For an Answer Home | Studies Index | Bibliography | Glossary |
The Bible Gateway | The Blue Letter Bible | The Greek New Testament | Greek & Hebrew Lexicons |
Topical Studies
The Plural Maker Called God Ray Goldsmith
|
In the New
Testament Jesus referred to that same name and reputation when he said to
baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). It was not a coincidence that the same three
were involved in the creation of Man. But notice that it’s presented as
a single Authority, a single name and reputation, and yet three distinct
entities are listed. Have you ever wondered why Jesus didn’t say to
baptize in the name of “The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Gabriel,
and John the Baptist”? Why did he stop with just those three? The very
question itself should embarrass anyone who denies the Trinity, for it is
obvious that that single name and reputation is of only those three, the
same three who were involved in the “US MAKE” of Genesis 1:26, the
plural Maker called God. Ultimately Jehovah is not just the Father, as
some have assumed, but also includes the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus
Christ has become a stumbling stone and rock of offense for those who deny
his true Deity, for they soon discover that they have a dilemma. If Jesus
is GOD, is he true God or an untrue god? Is he really God or just a
so-called god (1st Cor. 8:5)? It’s really an unhappy choice for them,
for who wants an untrue god for a savior? Yet since they deny the former,
they have no choice in the matter but to accept the latter. For them Jesus
is an untrue god, just a so-called god. Yet the detractor protests, “But
what about John 17:3, where Jesus calls his Father the only true God? This
means that only the Father is true God”. Yet, as we shall see, they have
become tricked by the mere sound and appearance of words mixed with some
superficial thinking. What am I referring to? The mistake
comes in assuming that God can be held hostage to the finite premise that
one being can only be a single Person in the Bible. It seems logical in
our context, but all is not what it seems. Similar language to John 17:3
appears in Jude 4, where our best manuscripts read that Jesus is “our
only Owner and Lord”. Here the same adjective “only” appears in the
same grammatical position (attributive). Yet
immediately the detractors have a problem restricting the Owner and Lord
to the one Person, Jesus Christ, for they know that Scripture elsewhere
clearly identifies a Person other than Jesus as our “Owner and Lord”.
How can Jesus be our only Owner and Lord if the Father is also our Owner
and Lord? Or, how can the Father be our Owner and Lord if Jesus is our
ONLY Owner and Lord? The same logic they apply to John 17:3 would deny
that any other Person than Jesus Christ could be our “Owner and Lord”
according to Jude 4. So when does only really mean only? Hence, Jude 4 has
become a stumbling block to detractors of the Trinity because they cannot
apply the same exegetical principles to it that they require in John 17:3.
What then is the correct understanding of the language in John 17:3? First we
must observe that this is the night before the crucifixion, and Jesus is
speaking from within his role as the mediator of the New Covenant. Earlier
in his upper room discourse he had said that “no man comes to the
Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Coming to the Father through the Son is
the same thing as coming to God. We must understand that the Father
operates through a mediator, whether it was the original creation, or the
new creation. And that mediator at the time of John 17:3 had become a man
like you and me. So then,
from this perspective he naturally calls his Father the only true God, but
note what he's really saying here. What? That they might know you...and
me. Imagine that. That we might know an ultimate creature and our eternal
life depends on it? No way, friends! We need to know God to have life and
that includes our knowing Jesus Christ, the one who had emptied himself to
occupy a lower POSITION in order to pay the toll and be our bridge back to
God. But looking at Jude 4 might help you to see how superficial the
detractors are being in John 17:3. Only by understanding Jesus Christ as
an ultimate and equal member of the eternal Godhead can we rightfully say
that he's our ONLY Owner and Lord. See how easily the Trinity accommodates
this? Without the Trinity the passage appears to be an outright
contradiction to Scripture elsewhere. You see,
it's illogical to assume that to affirm the one is to automatically deny
the other, and it’s a mistake to take something that is true of
Christ’s transient identity and arbitrarily in your mind make that the
be-all and end-all. As to his transient identity as a man, Jesus had a God
(why wouldn’t he?), but as to his ultimate identity, all God’s angels
must bow before him (Heb. 1:6) and we should honor/value the Son just as
we honor/value the Father (John 5:23). Why? Because ultimately he is equal
in nature with His Father, just as John had said a few verses earlier
(John 5:18), Jesus confirmed a few verses later. They share equally with
the Holy Spirit that name and reputation which is unique to Jehovah (Matt.
