ree' text of:irst Principles with Fufinus2 wor' yie#ds on the who#e afavorab#e resu#t( -rouHe#, pp! 58*59/! Cny discrepancies between Fufinus2 Aatin and )rigen2s&ree' wou#d, then, seem to be in the area of omissions rather than interpo#ations, and the extentto which Fufinus a#tered the text has, perhaps, been exaggerated by some! Thus, we have severa#wor's, some preserved in &ree', others in Aatin but corroborated by independent &ree'witnesses, which demonstrate that )rigen he#d the be#ief that the "on was of the same essence asthe ather, co*eterna# and uncreated!
http://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#Crouzelhttp://www.forananswer.org/Bibliography.htm#Crouzel

a critique of buzzard's doctrine of the trinity

Documents