28:19). Isaiah the
prophet predicted the coming of the Messiah, and John the Baptist who
would clear his path. In Isaiah 40:3 we read… “A voice is calling
‘Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert
a highway for our God.” Note it says “a highway for our God”. To
show that this God is the true God, the NWT translates it “Clear up the
way of Jehovah, YOU people”. So there is no doubt that the passage
predicts the coming of our God, Jehovah. Yet it was Jesus who showed up,
wasn’t it? Note the similarity between the expressions “our God” and
“…my God” (Thomas, John 20:28). Same individual, wasn’t it? With
this prediction in mind, note also Matt. 1:23… “Look, The virgin will
become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name
Immanuel,” which means, when translated, ‘With Us Is God’”. So we see
the above predictions and identifications of this individual as true God,
Jehovah, and yet the detractors stubbornly refuse to believe. Their minds
are closed on the matter and they say “Oh, he only represented
Jehovah”, but even so, that would not deny his own identity as Jehovah,
one of the members of the plural Maker called God in Gen. 1:26, right? One
of these plural members became the Messiah, and of course came
representing Jehovah. The embarrassing thing for detractors is that in the
above predictions he’s so often called LORD, GOD, and JEHOVAH, and
lamentably for them, they cannot deny that he was included in the plural
Maker of Gen. 1:26. Yet there was nothing untrue about the God in that
context, was there? No there was not, but the Son was included, for that
Maker was God, and that Maker was a plurality of Persons. Some
detractors have attempted to escape the force of the above predictions and
identifications by pointing to examples where others have been called God
and Lord…etc. But the attempt to escape on that basis fails to make
muster. Why? Because it was not said of any of those in their examples
that all things came into existence through them (John 1:3). None of those
in their examples were involved in the original creation, just the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, then, when the terms and
identifications are applied to any one of these three, it can only be
understood in that context and with that in mind. Further
evidence that the Son was included in the plural Maker called God can be
found in Isaiah 44:24, where the passage declares plainly that Jehovah did
the things mentioned alone. Yet the Son participated in these mighty works
when Jehovah did them alone, didn’t he? Compare Heb. 1:10 where the
Father directly addressing the Son says these were the works of the
Son’s hands. Yet in its original context they were the works of
Jehovah’s hands (Ps 102:25-26). And of course the Holy Spirit also
participated in the doing of these things when Jehovah did them alone.
Jehovah never lies, friends, therefore Jehovah INCLUDES the Son and the
Holy Spirit as participants in these mighty works when Jehovah did them
alone. Detractors have pointed to the presence of angels at this time, but
that still doesn’t solve the problem of explaining how Jehovah alone did
these things, for the angels did not participate in those mighty works.
Just the Son and the Holy Spirit along with the Father. The same three
involved in the creation of Man in Gen. 1:26. Again we see the same
formula here as in Christ’s instructions at Matt. 28:19, the same
name and reputation, single Authority, three individuals. This could get
to be a theme! The one
thing that distinguishes Jehovah as true God, his Creatorship, was shared
equally by the Son and Holy Spirit. Only God has this distinguishing power
and characteristic, and this God has been shown to be a plurality of
Persons. That is why
we know that when the logos is called “theos” in John 1:1, it means
God in the true sense. Immediately after calling him “theos”, it
reveals that all things came into existence through him, and further says
that there were no exceptions to this, not even one. This can only mean
that the first thing that ever came into existence did so through him.
Have you ever thought about that? If ever
there were a context in which we would expect a clear reference to and
description of the coming into existence of the logos (if such there
were), it would be in John chapter 1. Here we have the beginning, the
logos, ton theon, and the coming into existence of all things. Yet not a
syllable is mentioned about a coming into existence of the logos. Such a
reference and/or description is conspicuous by its absence. This passage
begins with the logos in a state of continuous existence with “ton theon”
in the beginning, and there is no more evidence here that the logos came
into existence than there is that “ton theon” came into existence.
Could such a momentous event as the creation of the Son have been left out
of this otherwise comprehensive context? Can anyone think of a good reason
why it would have been left out, since everything else is mentioned? Yet
there is another side to this, John
left nothing out because there was no such event. Some have
tried to deny that Jesus is truly God by pointing to John 1:18, where it
says that “no man has seen God at any time”, and so they conclude that
since men DID see Jesus, he cannot be God. But this reasoning is
superficial. Moses saw God’s back, didn’t he? (Ex. 33:23) And Isaiah
the prophet cried out “Woe is me, for my eyes have seen the King,
Jehovah of Armies himself” (Isaiah 6:5-6). So should we conclude that
the Bible contradicts itself? Or would it be better to harmonize the
Scripture? Obviously it means that no one on earth can see Jehovah in all
his glory at once (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and live. Other
detractors have seized on the word “begotten” in John 1:18 to support
their claims that Jesus was the first creation of God. But again they are
making the mistake of assuming that God can be held hostage to the meaning
of human terms. They simply overlook that God uses our language
condescendingly in the Bible to help us understand some things about his
infinite nature, but we have no right to hold him hostage to those terms.
Assuming the word “begotten” to carry all the connotations it does in
our human context, we might expect a female counterpart to have been
involved in the begetting of the Son, but I trust that even the most
ardent detractor will admit that such thinking is silly. Remember what
Jehovah said in Isaiah 55:8-9, “my ways and thoughts are higher than
yours”. Hence, then, the term “begotten” may simply mean to
distinguish the Father and Son but suggest an equality of nature at the
same time. This kind of generation depicts the eternal relationship of the
members of the Godhead. Note the passage also says that the Son
“exegetes” the Father. Yet it makes sense that one from infinity would
explain or “exegete” another from infinity, doesn’t it? Let’s move
on… Some who
have accepted the teaching that Christ was the first creation of God have
appealed to Proverbs 8:22, but this is another place where they have been
tricked by the mere sound and appearance of words. First let’s observe
that Proverbs 8:22 appears in the Old Testament when God’s revelation
was not yet complete. Hence it cannot dictate the meaning of a New
Testament passage. I didn’t say it couldn’t agree with a NT passage,
only that it cannot dictate or determine the meaning of a NT passage. If
anything the New Testament clarifies the meaning of the Old Testament
since it is the later revelation. Most
translations render the Hebrew verb “qanah” as either “possessed”
or “brought forth…produced” in agreement with the Masoretic Text
which is generally considered the most accurate. Some have appealed to the
LXX’s “created” for obvious reasons. But as stated “possessed”
or “produced” is considered a more accurate reflection of the Hebrew.
Interestingly even the New World Translation (the Watchtower's
version of the Bible) translates this as “produced”. The passage
portrays a personification of God’s Wisdom, and because Jesus is said to
be the power and wisdom of God in the NT, some have assumed that Proverbs
8:22 means that Christ was created or “produced” in the sense of
“came into existence”. But the
mistake should be self evident. This passage cannot be teaching that
God’s Wisdom once did not exist. Wisdom is an eternal attribute of God,
for he has always been infinitely wise. The natural opposite of wisdom is
folly, and they are inversely proportional. Hence, to suggest that God’s
wisdom once did not exist is to suggest the God was once infinitely
foolish! How then can Proverbs 8:22 be understood in agreement with John
1:1-3? Proverbs
8:22 merely says that God’s Wisdom was “produced, brought forth , or
brought to bear” in the creation of all things. And thus it harmonizes
beautifully with John 1:3 for instance, where we are told quite plainly
that all things came into existence through the logos, and without him not
even one thing came to be. This places the logos’ existence as a fact
prior to the coming into existence of the first thing that ever did so.
Thus God’s Wisdom (the logos) was brought to bear or focused in the
creation of all things. But God’s Wisdom is eternal, and this eternal
Wisdom was the intermediary of all God’s creation. Some have
appealed to Revelation 3:14, “the
beginning of the creation of God”, to
support their belief that Christ was the first creature. The latest
attempt is to base the
argument on the Greek grammar. It is pointed out that the word “arche”
is used with the genitive case, and whenever its used elsewhere in
Scripture with the genitive, it always means beginning in the numerical
sense (first numerically), and they often cite longs lists of examples to
illustrate its partitive meaning. However, in trying to prove their point
on the basis of Greek Grammar, they have simply overlooked that in
Revelation 3:14 we are not dealing with a simple declarative sentence
(predicative), but the application of an idiomatic title. And in the case
of idioms grammatical construction does not play a major role in the
interpretation. They also overlook that in the long list of examples they
cite, none of them have the same referents and subject material as in
Revelation 3:14, and so they do not provide a real parallel to the
disputed passage. How then should it be understood? Since this
is the application of an idiomatic title, its meaning should be determined
by the rest of the New Testament…with regard to the same subject
material and referents. In John 1:3 we have a straight-forward
declarative statement being made about the same referents and subject
material, Christ and the coming into existence of all things. It’s
important to notice that we are not dealing with the application of an
idiomatic title in John 1:3, as in Revelation 3:14. Yet what does the
passage tell us about the same referents and subject material? It says
plainly that all things came into existence through the logos, without
even a single exception! Paul tells us the same thing in Colossians
1:16-18, all creation came into existence through him, and he is before
all things. He couldn’t have been more clear. Hence, then, the NT shows
that with regard to the same referents and subject material, the Logos
pre-existed all creation, and all creation came into existence through
him. So the word “arche” means in Revelation 3:14 that Christ was the
beginner (and thus the ruler) of God’s creation. Interestingly the same
word “arche” appears in Col. 1:18, and there it simply means that
Christ was the “builder or beginner” of the Church or Congregation,
yet note that Christ pre-existed the Church, didn’t he? Sure he did, but
he was the “arche”, the Church’s builder (beginning). And finally… The Bible
makes clear that there is only one Savior of the whole world. Did
you know that? In fact the Scripture makes it plain that God is our only
Savior:
The above
could not be more clear. God is the only Savior of the whole world,
and there is no one else. Yet the detractors step up to tell us that
Christ is someone else, and he’s our Savior too! Note what God says:
“to me every knee will bend down..”, yet we discover in Philippians
2:10 that the “me” includes Jesus whom the detractors say is another
Savior…but as we’ve seen, God declared in plain language that there is
no other. So no matter what detractor theology requires, we really don’t
have another Savior in Jesus; rather they are the one and only Savior.
Detractors are afraid to admit this because they know it will lead to the
conclusion that they are also the one and only God. Yet here we see that
same theme again, Jehovah is really a plurality of Persons, the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just those three work intimately together in
the salvation of mankind…they are the one Savior,
Jehovah, the plural
Maker called God. This plural Maker worked together in the original
creation and they continue to work together in the new creation, for as
Jesus said, believers should be baptized in that single name and
reputation, that of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matt.
28:19) Obviously I could continue with this, for there is no shortage of evidence in the Scripture supporting the Christian Trinity, but I don’t want to make it too long and cumbersome for the reader…so I will end it right here. If what I’ve presented, though, will cause some to dispense with the usual rhetoric, and come to grips with this evidence analytically, it will have served its intended purpose. Ray Goldsmith |